The last couple of days have been somewhat frustrating in the Twitterverse/Blogosphere. Bluntly put, someone who knows better has been saying very damaging and often innacurate things, in order to promote a conference. Dr John MacArthur, a well known bible teacher from America, is of the opinion (and this is a serious claim) that Charismatic worship and practice is not only wrong, but actively blasphemes the Holy Spirit, which the Bible teaches is an unforgivable sin (which makes sense, given that the Holy Spirit is God, so not acknowledging God as God would seem pretty unforgivable when salvation is given through relationship with God, as the Spirit calls us to rest in the finished work of the Son on the Cross, for the glory of the Father). The challenge then, is bold.
I was alerted to this conference (which, it must be said, seems to be a rather thinly veiled promo for MacArthur's forthcoming book of the same name [pictured above]) through Twitter, and read with interest the three sermons preached in antipcation. You can read/watch those here('Is Experience a Valid Test of Truth?'), here ('How should we Interpret the Bible?) and here ('Is God Still Revealing Truth?'). They aren't a particularly edifying read/listen/watch. MacArthur basically takes the worst excesses of some of the bits of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity and says that all of it is the same.
There are, on one level, so many false accusations and assumptions in this stuff that it is difficult to know where to begin. But I will select a few points and respond to them, in the theme of my 'Charismatic Clarity/Intelligently Supernatural' point of view.
- I -
Experience and Truth
"Charismatics, however, if they’re at all honest with themselves, have to acknowledge that their personal experience, not Scripture, is the foundation of the whole system. They want to give the Bible a high place. They carry around Bibles, they read Bibles. They don’t interpret them, necessarily. They read them, they are familiar with the surface of the Scriptures but the Bible itself, and Scripture itself rank second to experience in their system. Experience is the priority source of truth and the Bible is used to proof text those experiences"
The above quote from Dr MacArthur is a very good challenge to Charismatic Christians. If my theology is based on my experience, then it is just that, 'my' theology, and shouldn't claim to be a biblical or even necessarily Christian theology. Thankfully, in reality, Jesus-Loving, bible-believing, thinking Charismatics don't think like that. There are some that do, potentially many, but it is a gross over-generalisation. My friend Luke Geraty recently posted a list of 'Ten Books on Charismatic Theology' that demonstrates the biblical and theological foundations of a thought through Charismatic understanding of Christianity, and those sorts of books are as critical of Charismatic excess as they are of cessationist misinterpretation.
Personally, I came to my understanding of a Charismatic position via scriptural interpretation, and then sought a church which modelled that in a biblical way, which eventually led me to have some wonderful experiences. If pushed, I'd hope I am a biblically faithful thinking Christian, but that does not and should not exclude me (or anyone!) from being also someone who makes space for emotion and experience. Subject to scripture of course, but valid in its place. To answer MacArthur's challenge, yes, some people should acknowledge they put experience over scripture. BUT that is NOT true of all Charismatics. I would point to people like Terry Virgo, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, John and Eleanor Mumford, and many more, as faithful people who preach biblically and yet have a charismatic understanding.
- II -
How/Does God Speak Today?
"Now the answer of the Charismatic Movement is absolutely, God is still giving revelation. To make a simple analogy, as the Old Testament is incomplete without the New Testament, so the New Testament for Charismatics is incomplete without the subsequent revelation as the New Testament completes the Old Testament, so the continuing revelation completes the New Testament."
I was stunned when I read this. Lets backpedal a bit. I firmly believe that God, if he chooses, can speak today in an audible voice, or through pictures, images, and so on. I also believe that the Holy Spirit speaks always through Scripture, and I have a basic Reformed view of preaching. I do think that a lot of 'Charismatics' today do not understand what they mean by 'prophecy', and 'words'. I don't say that to be petty, it is just an observation that there is confusion. Prophecy, in the sense of a New Testament Gift (Rather than the Old Testament genre!) is different from a word of encouragement, a word of knowledge, or other ways we might think God is speaking.
There are people (including leaders, movements, churches, etc) who refer to themselves as Charismatic Christians who believe essentially wrong things about revelation and Scripture. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many of us who believe entirely normative things about Scripture! Just because I believe the Bible is the Word of God, doesn't mean I don't think God might direct me or others personally. Just because I believe God speaks today doesn't mean I abandon the authority of Scripture. Just because someone says 'thus saith the Lord' or 'GOD SAID', doesn't mean God did! I'm grateful in the Vineyard that we are encouraged, if we think God is speaking, to couch it in careful terms; 'I think God might be saying'. We are not claiming to be living, walking bibles!
