Views: 1<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong>1<\/sup><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Webster\u2019s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines <\/em>\u201cemotionalism\u201d as \u201c…unwarranted expression or display of emotion.\u201d2<\/sup> The same dictionary defines \u201cemotion\u201d in the following words:<\/span><\/p>\n Any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc….any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat, respiration, or the like, and often overt manifestation, as crying, shaking, etc.3<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Clyde Narramore, a mid-20th<\/sup> century American author of more than 100 books and booklets on topics relating to psychological problems and counseling, defines emotion as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n An experience or mental state characterized by a strong degree of feeling and usually accompanied by motor expression often quite intense. Any of various complex reactions with both psychical and physical manifestations as fear, anger, love, and hate.4<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Bible student immediately recognizes the validity of emotion in Christianity in such terms as joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, and even anger. These all have their part in the thinking and behavior of Christians. Emotion is also related to such elements as sincerity and enthusiasm. However, another term in the definitions that catches our attention is \u201cfeelings.\u201d Surely, none can confuse a religion that does not involve the feelings of the individual\u00a0<\/span>with Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n The question, then, is not whether one\u2019s emotions ought to be involved in one\u2019s life as a Christian, but to what degree should they be involved?<\/span><\/p>\n Examples of Emotionalism in Religion\u2014in General<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n An illustration of emotionalism and the excesses to which it can lead is seen in the antics of the 450 prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel (1 Kin. 18:25\u201328). They cried unto Baal an entire morning, they leaped about their altar, and they cut their flesh in their religious frenzy. Another illustration of ultra-emotionalism in religion is Shakerism, the sect founded in England in the mid-eighteenth century. It is so called because of the frenzied dances its devotees practiced when they became emotionally stirred.<\/span><\/p>\n A great religious \u201crevival\u201d took place on the Kentucky frontier at Cane Ridge in 1801. An estimated 20,000\u201330,000 people came from all directions to hear eighteen Presbyterian preachers, plus several Methodist and Baptist preachers. The \u201cconversions\u201d were more like \u201cconvulsions.\u201d5<\/sup>\u00a0The preaching produced excessive emotionalism, which resulted in bizarre behavior in the hearers. This included screaming loudly, then falling to the ground for several minutes as if dead, violent jerking of various parts of the body, causing one to grunt loudly and which usually evolved into dancing to the point of collapse, and a laughing and singing session.<\/span><\/p>\n In more modern times emotionalism in religion is generally identified with Pentecostalism. When I was a child Pentecostals were commonly called \u201cHoly Rollers\u201d because they would sometimes get down in the floor and roll about in their unrestrained emotionalism. Such practices in their assemblies as swaying back and forth, raising the arms, and fluttering the uplifted hands, crying out spontaneously with \u201challelujahs\u201d and \u201cpraise the Lords,\u201d and speaking in an unintelligible gibberish which they describe as \u201cecstatic utterance\u201d (and mistakenly identify with the gift of tongues in the New Testament), are all manifestations of emotionalism gone to seed.<\/span><\/p>\n Examples of Emotionalism Among Brethren<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Some Miscellaneous Indications <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Sad to say, the church of the Lord is not free of those who thrive on emotionalism and who cannot seem to rise above the sensual and animal level of emotionalism. One of the earliest excuses made for introducing instruments into worship in 1851 was that organs and bass fiddles would \u201c…add greatly to the solemnity of worship, and cause the hearts of the saints to be raised to a higher state of devotion….\u201d6<\/sup> This quotation demonstrates how the attempt to stir the emotions has been confused with \u201cspirituality\u201d in the minds of some for a long time. Since at least the late 1960s some brethren have been aping the sects in their religious emotionalism, bringing their practices into congregations where they were allowed to do so. The imbibing of false doctrines concerning the direct operation of the Holy Spirit was behind much of this.<\/span><\/p>\n Some have alleged that they were \u201cnudged\u201d by the Holy Spirit to go to a certain street corner where they met a stranger they could teach. Sheer emotionalism (rather than spirituality or the Scriptures) led them to such things as dimming the lights, lighting candles, burning crosses, humming during the Lord\u2019s Supper, having \u201cresponsive readings,\u201d \u201ctestifying,\u201d changing the order of worship every week, and doing away with a Gospel sermon in the assembly in favor of an insipid panel discussion. An elder in one church even suggested moving the Lord\u2019s Supper from the assembly to the Bible classes because the small groups would make it \u201cmore spiritual.