The Practice of the Presence of God (Brother Lawrence) - by Dean Good

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author has a lot of a-biblical complaints about Brother Lawrence. When he complains it is usually about some detail, supposition, or inference. 

Now certainly Brother Lawrence was a Catholic. It is probable he had some errant ideas. But we can only judge by what he wrote, and what he wrote reveals a man consumed with pleasing God and fellowshipping with Him. We do not impose any requirements about how he expresses himself in his own context and his own understanding, but rather, we desire to catch a glimpse of this man's passion for God. We look for what is useful and good, but the author is focused only on what doesn't align with his perfect doctrine.

The author quotes absolutely no Scripture in this article.

We are not here to defend Brother Lawrence, we intend to examine the author's presentation.

---------------------

Recommendation: Not Recommended

Description of author: Brother Lawrence (1614-1691) was a monk. Nicholas Herman was born in the Lorraine region of France. After fighting in the Thirty Years War, he entered a Carmelite monastery in Paris in 1640 and took the religious name Lawrence of the Resurrection.

Comments: Over the years I have heard references to and quotes from this little work. Recently I have been asked by several people about this book. So I finally read it. As I read it, I was somewhat amazed that evangelical Christians would recommend it (as so many do these days). I will, therefore, take the time to critique this ‘Christian classic’ in some detail, using it as an exercise in discernment.

I will begin by observing that two things struck me immediately, before I ever opened the book. First, the author goes by the title ‘Brother’ . . . obviously he is a Roman Catholic monk. Second, I would observe the word practice in the title. Practice implies method. You cannot practice the presence of God. (Summary denial.)

There is no method to take one into the presence of God. (Another summary denial. The author is apparently unaware of Scriptures like 

1Co. 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present... 

Lk. 11:13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”)

This word practice implies a pagan, mystical approach to God. (The author runs with what he infers.)

Therefore, before I opened the book, I was whole-heartedly expecting to find Roman Catholic mysticism. When I opened the book, I was not disappointed.

Assuming that one knows almost nothing about Biblical theology, there is one most obvious attribute of this volume that should cause one’s doctrinal red flags to fly high or one’s discernment bells to start ringing loudly. Brother Lawrence uses no Scripture. (Irony alert. The author uses no Scripture.)

If I am reading a book about identifying flowers or how to raise guinea pigs, that’s not a problem. But it seems to me there is only one authority about God’s presence and that would be God’s Word. (Irony alert 2.)

 If I ask the question, “What does the Bible say about God’s presence?” I will find that the Bible has a lot to say about that. (Irony alert 3.)

 It is not my purpose to answer that question at this time, (??? So the author will neither quote the Bible nor tell us the correct way to understand Brother's Lawrence's errors. Then why did he write his article?)

but I would take notice of two major doctrines in the Bible regarding God’s presence: (1) the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross opened the door into the presence of God (Hebrews 10:19-21). (Well, let's actually quote it: 

He. 10:19-22 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 

Let us draw near to God. Hmm. Because we have this new and living way we are invited to use it. Now we know why the author stopped his citation at verse 21.)

In other words, as Christians who have placed our faith in Christ, we live in the presence of God, we don’t have to practice it; and (2) the Holy Spirit indwells every believer (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit is God in us . . . again we do not (indeed cannot) practice the presence of God. (The author's assertions are true but not the question. The indwelling Holy Spirit is the starting point, not the ending point:

Ja. 4:8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. 

Ep. 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

Ga. 5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

It is clear from the Scriptures that there is an additional "quality" of closeness to God that we can pursue.)

We have His presence always. Strangely, Brother Lawrence doesn’t really consider these two doctrines and in fact much of what he writes contradicts them. (The author finds it strange that Brother Lawrence doesn't write about what the author wants him to write about.)

I will now give a short list of some of the obvious doctrinal heresies present in the book:

(1) He teaches mysticism. Perhaps I should define mysticism. It is direct communion with God apart from the rational. (The author will need to tell us where in the Bible says we are required to deal with God on a solely rational basis.)

It is pure experience (emotional, sensual) usually arrived at by a method and is generally divorced from thinking. (The author uses the modifiers "pure" and "generally." But no Christian advocates for "pure experience." And if it is the case that experience is "generally" divorced from thinking, then what about the instances not covered by "generally?" 

Further, the author doesn't like "methods" but never tells us why. We find that there are methods in Scripture:

Ph. 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed — not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence — continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling...

2Pe. 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith...

2Pe. 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.)

I should point out that mysticism always bypasses simple faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross and repentance from sin. (As he defines it this is true.)

Method trumps or rather replaces faith. (Actually, method facilitates the working out of faith.)

He writes:

Since you desire so earnestly that I should communicate to you the method by which I arrived at that habitual sense of God’s presence, which our Lord, of His mercy, has been pleased to vouchsafe to me . . . (p. 25).