In the sermon I draw this quote from, Dr MacArthur goes on to make some brilliantly funny errors, that inform me (as someone in the 'Charismatic movement') that I am apparently led by people like Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, the New Apostolic Reformation, Kenneth Copeland and so on. Now I am perhaps a more generous Calvinist than MacArthur here - I think God is big enough and gracious enough to save people who have taught error and falsehood - but it is ludicrous, as Dr MacArthur does, to lump every Charismatic in with the more extreme versions. I don't subscribe to the Prosperity Gospel, and neither does anyone I know. I would be interested to know if Dr MacArthur has read 'The Quest for the Radical Middle', a history of the Vineyard Movement, which humbly shares the mistakes that a particularly Charismatic movement has made, but also sets the record straight in terms of discernment over false prophets, etc.
- III -
Healing - The Now and the Not Yet
The Strange Fire Conference had a powerful speaker in the form of Joni Eareckson Tada. You can read Tim Challies report of her session here. Joni is well known as a speaker and evangelist, not least because after an accident in her youth, she has lived as a quadriplegic, paralysed from the waist down. Her life story and ministry is, in my mind, a wonderful testimony to a sovereign God of grace, who uses broken people in remarkable ways.
Unfortunately, she was presented at Strange Fire as a whizz-bang answer to the Charismatic theology of healing. The argument is simple: Charismatics believe that everyone gets healed, Joni hasn't been, therefore Charismatics are wrong.
This is a terrible argument, not least because that isn't what the Bible teaches about healing, but contextually because it isn't what 'Charismatics' believe! MacArthur and co are attacking a straw man, a Charismatic movement that doesn't exactly exist. As I've said before, there are plenty who do believe this kind of thing - but I think they are wrong! In the Vineyard, because our movement is theologically rooted, we have theology of the 'Now and Not Yet' of the Kingdom of God. Sometimes God heals, to demosntrate his power. Other times, simply, he doesn't. I am immensely grateful to God for the ministry of Joni Tada, who God has clearly used mightily. Yet she hasn't been healed. With my Vineyard perspective, this isn't the end of the world. It isn't easy, either, but it makes sense within the framework of the Kingdom of God being announced and inaugurated by Jesus, but not fully here until he comes back. Within that framework is the basic Christian teaching that you are saved now, by what Jesus did on the Cross, but you won't be fully sanctified, etc, till heaven.
People who critique 'Charismatics' for our theology need to actually look at who teaches what. There are those who teach dangerous Doctrine regarding healing, but they also have other errors, which contribute to this error in particular. Christianity is about following Jesus, and living in the tension of the Kingdom of God, and proclaiming Good News to captives. And other things.
- IV -
Closing Observations.
I've briefly looked at three challenges that Dr MacArthur makes in the context of this 'Strange Fire' conference, and sought to bring a little 'Charismatic Clarity' to the issues. I want to close this post with a few observations that sadden me slightly.
The first is that Dr MacArthur has been referring to a nebulous 'Charismatic Movement', and naming people. This is fine - except some of the people he names are dead, they were rarely in a 'movement' in a formal sense, and they don't represent the best parts of Charismatic Christianity. I've mentioned above a few names of people whose value of Scripture, and humility in interpretation, lead them to Charismatic understandings. And they wouldn't be a 'movement' either! The Strange Fire is indeed strange - largely because the thing being attacked is a compilation CD that no-one is actually playing, and doesn't really even exist! Christians should denounce false teaching, and we should denounce excess of all kinds in our own Church families, but I think the 'Strange Fire' thing goes beyond that.
Secondly, for a man so well known as an expositor, the 'sermons' in the run up to Strange Fire were not very expository. To me they read like bad Wikipedia articles, with the frustrating proof-texting taking place that MacArthur usually condemns! It is sad that the method of criticism is so out of sync with a ministry usually so careful to do that well.