\u201d Clearly, such folk could not distinguish between \u201c<\/span>spirituality\u201d and \u201cemotionalism.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Emotionalism and Worship<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The drift away from respect for Biblical authority over the past twenty-five years has precipitated a major digression and apostasy from the Truth in every direction. A prominent part of this falling away has been the assault on Scriptural worship by the liberals, an assault that, to a great degree, springs from emotionalism. The rantings of two of these outspoken religious rebels are representative of many.<\/span><\/p>\n At the 1990 Nashville \u201cJubilee\u201d Marvin Phillips went out of his way to ridicule and destroy respect for structured Scriptural worship. In this speech he really set the benchmark for advocating that we operate solely on the emotional level in worship. His topic, \u201cPutting Celebration Back into Worship,\u201d gave to the perceptive a clue to what he would say. According to one brother who heard the tape of this lecture and wrote a review of it, he spoke as follows:7<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The other reprobate who has done his part to move the church toward unmitigated emotionalism, especially in worship, is Rubel Shelly. He has made enough heretical statements in the last twelve years to serve as subject material for a large set of books, but we will notice some excerpts from only two sources: (1) the speeches he made at Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth, Texas, February 3\u20134, 19908<\/sup> and (2) The Second Incarnation<\/em>, a book he co-authored with Randy Harris.9<\/sup> Consider his following forays into absolute emotionalism:<\/span><\/p>\n Emotionalism in Preaching <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In addition to the injection of emotionalism into worship by the liberals there is the excessive use of emotionalism by some preachers. This influence is also coming from liberals, as I have already demonstrated in the discussion of the push for emotionalism in worship. The instance in which Shelly described his confessing the sins of the congregation and then absolving them is a case in point. The appeal of many liberal preachers, especially of the younger set such as Jeff Walling, is that they are \u201cso dynamic\u201d! Never mind the shallowness or outright error of their message, there are some who must have an entertaining and what they consider to be a \u201cdynamic\u201d man in the pulpit to hold their interest. All of this is based on emotionalism in both the preacher and the hearers. However, to be fair, not all of the emotionalism in the pulpit is coming from those who are trying to turn the church into a \u201cdo-your-own- thing\u201d religious democracy. Preachers who are doctrinally sound have also been known to engage in antics and exercises aimed more at the emotions than the intellect.<\/span><\/p>\n Emotionalism in Reaction to the Truth <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The reactions people register to various doctrines and practices of the Bible offer an additional demonstration of emotionalism. All who have studied the Bible with those who believe and\/or practice some sort of religious error have often observed such reactions. Upon learning that one must be baptized in order to be saved, a man may vehemently argue with the plain statement of Jesus and the apostles (Mark 16:15\u201316; Acts 2:38; et al.). Such will often then argue that they feel <\/strong>that God is too good to condemn all those who have not had an opportunity to be baptized. So also, with the Truth on instrumental music in worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper every first day of the week (Acts 2:42; 20:7; et al.), or any number of subjects.<\/span><\/p>\n The typical response of Pentecostals who claim to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit or to possess miraculous spiritual gifts (e.g., speaking in tongues) is for them to say that they know <\/strong>they have experienced these things because they feel <\/strong>it is so. They may even go so far as to say piously that they would not trade the feeling <\/strong>they have \u201cright here\u201d (with hand over heart) for a stack of Bibles! Likewise, the Mormon \u201celders\u201d who ring our doorbells testify that they know <\/strong>that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon <\/em>is inspired because they feel a \u201cburning in their breast\u201d confirming these things (of course, it may just be indigestion!). Not infrequently a person who has been brought to a recognition of the Truth and what he must do to be saved will refuse because in his mind it will be some sort of condemnation of his beloved father or mother who died outside of Christ. All such reactions are entirely emotional and represent an actual desertion of rationality.