Keswick Sanctification

Sanctification part 6

Continuing in our sanctification series, we now turn to the Keswick perspective presented by J. Robertson McQuilkin.

First of all, before anything else, you must know that in the word Keswick, the “w” is silent. According to McQuilkin, the name comes from a resort town in England’s lake district where annual conventions “for the promotion of practical holiness” have been held since 1875 (pg. 152). Below, I will summarize McQuilkin’s ideas and what the Keswick view is and then after that I will give my response which will be apparent in bold letters.

McQuilkin says that “average is not necessarily normal,” and “the average experience of church members is far different from New Testament norms for the Christian life.” He contrasts the church experience in the New Testament to what we commonly see today in church. In the New Testament, the Christian life is one of victory over sin, power in ministry, and a deep love for God and others. We might see this in the book of Acts and 1 John whereas today, the church seems to reflect the opposite of that where many Christians are struggling with sin, defeat, yielding to temptation more often than not, and their choices seem to display more self-interest than God-interest. There seems to be a disconnect from personal fellowship with God, joy, and the supernatural. The power they have seems to rise no higher than the methods and ability of persons outside of God. McQuilkin advocates that “individuals are responsible by faith to appropriate God’s provision” and that the Keswick approach “seeks to provide a mediating and biblically balanced solution to the problem of subnormal Christian experience.” By “balanced,” he means a balance between God’s part and our part in sanctification, as in some other views, God’s part seems to be emphasized to the neglect of our own responsibility (151-152).

There is no official theological statement or position to define the Keswick movement and so because of that, many people outside the movement have misunderstood it. However, there is a general approach or outline to it. Keswick is a call to practical holiness and this is generally done in church or in a convention where each day has a different emphasis to help cultivate holiness and a closer devotion to God. Barabas speaks of Keswick in this way:

From the beginning until the present, it has taught that a life of faith and victory, of peace and rest, are the rightful heritage of every child of God, and that he may step into it…, “not by long prayers and laborious effort, but by a deliberate and decisive act of faith.” It teaches that “the normal experience of the child of God should be one of victory instead of constant defeat, one of liberty instead of grinding bondage, one of ‘perfect peace’ instead of restless worry. It shows that in Christ there is provided for every believer victory, liberty, and rest, and that this may be obtained not by a life-long struggle after an impossible ideal but by the surrender of the individual to God, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.” (153-154).

The first day of a traditional Keswick convention would emphasize sin (to have conviction over it). The next day, God’s provision (enablement and victory over sin). Then consecration (surrender), then life in the Spirit (being filled), and then a fifth day was added, emphasizing service to God.

The knowledge of sin and God’s holiness ought to bring us to the mercy, grace, and forgiveness of God and cause us to be repulsed by our own sin to desire God’s way. Then learning of God’s provision gives us faith to have victory over sin and the means to do so as we come to identify ourselves with Christ and our union with Him and renew our minds in the truth of what God has done for us through Jesus to save us from our sins. God’s provision is in His finished work, the living presence of Christ, and the inner work of the Holy Spirit. Then after we see our utter bankruptcy before God and the provision to live victorious in Him, we surrender to God and consecrate ourselves to Him to work in us. Then on the fourth day, the Holy Spirit is emphasized to submit and yield ourselves to Him so that He can fill us with Himself. This requires an obedient and willing heart but “it is the birthright of every Christian.” On the fifth day, service to God through evangelism and loving one another was the goal. This provides the opportunity for the Spirit to move in power and operate according to obedient faith. (154-155)

Keswick belief does not hold to perfectionism yet they are often falsely misrepresented as believing this by even well-known Christians such a B.B. Warfield. But it is important to understand one’s definition of sin. Is sin conscious and willful? Or is it falling short of God’s standard of perfection to be as perfect as Jesus is even when we’re not aware of those imperfections within ourselves? Keswick maintains that Christians can be consistently free from deliberate conscious willful sin but that doesn’t mean we are perfect as Jesus is. McQuilkin says that the “official teaching has consistently been that every believer in this life is left with the natural proclivity to sin and will do so without the countervailing influence of the Holy Spirit.” Keswick does not see a conflict between the old nature (the flesh) and the new nature; but rather, the conflict is between the flesh and the Holy Spirit. (156-157)

