Some Thoughts on Keswick

I recently had the privilege of listening to my friend, Andy Naselli, give a series of lectures on the Keswick doctrine of sanctification. These lectures are available in mp3 format at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary website and a forthcoming article will appear in the Detroit Seminary journal.

A modern version of the Keswick (pronounced "keh-zick") view of sanctification is fairly common, particularly in fundamental circles. It is essentially a two-stage view of salvation and sanctification where a person is saved at one point and then at a later time dedicates his life and begins the process of sanctification. As Andy explained, the essential premise is a chronological disjunction between salvation and sanctification, that is, that salvation and sanctification happen at two different times.

So why is the Keswick view so popular among certain circles? I have an unsubstantiated theory based on three points. I am going to throw it out here and see what sticks. Each of these points begs for more explanation, development, and critique, but I won't do that here since it would lengthen this already long post to mammoth size for a blog post. But here are my three reasons, with a brief explanation as I think out loud.

1.  It is what they were taught.

Very few people get much of their doctrine straight from Scripture. Even though we like to claim we are "people of the book," it may be more accurate to say that most Christians are actually "people of the pulpit." They believe whatever they were taught. What study of Scripture they do, they do through the lens of the pulpit ministry to which they have been exposed. So when someone grows up with two distinct messages (First, get saved, and later, get dedicated), they tend to propagate that in their own ministries, and they tend to find it in the Bible.

2.  It stems from a wrong view of man.

The doctrine of man (called anthropology) is, in my view, a key component of Keswick theology among modern fundamentalists. It seems that there is essentially a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian view of man that is frequently found in these circles. In this view, man has autonomous free will, basically unaffected by sin. And if man is free to choose to get saved or not (as is typically taught in these kinds of circles), then he is also free to choose whether to be sanctified or not. The vote casting of salvation (God cast one for you, Satan cast one against you, you cast the deciding vote) is carried over into sanctification as well. I don't know that early Keswick theology embraced total depravity, and I am fairly certain that the modern versions of which I am thinking do not embrace it either. To me, this seems to go hand in hand.

3.  It stems from a wrong view of salvation.

The doctrine of salvation (called soteriology) is the third, and IMO, the greatest reason. My unscientific view that is there is a large segment of people who have such a visceral reaction to what is commonly called "Calvinism," that they reject anything that even remotely smells of it. The doctrine of "perseverance of the saints" is often changed into the doctrine of "preservation by the Savior." While eternal security is certainly a biblical doctrine, so is the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, a doctrine that ultimately argues against the Keswick view of sanctification.

We can't "force sanctification" since man is free. Furthermore, since someone "walked the aisle and prayed a prayer," they must be saved whether or not they give any evidence of salvation in their lives. So rather than question their salvation, some hold a view of salvation that sanctification is not a necessary and immediate consequence of salvation. Therefore, we can "get a bunch of people of saved," and have a good reason why they never show up in church, or why they continue to live worldly, sin-dominated lives with no sign of conviction or change. They were saved; they simply weren't dedicated yet.

A Qualification

While I believe that sanctification is the immediate and necessary result of true salvation, we must admit that while all Christians grow, they grow at different rates and differing consistencies. The biblical view of sanctification is not one of perfection, but one of struggle. As I often say, I don't worry that much about people who struggle. I worry about people who do not struggle, who are satisfied to live unchanged in sin. For those, I challenge their salvation.

So how do we deal with this?

1.  Let's get over our addiction to numbers.

I know a pastor who keeps record of the number of "salvation decisions" in the front of his Bible. Most of these numbers are not represented in his church. But he touts these "conversions" as evidences of the success of the gospel message. If we adopt a view of salvation that views sanctification as beginning at the same time, our numbers of salvation decisions will decrease (though the number of Christians will not).

2.  Let's get over our need to give assurance of salvation to people.

I think we need to be satisfied to let people struggle with assurance, particularly if they are not giving evidence of salvation. In fact, we need to encourage, to at least some degree, "testing to see if you be in the faith" (2 Cor 13:5). I am not here encouraging an prideful introspection. I am encouraging a biblical examination. If people do not have assurance, let us not point to a raised hand, a repeated prayer, or a date inscribed in the front of a Bible. Let us appeal to the Bible, and let the Holy Spirit either affirm or deny assurance based on the study of the Scripture.

3.  Let's get over our heritage.

I love my heritage and those who have influenced my spiritually over my life. I owe a great debt of gratitude to many people who hold a Keswick view of sanctification. I once believed it, and practiced it, and preached it. I don't any more, not because I do not love the men who preach it. I do love them and my life is forever changed because of them. But having been challenged by the study of the Scriptures, I reject that teaching of my heritage.

4.  Let's get over bad doctrine.

If my supposition is correct, that anthropology and soteriology are two key components of the preponderance of this teaching, then the only solution is a radical return to biblical teaching. I think you will find very few people who affirm a radical depravity in man and a sovereign God in salvation who preach this two-stage view. Again, I am only guessing here, but I know when my view changed on these two issues, my view of sanctification changed along with it because I could no longer hold my view of sanctification.