<\/span><\/p>\n Through the years I have seen many brethren react totally on an emotional rather than a rational level to a given truth or practice in the law of Christ. Several years ago, I worked with a church that supported a Bible chair director at the local university. I learned after moving there that he had sometime before said from the pulpit that he could not tell the students that instrumental music and such things as drinking and smoking were wrong. Further, I learned that he was making periodicals from liberal brethren and even Pentecostal sources available to the students. When I insisted that this man either be called upon to publicly repent or be dismissed, the atmosphere in the elders\u2019 meeting became very heated. One of the elders was a prominent local attorney and a close personal friend of the Bible chair director. When it became evident that there was some strong sentiment among the other nine elders to deal with this man, the elder\/attorney finally said, \u201cI don\u2019t care what he has done. He is my friend and I\u2019m going to defend him. I will resign if you are determined to confront him.\u201d At that, he walked out the door of the meeting room. (Unfortunately, he was allowed to come back to the next elders\u2019 meeting without a word being said about his \u201cresignation.\u201d) Ironically, here was a man who was trained in his profession to think rationally and logically, but it is evident that he was operating on one level only in this matter\u2014emotionalism.<\/span><\/p>\n The same reaction often occurs when it is necessary for the church to withdraw fellowship from one of its members. A case of this sort occurred in 1974 where I served as the local preacher. A brother who was a notorious heretic had repeatedly disrupted Bible classes with his false doctrines and had even written letters to many members of the church, seeking sympathy and sowing discord. He refused the repeated pleas of the elders that he repent or else be withdrawn from. Accordingly, the elders asked me to preach on \u201cchurch discipline\u201d on a certain Sunday morning, after which the withdrawal announcement was made. At the end of the announcement, one of the members of the church stood up in the assembly and challenged the right of the elders to lead the church in the withdrawal proceedings without consulting the entire church. This man and his wife and another family or two then took the withdrawn-from brother out to lunch that day in a show of support for him, in spite the Bible teaching he had just heard, which included the admonition, \u201cwith such a one no, not to eat\u201d (1 Cor. 5:11). This brother completely disabled his rational faculties and reacted solely on the basis of his feelings for someone whom he imagined was being persecuted.<\/span><\/p>\n Anyone who preaches several years and stands for the Truth is going to encounter irrational and emotional reactions to what he preaches. The social drinkers and dancers often react this way to doctrine that exposes their practices as sinful, even to the dividing of congregations in some cases. The couple living in an adulterous marriage will rarely listen and submit to what the Son of God says about their spiritual condition but will throw up all sorts of emotional smokescreens as to why they should remain together. The list of such subjects and the emotionalism that prevails in the hearts of brethren concerning them could be extended almost indefinitely.<\/span><\/p>\n Liberalism, Emotionalism, and Rationality<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In the Secular World <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n One of the building blocks of liberalism, whether social, political, or religious, is unbridled emotionalism. The political liberal does not live in a real world. He lives only on a \u201cfeelings\u201d level. He has a \u201cbleeding heart\u201d for every sob story. He professes to desire to feed all of the hungry, provide a house for all of the homeless, clothe all of the naked, and give everybody a guaranteed annual income. While compassion is one of the beautiful traits of the Master we are to emulate (and we are certainly given the mandate to help the helpless [Gal. 6:10]), we are not to do so without qualification or condition. The liberal would help all of these unfortunate ones without questioning their worthiness as long as he can do it with someone else\u2019s money. He is oblivious to the Bible\u2019s principle of \u201cno work, no eat\u201d (2 The. 3:10). He does not hesitate to give a man money for food when the recipient has wasted\u2014and will likely waste\u2014the money to buy tobacco, alcohol, or some other kind of drug.<\/span><\/p>\n The attitude of the liberal is that every person should be able to choose to waste his own life and even the lives of others and suffer no consequence for it. Rather than being held accountable for his own behavior, he should be rewarded, supported, and even honored. The super-emotional liberal has not enough sense to know that the victim, not the offender, needs to be helped and that the offender, not the victim, needs to be punished. Because of sheer emotionalism, the social and political liberal opposes just punishment, including the death penalty, for convicted felons. To liberals down <\/em>is up<\/em>, out <\/em>is in<\/em>, black <\/em>is white<\/em>, left <\/em>is right<\/em>, evil <\/em>is good<\/em>, and good <\/em>is evil<\/em>, all because they live in their touchy-feely, warped little dream world that defies rationality and reality.