From 2001 to 2004 or so I was a member of a Yahoo Group called The Clark Ring, which was dedicated to the discussion of Gordon H. Clark’s thought. I wrote this post sometime in 2002-3, I believe. This post didn’t get much, if any, response from the others, mainly because my life-situation was at odds with everyone else’s; i.e., they were all Calvinists who were either saved in Calvinism, or were saved in some other type of church and then left there to join a Calvinist church, leaving the former church and its ways of thinking behind. I, on the other hand, was (am) a Calvinist still in a ‘full-gospel’, Arminian church. This difference proved to be as bad as a language barrier. I wanted to apply Clark’s thought to practical life, especially in a full gospel/Pentacostal/Arminian context. They wanted to argue the logic of Clark’s thought in relation to van Til’s or someone else’s. I never did have a meeting of the minds with anyone on that difference.
This little mini essay is the result of 15+ years of observing the ways of thinking and reactions of other members of my full gospel church, and trying to understand them in a biblical context. To say it another way, this is the result of my effort to apply a biblical pattern of thought to the way other Christians think. Everything you read here is based upon the presupposition that the mind of God is rational, and that this very rationality is available to us as His creatures. Not only that, but that His rationality is mandatory for us, and a requirement of holy, godly living. To exhort your brother is worthless if what comes out of your mouth is nonsense. And I dare say that a great percentage of what comes out of a Pentacostal’s mouth is just that.
The shift in focus, 200 years ago, from doctrine to practice, from doxy to praxy, has been disasterous for Christian thought. And with this collectively ruined mind, full gospel Christians think they can reason rightly about holiness in the Christian’s life. We have been reduced to the workers at the tower of Babel. Whole Sunday morning teachings – one hour long, sometimes longer – are routinley wasted on ‘How you can develop your relationship with God.’ Christian teaching has ceased to be God-centered, and has become man-centered. Christians have become Christian humanists. Compare the latest Promise Keepers brochure with the teachings of men like Michael Haykin, Bruce Ware, Mark Dever, and many other Reformed men. The former will focus your eyes on you and how you can be better – navel gazing. The latter, through doctrine and expositional preaching, will focus your eyes on Christ, and Him crucified, resurrected, and glorified. And that, my friend, is how our Lord Jesus changes us, and makes us holy. It is by looking upon Him that we are changed. Not by hearing practical instruction.
Friends,
Has anyone heard of this term ‘self-referencing’ or did I just make it up? In my usage it refers to a Christian’s personal experience and standards being used as a reference point for determining what is right or wrong; or in other words, ‘My reference point is wherever I’m standing.’ A 
congregation can easily slip into this ethnocentric mentality by using the group as a whole, or the pastor, or another elder, as a reference point.
This closely relates to a person’s spiritual ‘comfort zone’, and a general apprehensiveness about views ‘outside the camp.’ A person or group that matches my description believes they are right, or balanced, and judges another’s closeness to God by their closeness to their own position. “You went to see that movie? Wow! You’re worldly.” “You drank alcohol at a restaurant? Wow! What else do you do?”
They are inductive (or concrete-bound) in how they think about ethics. Their experience and observation weighs very heavily in shaping their concept of things like:
Bible school (knowledge puffs up),
bodybuilding (you can get vain),
drinking alcohol (you can get drunk),
reading ‘bad books’ to gain an understanding of a particular error (you can get deceived. You’re playing with fire.).
“Years ago, I had a friend who did that, and he fell away from God. You better be careful. You better stay away from that.”
Thinking in theory (deductively) is foreign to them. The importance of caution is based on experience or observation, not deduced from theory. They are especially cautious of whatever is outside of their experience, and they expect you to share that caution, regardless of how much you know about it. Or else, they had a bad experience with something, and that shapes their sense of urgency towards you. (I’ve discussed this with JR many times.)
Years ago I began to realize how different everyone’s experience can be with the same thing, depending on many factors, and this made me desperately sceptical that experience or observation meant anything. I started looking ‘up’ for a bird’s eye view of everything in human experience, and when I discovered Clark, I discovered theory. Theory is that bird’s eye view that I wanted. This is where 2 Peter 1:3 comes in: God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. So Scripture is my Theory, and theory is how God sees things. His views are not affected by what He has seen or experienced. I believe that I am describing people who lean upon their own understanding. By thinking only in theory, I am trusting in the Lord (biblical theory) with all my heart. Now I’m trying to understand how to relate to these people that I’m describing.
It is hard to fly like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys.
Cheers,
Cameron
JR: would you say that Jesus was ‘Theory incarnate’? Is that appropriate?
That last question was addressed to Dr. John Robbins, of The Trinity Foundation. Dr. Robbins was a member of the list, but didn’t answer, or see, the question. If you read enough Trinity Reviews, or books by Gordon Clark, you will see the rationale behind the question.
Forged Reason 
Tell me what you think