Now I observe that he is speaking of attaining a ‘habitual sense of God’s presence.’ In other words he is attaining, by a method, a feeling (of peace) that he mistakes for the presence of God. Biblically speaking, God’s presence is not something you feel. (Summary assertion. "Biblically speaking," where does the Bible say this?)

But notice also, this method is something that the Lord revealed to him personally. This is not something Brother Lawrence found in Scripture. Observe other examples: (The author summarily claims Brother Lawrence's ideas are not found in the Bible, so we will provide the biblical references.)

And I make it my business only to persevere in His holy presence, wherein I keep myself by a simple attention, (He. 2:1) and a general fond regard to God, which I may call an actual presence of God; (1Th. 3:9) or to speak better, an habitual, silent, and secret conversation of the soul with God, which often causes in me joys and raptures inwardly, (1Pe. 1:8) and sometimes also outwardly, so great that I am forced to use means to moderate them, and prevent their appearance to others (p. 31).

And then it seems to him (as in effect he feels it) that this God of love, (1Jn. 4:8) satisfied with such few words, (Ec. 5:2) reposes again, and rests in the depth and center of his soul. (He. 4:11) The experience of these things gives him such an assurance that God is always in the depth or bottom of his soul, (He. 10:22) and renders him incapable of doubting it (Ja. 1:6) upon any account whatever (p. 38).

He is within in us; (Col. 1:27) seek Him not elsewhere (p. 64). (Matthew 24:26)

There are three degrees of union of the soul with God. The first degree is general, the second is virtual union, whilst the third is actual union (p. 77). (1Co. 1:30) (He seems to be describing the heresy found so often in the early church fathers called theosis). (2Pe. 1:4)

The presence of God is thus the life and nourishment of the soul, (Col. 3:3) and with the aid of His grace, it can attain thereunto by diligent use of the means which I will now set out (p. 81).

By the practice of the presence of God, by steadfast gaze on Him, (He. 12:2) the soul comes to a knowledge of God, full and deep, to an Unclouded Vision (p. 88). (Ep. 1:17-18)

In the way of God, thoughts count for little, love is everything (p. 98).

(Now perhaps Brother Lawrence had a different viewpoint about what these mean, but remember, the author asserted that none of these things were in the Bible.)

In all his meanderings he says almost nothing about Scripture, (Irony alert 4.)

doctrine, sin, renewing the mind according to the Scriptural model or, most importantly, the blood of Christ as the means of our acceptance into the presence of God. (Again the author complains that Brother Lawrence did not write about what the author wants him to write about.)

(2) He teaches salvation by works. Brother Lawrence’s method is for him clearly a means of atonement for his sins. He repeats this idea several times in the book:

This made me resolve to give the all for the All, so after having given myself wholly to God, to make all the satisfaction I could for my sins, I renounced, for the love of Him, everything that was not He; and I began to live as if there was none but He and I in the world (p. 26). (It seems the author is nit-picking words. "make all the satisfaction I could for my sins" does not necessarily mean Brother Lawrence accomplished his own salvation. We should not assume that words and phrases from hundreds of years ago mean the same thing today.)

I took a resolution to give myself up to God, as the best satisfaction I could make for my sins; and, for the love of Him, to renounce all besides (p. 29).

Since entering upon the religious life, I no longer perplex myself with thoughts of virtue, or of my salvation. But having given myself wholly to God, to make what satisfaction I could for my sins . . . (p. 99).

(3) He teaches asceticism (which is an aspect of mysticism). Asceticism is the notion that there is spiritual merit in denying oneself pleasure or in experiencing self-induced pain. He writes:

There is no one but must avow that God is beyond our understanding. To be united to Him it is needful therefore to deny to the will all tastes and pleasures, bodily and spiritual, (Ja. 4:4, Jn. 15:19, Jn. 17:14) that, thus detached, it can be free to love God above all things (p. 78).

Remember that to attain to this state, we must control and master the senses, inasmuch as no soul which takes delight in earthly things can find full joy in the presence of God. To be with Him we must leave behind our animal nature (p. 85). (Ro. 8:13)

In relating the circumstance of his death, the editor writes of Brother Lawrence: His one desire was that he might suffer something for the love of God, for all his sins . . . Purposely he bade the brethren to turn him on to his right side; he knew that this position gave great pain, and therefore wished to remain therefore to satisfy his burning desire to suffer (p. 104). (Well, this is what someone wrote about Brother Lawrence, not what he himself wrote.)

There is virtually nothing Biblical regarding God’s presence in this book. (Irony alert 5. Did the author tells us something about the Bible? Did we miss it?)

I would studiously avoid it. If you would like to understand God’s presence and the Christian I would recommend a serious study of Romans and Hebrews in the Word of God.