<\/span><\/p>\n In the Religious World <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Emotionalism long ago took over \u201cChristendom\u201d in general. I can confidently rest my case for this assertion by citing one well-known slogan: \u201cIt makes no difference what you believe, as long as you\u2019re sincere.\u201d Several generations have now grown up on this mantra. Many of those in our time have taken it one step further by reasoning, \u201cIf it makes no difference what <\/strong>I believe, then why should it make any difference if <\/strong>I believe?\u201d Hundreds of theological seminaries have for years been staffed with thousands of infidel theologians who have produced tens of thousands of infidel clerics who stand in pulpits every seven days and vomit up their unbelief on those assembled. Thus millions, in a nation founded on faith in God and the Bible as the Word of God, are at worst seeking to make Him an outlaw and fugitive from this republic, or at best are living as if He does not exist. These are some of the bitter fruits of the exaltation of emotionalism, which breeds liberalism in religion.<\/span><\/p>\n The same culprit is responsible for the wildfire of liberalism in the church of the Lord. Liberalism is little more than universalism with a thin skin pulled over it. In his heart, the liberal does not really believe in Hell. If he does, he does not know anybody who is bound for it. Furthermore, he cannot bring himself to condemn any doctrine as false or any behavior as bad, or, at any rate, damnable. He is an ardent advocate of the \u201cI\u2019m okay, you\u2019re okay\u201d philosophy. He has turned his back on rational and logical thought, which excludes any middle ground between Truth and error. You see, he believes that what he does and believes in religion is right, but he also believes that what others do and believe in religion is just as right, never mind that they are directly contradictory.<\/span><\/p>\n What is right for one may be wrong for another and vice versa. This is precisely the ground occupied by some on the subject of instrumental music in worship. Some say that, while it would be wrong for them to use the instrument, it is right for those in the Independent Christian Church (or other denominations) to use it. It is by such irrationalism that Carroll D. Osburn of Abilene Christian University can write the following:<\/span><\/p>\n There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who differ on whether…the Lord\u2019s Supper must be taken every Sunday, or whether instrumental music is used in worship. There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, but who differ on eschatological theories such as premillennialism, ecclesiological matters such as congregational organization, or soteriological matters such as whether baptism is \u201cfor\u201d or \u201cbecause of\u201d the remission of sins.10<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If you do not understand the learned doctor\u2019s professorial terminology, the translation is this: \u201cAnything goes.\u201d Errors about worship, the Second Coming, church organization, or the plan of salvation are of no consequence. The social liberals responsible for our lax U. S. Immigration laws could learn much from Osburn and those like him. In effect, Osburn has opened wide all of the borders, repealed all of the laws, and dismissed all of the officers charged with enforcement of same in the kingdom of Heaven! One of the things that drives Osburn (and doubtless others, especially those in academia) is the fear of being ostracized and ridiculed by their academic peers outside the kingdom for their narrow-mindedness. He gets close to admitting as much in the following statement of his ideal: \u201cRejecting arrogant exclusivism, Christian fellowship is extended to a broader arena.\u201d11<\/sup> (I wonder if he rejects Buddhists and Muslims, and if so, would this make him guilty of \u201carrogant exclusivism\u201d?) The emotionalism behind this statement is evident. He cares not what the Book says about the exclusive borders of the kingdom of God in a hundred passages. His view is based solely on how he feels about it and how he wants others to feel about him. Consequently, his arena is broad enough to embrace just about everybody, but it is not God\u2019s \u201carena\u201d if the New Testament means anything at all.<\/span><\/p>\n The hundreds of preachers who have adopted one or more of dozens of loopholes for Matthew 19:9 on marriage, divorce, and remarriage (as erroneous as they are ingenious) serve as glaring examples of emotionalism gone to seed. Appeals are made to the difficulty of a celibate life, or how \u201cterrible\u201d it would be on children to break up a marriage for the sake of purity and salvation. A brother once told me that, if we did not relax our views on this subject, we would soon run out of anybody we could teach and baptize, since so many are living in unscriptural marriages. This fellow actually professed to be a Gospel preacher! How\u2019s that for \u201cgrade A\u201d emotionalism?<\/span><\/p>\n A couple once came to see me to ask me to marry them. The young man had been a Christian for several years, but the young lady had learned the Truth and been baptized only a short while before. When I asked if either of them had been married before, he said that he had not, but she said that she had. If fornication had been committed by her husband, she was not aware of it\u2014at least this was not the cause of their divorce. When I called their attention to Matthew 19:9, the young man said, \u201cWe know what the Bible says, but we have decided to get married anyway and just throw ourselves on the mercy of the Lord.