Sanctification literally means to be set apart for God as holy and to be used by Him. This happens through God’s forgiveness, justification, and regeneration. This is positional sanctification and it unites us to God in loving fellowship and to be of the same mind, united in heart, and spirit. God makes this happen through positional (initial) sanctification and this removes the barrier of sin so that we can have fellowship with God and become partakers of His grace. This is “the condition of every true child of God.” Next comes experiential (progressive) sanctification, which is the outworking of our position in Christ in day-to-day life. Then there is permanent and complete sanctification which is called glorification, where we will be transformed into the likeness of Jesus when He returns and we will “no longer be tainted with sin or even susceptible to it.” (158-160)

McQuilkin maintains that the root cause of subnormal Christian experience is unbelief. We know from the Word that there are Christians who are carnal (of the flesh) and immature, and then there are Christians who are dominated by the Spirit of God, mature, and filled with the Spirit (1 Cor 3:1-3; Ro 8:9; Heb 5:11-6:3). Rather than focusing on the question, “How long can you be carnal?” McQuilkin says that it may be best to by-pass the question for the time-being to instead focus on helping people out of the mire. And I will add here that whatever the answer to the question, the solution is the same: to have faith. He also says, “The Bible consistently deals with people where they are and only rarely answers the theoretical problems that plague us.” (160-161)

Sometimes unbelief is because of ignorance. Paul says “Do you not know…” (Ro 6:16). Sometimes, Christians don’t know things because they either haven’t heard it or don’t understand it. But once they’ve been exposed to the teaching about the possibility and necessity to live free and triumphant over sin, they will know; and this knowledge can be enough to have an immediate response in faith that will radically change the way they live. But without seeing and believing that such victory is possible and should be normal for every Christian, they will resist calls to repentance or trust in God because they do not believe it is possible for them to do it or rise higher than where they are, especially if all the people they know are in the same predicament as they are in. Sinful behaviors can show us the quality of our faith or lack thereof. (162-163)

Another hindrance to faith is “active rebellion.” God is always there for us but our sins can make a barrier between us and God (Isa 59:2). “No one who is deliberately rejecting the known will of God in one area of life can expect to receive His enabling to live supernaturally in other areas, a truth that most Christians who are actively rebellious know.”

Then McQuilkin mentions “passive drift” as the most common reason for failure in the life of Christians. This is when a person leaves his or her “first love” (Rev 2:4) and becomes “lukewarm” and obnoxious to God (3:15-16). This may happen through failing to pursue God through Bible meditation, prayer, or active church service. Or, it may be a buildup of small acts of disobedience here and there until it turns into a callous spiritual insensitivity. As a result, “the person can no longer experience the normal, Spirit-empowered life God promises.”

Another root cause for substandard Christian living is a life lived from self-effort, self-reliance, and a lack of trusting in God. We will continue to struggle and fail if we rely on our own strength and effort to be godly rather than through faith and the Spirit (Gal 3:3; 5:25; Col 2:6). Therefore, we must abandon the way of self-effort. (163-165)

The cure for substandard Christian living is faith. There is victory through Jesus (Ro 7:25) where it is possible to not fulfill the sinful desires, to be more than conquerors in Christ (Eph 3:19), and by the power of God, to be kept from stumbling (Jude 24-25). It is to have faith and remember what Christ has already done for us, reckoning ourselves as dead indeed unto sin and that we have been cleansed from our past sins (Ro 6:11; 2 Pet 1:9). But this is not faith in faith but it is faith in God. To have faith is to appropriate God’s provision for successful Christian living. (165-167)

True faith is needed, not just mouth profession. True faith involves the intellect, affection, and will. Or to put it another way, the understanding, love, and decision-making. If one of these are missing, faith is not adequate. This is why it is important to obey God, not just assent to intellectual facts about God. Faith is false if it is in the wrong object like relying on past experiences or your own resources rather than on God. It is also false if it misappropriates a promise or presumes upon God’s goodness when one’s motives are wrong. Charles Hodge says that faith is the persuasion of truth founded on testimony. Faith can also exist in degrees (Lk 17:5-6; Ro 12:3-8; Mk 9:24) but even in small portions it can be effective because God uses faith to work and He is the source of power, not faith itself. (168-169)

McQuilkin says that the unyielded person must surrender to God in faith and this essential element of faith is also obedience. He says, “For Christians who are experiencing a subnormal life, reentry into normal, supernatural Christian living is through the gate of surrender. They may concentrate their energies on some emotional sense of release or well-being, but such efforts will all prove fruitless until they make the choice to yield.” He calls this choice to yield a spiritual crisis moment. But that crisis only comes because those believers have strayed from faith in God and obedience to Him and in this way have violated their original covenant responsibilities. So in practical and experiential terms, it becomes necessary for people to come to second or third spiritual crisis moments in their lives but theologically it never would have been necessary if they never would have violated their covenantal duties in the first place. In this way, these graces are available to all Christians in the moment of regeneration but not all walk in them or stay walking in them. (170-171)