Thirdly, and I personally find it amusing that I recently posted a blog on John Calvin as a Great Theologian, are the appeals to experience and extra-biblical authority in order to make a point. I am wary of criticising Joni Tada, but it seems that her role at the conference is essentially to show that some peoples experience is different from Charismatic experience. To that I say AMEN, and refer readers to my above comments, about the Now and Not Yet of the Kingdom of God. As my friend Edward Green (A Thomist Anglo-Catholic Charismatic Anglican Priest, no less!) puts it well in his blog, the conference crosses a line. Dr Steve Lawson attacks those of us (I'm TOTALLY one!) who are 'Charismatic Calvinists/Calvinist Charismatics', and tells us we are wrong because Calvin was a cessationist. This instantly shoots itself in the foot - Calvin would have hated to have been appealed to as an authority above the Bible. History has an interesting part to play in this debate, to be sure, but the fact that Calvin was a cessationist in terms of miracles does not mean that we have to slavishly follow his theology by the letter to be Reformed. For me, my Calvin-esque belief in the Soveriegnty of God is the pillow on which I rest my Charismatic beliefs. God is King, and I don't want to limit him!
You can probably see that I am bemused, angered, and slightly frustrated with the 'Strange Fire' thing. I will be sure to read and review the book when it comes out, but in the meantime I will be posting my review of MacArthurs old book, 'Charismatic Chaos', to fill the gaps. Look out for more posts along this 'Charismatic Clarity' line soon.
Old book, new book. Same old stuff...
_______________________________________
Thanks for reading! I'd love you to connect with me via Twitter or Facebook. You might also enjoy other posts in this rough series on 'Charismatic Clarity', including one on C.S.Lewis... I would direct you, too, to a Guest Post on 'Misrepresenting the Vineyard', where the aforementioned Luke Geraty delves into some of the issues I've been discussing above.
Out of the park, Thomas.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Adam*
Delete*assuming you are referring to the positive baseball expression, rather than pronouncing a rather stern verdict on me...
A great inquiry. At the risk of sounding a bit negative myself, I will offer what I understand of the issue. As one who aligns fairly closely to Jack Hayford, I have listened to this line of reasoning since the first edition of *Charismatic Chaos.* At one time, I recommended it to students to read, so that we could have a discussion of what was healthy and what was not in worship.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that I find extremely enlightening is to ask what is the worldview or theological assumptions that underlie someone’s assertions. Assumptions, precepts, are often more controlling than any exegesis or logic. Dr. MacArthur is a proponent of a very specific theological tradition (or worldview), the Modern, rationalist Old Princeton theology chiefly embodied in the work of B. B. Warfield. While Warfield did not invent cessationsim, he made a powerful argument for it in his book Counterfeit Miracles. Warfield was troubled by the Roman Catholic claims of miracles associated with Marian devotion at sites such as Lourdes, France, and Fatima, Portugal. He also rejected the late 19th century healing revival, because his tradition never accepted any 19th century revival, and perhaps because his wife was an invalid for decades. In any case, Warfield concluded that, since Christian miracles ceased with the death of the Apostles of Christ, any “miracle” today was a demonic working. MacArthur is simply carrying this very questionable theology forward as the flag-carrier for his tradition.
This rationale was used to throw early Pentecostals out of Baptist and Bible Church denominations in what became a rancorous battle that hardened positions on both sides. It is still touted by some, although fewer and fewer Evangelicals do so today, and that is part of the reason why MacArthur is rancorous now. I think part of it may be anger that the theology that he holds dear as THE only and only legitimate way to understand the Scripture is being abandoned on all sides. Most Evangelicals (outside of North America, which means most Evangelicals by far) are beginning to accept the continuation of the gifts and miracles of the Holy Spirit (even some Baptists here are now “concentric cessationists;” miracles can still happen on the mission field). Even more Evangelicals have abandoned the Modern worldview based theology of Hodge and Warfield for “post-modern,” or “post-conservative,” or just less-Modern theologies (e.g. Roger E. Olson). And let us not forget that many Baptists have rejected MacArthur’s “lordship salvation” message (see, for example, the writings of Zane Hodges).
I have seen more than one church leader start snarling and snapping when their back is against the wall. MacArthur was not always so very, very negative back in the 80s. He was a cessationists, and was horrified by some of the practices which he heard about, but he seemed to play nice and dialoged with some Pentecostals like Jack Hayford. But now, with fewer adherents to Warfield’s view that miracles are demonic, and Old Princeton theology finding fewer and fewer adherents, I think that he has painted himself into a corner and is a little desperate about the state of his school of theology. Or perhaps this is a legacy issue. Unfortunately, leaders in the Church are not immune from wanting statues raised to them when they pass; “legacy” can breed insanity, or at least, the loss of humility..