\u201d I told our elders of the conversation and their plans. They visited with them and urged them not to get married. They got married (but not by me), and the week afterward our elders led the church in withdrawing fellowship from them. The entire atmosphere surrounding the subject of marriage, divorce, and remarriage among so many brethren is one of \u201chow do I and others feel about it?\u201d rather than \u201cwhat does God say about it?\u201d As with these areas of liberalism, many, if not most others can be traced to emotionalism as their root.<\/span><\/p>\n The Proper Use of Emotion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As indicated in the beginning of this manuscript, emotions are not innately harmful or evil. God made us with emotional capacities and abilities and even instructs us, sometimes by precept, sometimes by example (and sometimes by both) concerning how to use them. Therefore, just as we have noticed the abuse of the emotions, we must also notice the proper and Scriptural use of them.<\/span><\/p>\n Sincerity is an emotion that is required of us by God. The Roman saints were commended because they obeyed the Gospel pattern they were taught \u201cfrom the heart\u201d (Rom 6:17\u201318). God seeks men who will worship Him in \u201cspirit and truth\u201d (John 4:23\u201324). To worship \u201cin spirit\u201d refers to the involvement of man\u2019s spirit in the act of worship. This involvement of one\u2019s spirit has to do with sincerely approaching God. The opposite of sincerity is hypocrisy, which is detestable to God (1 Pet. 2:1). However, we need to notice the balancing force to the emotion of sincerity: the reverence for and obedience to the Truth of God\u2019s Word.<\/span><\/p>\n We are to love our families (Rom. 1:31; Eph. 5:25\u20136:4), our brethren (1 Pet. 1:22), and all men, even our enemies (Mat. 5:44\u201346). However, God gives us some restraints to balance this love. Our ultimate love must be for God with all of our being (Mark 12:30). This means that in any conflict of love or loyalty, even with our family members, love for God must come first (Mat. 10:37; Acts 5:29). It also means that we cannot encourage them in anything that is contrary to what God wills (2 John 9\u201311). To do so would be to express more love for men than for God.<\/span><\/p>\n We are to be kind and compassionate (Eph. 4:32), but not so much so that we practice partiality and respect of persons (1 Tim. 5:20\u201321) or help the undeserving (2 The. 3:10).\u00a0 While we are forbidden to rejoice in unrighteousness, we are commanded to rejoice with the truth (1 Cor. 13:6).\u00a0Many additional things cause Christians to express the emotion of joy (Acts 8:39; Phi. 3:1; 4:4). Also, even the emotions of hate and anger have a useful role when properly directed and\/or controlled (Psa.\u00a097:10; 119:104; Mark 3:5; Eph. 4:26).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Each of the emotions could be thus dealt with. The common thread running through them all is that they are not to govern us, but we must govern them. This implies the use of the rational and reasoning faculties of the mind that God has given us. It is no coincidence that, when one lets his emotions have complete mastery, he by definition has become \u201cunreasonable,\u201d \u201cirrational.\u201d Emotionalism wars against rationality. In expressing the completeness with which men are to love God, the Scriptures teach us to love Him \u201cwith all thy mind\u201d (Mark 12:30). This is not the same as the Bible \u201cheart\u201d in this passage, for it is listed separately in the same passage. The mind in this verse must refer to man\u2019s intellect, his power to think and to reason. It is the mind with which one understands and initially responds to the Word of God, which teaches us how to live. It is only by the rational use of the minds that God has given us that our emotional capacities can be kept under control and used to the glory, rather than the dishonor, of God.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Human emotions are extremely powerful. They are powerful for good if we control them with our God-given minds in harmony with the Word of God. They are a powerfully destructive force if we lay aside our rational powers and let them control us. The danger lies not in the emotions, but in emotionalism.<\/span><\/p>\n Endnotes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this MS for and presented a digest of it orally at the Bellview Lectures, hosted by the Bellview Church of Christ, Pensacola, FL, June 10\u201314, 1995. It was published in the book of the lectures, The Doctrine of Christ Versus the Doctrines of Men, <\/em>ed. Michael Hatcher (Pensacola, FL: Bellview Church of Christ).]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 1[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts page.] Introduction1 Webster\u2019s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines \u201cemotionalism\u201d as \u201c…unwarranted expression or display of emotion.\u201d2 The same dictionary defines \u201cemotion\u201d in the following words: Any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear,…<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n