McQuilkin defends this biblical idea of deliberate vs. unintentional sin from the Old Testament (Ex 21:12-14; Num 15:27-31) as well as from the New Testament (1 Jn 1:8-10; 3:6, 8-10). Yet it is difficult to precisely define and differentiate these two kinds of sin in everyday life: “For example, when one becomes angry, is this attitude deliberate and conscious or is it involuntary? Perhaps it was involuntary to begin with, but if one continues in a state of anger, it surely becomes involuntary. But at what precise point does sin begin and perfection become forfeit (for one who believes in perfection)?” McQuilkin maintains that such a distinction of the definition of sin is not biblical and so he points to Romans 3:23 as falling short of God’s glory to define sin; and by this standard, sinless perfection is impossible. (172-173)

After this, he talks about the filling of the Spirit, how the Christian life is one of continual growth and transformation in our minds and behavior. He mentions means of grace like prayer, Scripture, church, and suffering. He says that the Christian life is a war yet “faith must rest, relying on God to do what we cannot do, it also must wrestle, struggling in warfare.” (181)

My response to McQuilkin and the Keswick perspective:

By the standard of Romans 3:23, I would also affirm that sinless perfection is not possible in this life. However, I do believe it is possible to be free from conscious willful sin because it is possible to be free from the inward passions and desires that are for sin. Though, there are also instances of sin which could come up like anger but it will not be a dominating or propelling force to continue going or to be stirred up with greater passion. It is possible for anger to arise from seemingly nowhere but it is expected to be momentary and should pass without continued thoughts of anger or frustration regarding the subject. I would say that it becomes willful sin when you become consciously aware of what is happening and decide not to put a stop to it. Otherwise, it is still unwilful sin. But regardless of the distinction between willful and unwilful sin, the sinful passions are supposed to be dead (Gal 5:24). But for many Christians, for some reason they are not, and so sin continues to assert its dominance.

McQuilkin makes some good points about the cause of substandard Christian living being from various forms of disobedience and a lack of proper faith. He mentioned unbelief, ignorance, active rebellion, passive drift, and a performance-based mindset of self-effort. I believe that all of these are problems that Christians might face. The cure then is faith and obedience to God. Offering this to God in devotion to Him is an act of surrender. It’s admitting that you can’t do it so God must do it through you. It’s letting the conviction over sin be effectual by turning from those sins. It’s believing that true freedom is possible. It’s your mind, heart, and will coming into alignment with your true identity in Christ and the cleansing of salvation and all the grace that is already yours in Christ. From my previous posts, you may see now where I got the phrase, “average is not necessarily normal” when it comes to the standard of Christian living. Many people like to call Keswick a higher life movement but according to this presentation by McQuilkin, that is not how it is seen. It’s supposed to be the normal life movement coming into alignment with all of the privileges we have in Christ. These privileges are for every believer as Barabas clearly pointed out in the beginning of this article. He literally said that Christians can come into this freedom, victory, perfect peace and rest “not by long prayers and laborious effort, but by a deliberate and decisive act of faith. […] by the surrender of the individual to God, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.”

If this is the case, then we must all the more diligently pursue faith. That is, the renewing and transforming of our minds to the truth of God to break off the lies of the devil that have kept us bound, and to wholly trust in the love and goodness of God for us, and come to terms with our true identity in Christ and in God to break off fear, shame, and unbelief. Because faith in the truth is necessary for this victory, it is all the more important to have correct doctrine and theology of God, humanity, salvation, and sanctification, among other things. I explain all of that elsewhere on my website so I will not repeat it here.

To me, it sounds like the Keswick convention is like a revival service and in this way is a method to bring about revival. I think it can be very important to break away from the normal pattern of life to focus on particular truths of God to bring about breakthrough in people’s lives. It sounds like a very healthy thing to do. What seems to be a little unclear though is how much surrender is needed for such a breakthrough.

Responding to critics:

After reading and reviewing Keswick, I decided to see what people are saying about it online and some critique it saying it attempts to be a quick-fix solution like a snake-oil salesman, it divides believers into the haves and have-nots, and divides justification from sanctification. They also presume that Keswick believes in the second blessing (Pentecostal baptism of the Spirit), which McQuilkin here didn’t say anything for or against but the way he spoke of the Spirit filling seemed to be more of the Reformed way of understanding it.