James, thankyou for this comment - I think you hit the nail on the head.
DeleteMy observation regarding 'concentric cessationists', I think, hits the nail on the head. Certainly the very conservative church I grew up in was delighted in the miraculous stories from overseas, but wouldn't pray that way at home.
The irony is, actually, I would see myself and 'classic' Vineyard Charismatics as inheritors of that old Princeton Theology - certainly those of us who are 'Reformed' or 'Cavlinist' in addition to 'Charismatic'.
I think the sad thing is that many younger charismatic evangelicals will now ignore the good in that Old Princetonian tradition - I have found Warfield very helfpul, though not perhaps on this issue!
thanks again for the comment - some great things to think about.
I appreciate the Reformed tradition, and I have read a considerable amount of Warfield with profit. However, I have come to understand that a lot of the Modern assumptions that Warfield makes are the enemy of the faith once one follows the logic. I think many of us read such teachers from our own context and so miss (avoid?) going down the path that the teachers actually inttend. If you follow Warfield's logic, one cannot be Charismatic, nor even Reformed in the sense that Calvin and Luther were (IMHO).
DeleteInteresting - I'm in tension over the modern/not modern thing at the moment. I'm unconvinced by ltos of things, and love how the Reformed tradition exposits scripture.
DeleteWith Warfield, I think its a case of sifting and recognising the good!
Yes, there are indeed good things in Warfield and Hodge, just as in much of Edwards and even (for me) Owens. Just as there are things in Aquinas that both Luther and Calvin honored. As a Classical (ie not Wesleyan) Arminian I much prefer Calvin over many of his followers. Tell me, do you prefer Warfield over, say, Bavink? Does the Dutch tradition have any appeal? J. Arminius considered himself a Dutch Calvinist, you know.
DeleteIndeed. A friend wrote a great post from an Anglo-Catholic Charismatic perspective with some Aquinas and Augustine in!
DeleteI do like Warfield, in terms of Dutch calvinism I have got and read some Bavinck, and am currently a pretty big fan of Abraham Kuyper...
This is a very helpful blog, Admiral Creedy.
ReplyDeleteAs you pointed out, the historical appeal to Calvin is almost unthinkable because Calvin would, as you stated, want to bring it back to Scripture. Plus, since he spoke in tongues, he probably wouldn't be as hardline as some of these Calvinists seem to think he is. It's funny how everyone tries to claim certain theologians as their own (e.g., C.S. Lewis). Hmm. Questionable.
But I love your blog here. It's fantastic.
Hi Unknown, thanks for the comment!
DeleteIt is sad when we resort to unbiblical practices, and this conference seems very sad to me.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Well said!
ReplyDeleteThanks Tondy!
DeleteThomas, what mystifies me most is that MacArthur has worked and interacted with some of the people you mention under (1) with apparent respect. To tar everyone with the same brush looks like either very poor judgement, or book promotion by straw-man controversy. I hope I'm wrong. I honestly don't know what to make of this.
ReplyDeleteOf course all the problems that MacArthur identifies are present in some charismatic circles, but, in the interest of Christian charity and unity (not exactly secondary matters), we must not judge Baptists by Westboro, Anglicanism by ECUSA, or charismatic Christianity by Todd Bentley.
Hi Peter, thanks for the comment!
DeleteI think you hit the nail on the head - unfortunately - and it really is very sad. Dr. MacArthur can sometimes be a helpful corrective voice (for example he was one of few to raise concerns about Driscoll in the early years) but I think he's gone too far.
And you are absolutely right - there IS excess, and its up to those of us 'in' the Charismatic family to correct it, I think. That is partly why I've been writing these 'Charismatic Clarity' posts.
And thank God that ECUSA doesn't represent Anglcanism :) (though there is a brilliant bishop called Greg Brewer on Twitter...)
Great post, and great defense of Bible believing, theologically sound Charismatic Christians. From someone who has studied Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity, I find it peculiar that someone who apparently has a doctorate would be so unsystematic in his approach to Charismatic theology! If his item was a marked undergraduate academic essay at a University, I feel it would return some bad marks for poor/very selective methodology and data.
ReplyDeleteJames
Hey James, thanks for the comment!
DeleteLove your observation - I think its very true, and explains why Dr MacArthur runs his own seminary. We wouldn't want people thinking critically... But seriously, I think you hit the nail on the head. Strange Fire seems to be very selective and methodologically terrible.