Hannah Whitall Smith’s Unhappy Life

What is the relevance of this? Does the fact that the Smiths apostatized disprove the Keswick view of sanctification? If a well-known Calvinist apostatized, would that disprove Calvinism? Naselli’s article is interesting, but I’m not sure what it has to do with anything.

Maybe it just has to do with being interesting.

But it turns out, she is important in relation to Keswick in more ways than you suggest. She actually preceded the Keswick movement but contributed several of the ideas/themes that later became important to it. And she wrote a book entitled The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life which many still look to despite the fact that she apparently didn’t really figure out any secret to a happy life…. at least not a very Christian happy life.
So a better analogy would be if say, Augustine had joined palagianism (Augustine being a predecessor and major contributor to Calvinism and arguing strongly against Palagian ideas) while people still looked to his writings as a strong case against Palagianism.
Even that’s not a super great analogy, but a little better than a random Calvinist leader vis a vis Calvinism.

As somebody at DeYoung’s blog posted…

If the Smith’s truly possessed the “Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life” then why didn’t it work for them? Either the message presented (“let go and let God”) doesn’t work, or the Smiths didn’t try hard enough (at letting go?). The irony should really make one stop and think.

But it’s enough that it’s interesting.

Of course it matters what one believes and practices. The irony is that Smith wrote a book on happiness and Christianity but seemed to possess little of either (note I am not saying she wasn’t a Christian, but seemed to possess attributes later in life normal for genuine Christianity). A fair comparison is not someone who is a Calvinist who falls and apostasizes, but someone who wrote a book on the superiority of Calvinism, the sufficiency of Calvinism then rejects the sovereignty of God in practical living and tries to sanctify himself. It always matters what a Christian practices, if it didn’t Ted Haggard would not be a familiar word in the world today, nor would Swaggart, or Gray, or any etc.

What I believe will affect how I live or I really don’t believe it at all. I have had enough experience with the “Victorious Life” and “Higher Living” to know that Mrs. Smith was not a “fluke” regarding doctrine and practice.

Regarding well-known Calvinists who did wicked things, It is true, the actions of Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther regarding persecutions of other faiths troubles me and causes me to wonder at how they could be inconsistent. I do also recognize, the concept of a separated church and state was foreign to everyone at that time and it is pretty tough to emerge from the dark ages and let everything go at once. It saddens me that they erred so grievously, but that doesn’t negate the grievous nature of Keswick theology which emphasizes man’s ability to “let go” and “be happy” over God’s glorious supremacy.

There is something about writing a how-to x and the author failing to x that discredits the how-to. A “how-to” isn’t exactly the same thing as an “about.” It sort of assumes you have it figured out. But I do accept the observation that a how-to can still be true even though it’s author failed to achieve the books objective. You can know how-to and chose not to do it. But the credibility of the how-to is greatly weakened by not having the living example of its author(s).
It’s not a matter of “drawing theological conclusions,” so much as refraining from accepting the how-to author’s theological conclusions… and seeking a more credible source if one can be found.

Any Christian instruction that includes with it the word “Secret” ought to be a double red flag. The Bible is not a secret and no one has the inside track and selling a book or any material with terms like this only tells me the same thing when I see it outside of Christian publications, you’re selling tickets.

There is a hint of the gnostic in the whole “secret” thing. But usually folks just mean “something undiscovered or widely neglected.”