Critics of Keswick don’t think it’s possible to have such a high victory over sin or that there exists any kind of “second blessing.” The critics think they have everything already and are living how they are supposed to (because of their particular method of interpreting the Bible). But what do they believe about the people who believe and experience these things? That they’re deluded? Liars? That their experience isn’t real? That they’re not genuine believers and have never been justified? I’m not sure the critics have thought that one through completely as they never seem to say much about it. But they certainly have some strong rhetoric and opposition against it all. There’s supposedly this phrase, “let go and let God” that they say the Keswicks say and promote and criticize them for being lazy rather than putting in diligent effort for spiritual growth.

I am not convinced that all these accusations are true. I’ve already made an argument against the haves and have-nots accusation in a previous article. I also think that this “quick-fix” accusation is wrongly attributed to Keswick when it should be attributed to the Pentecostal second blessing, but only to a degree. I do not believe Keswick pits justification against sanctification as two separate things. Part of the Keswick method is remembering one’s justification and having one’s mind to come into alignment with that in faith, and we have already proven this to be a biblical method.

To let go and let God is not about laziness but about relinquishing the self-effort of perfecting works in the flesh to instead allow those works to be wrought in the Spirit (Gal 3:3). This is done through faith rather than a performance type of Christianity where believers are always trying to do more and more for God to be pleasing to Him by their own discipline. Yes, we should be obedient to God and work for God but freedom is found when we let go of the pride of trying to be acceptable and pleasing to God on the basis of the law. That’s what we need to let go of and it can be very hard for some people. Yet performance Christianity and all the expectations for obedience and good performance are what causes them much endless strivings and anxiety within. But they need to release this to God so that they can be free and operate from a place of love, peace, and faith rather than from a place of striving. This is what surrender is about. It’s coming back to the truths of the gospel of God’s love, peace, and grace, and resting in that so that we can operate from that place and be truly effective for God. In this way, to let go and let God is biblical and it seeks to operate out of our justified state in harmony with sanctification.

However, such an action of faith becomes increasingly difficult with some of the doctrines I have previously criticized on this website. It’s very difficult to rest in God’s love for the grace of God to work abundantly in our hearts to cleanse our hearts if we have those particular views of God and see God as possibly working against us and not being wholly good and when we’re filled with unshakable shame about ourselves. It is for this reason that I believe the Keswick method doesn’t work for many Christians and seems to only frustrate them more since it doesn’t work for them. The faith that brings freedom can only be truly effective when paired with the truth or when it is most closely aligned with the truth. Otherwise, it is not effective. But if Keswick is all about a decisive act of faith, then true beliefs become vitally important. I think that many Christians depart from their “first love” because they start learning incorrect theology that slowly begins to misalign their faith so that they drift and stay in a place of constantly struggling with sin rising up against them.

Letting go is about faith, trust, and rest in God while letting God is about God using that faith to bring about genuine fruit of obedience to Him and to cast all our worries, fears, and cares upon the Lord so we stop feeling the need to control every little thing, realizing that God is the one in control. That is surrender. It’s trusting God and walking by faith. It is not the absence of obedience but it is the laying down of pride and all our man-made solutions to fix our problems. We yield to God in the denial of self and laying down our sin unto Him so that He can use us and live through us.

In my understanding of the Keswick view, it seems to differ from the Wesleyan view in that it does not seem to offer as much freedom from sin as in the Wesleyan method and as I have described that method in previous articles. However, there is still great freedom in it because of its emphasis on faith and it is the birthright of every believer from the very start. But as I have described the Wesleyan way of faith along with the continual process of Christian growth to crucify the flesh until those sinful inclinations rise no more, there is greater freedom to be had in this place where we partake of God’s continual rest. But I would not describe that method as a “quick-fix.” It’s a process of coming into maturity.

It certainly needs to be noted here that perhaps one of the reasons people are drawn to these other methods of sanctification is because they haven’t found the freedom and breakthrough in their lives that they need. They still suffer with addictions, with strong lusts, and anxiety, and anger that they really need to get rid of and have control over. But the methods they have previously been taught in their own tradition do not bring them victory over their struggles and that’s why they seek victory somewhere else. And they are right for doing so. If your church or theology can’t help you, then find one that can.

Here are some other related articles to check out:

Piety or Pietism?

Romans 7 is Not What You Think

How to Walk by Faith