Have you noticed the rise in psychic “hotlines” and TV shows nowadays? Five years ago, it would have been difficult to find even a psychic commercial on TV. Now, there are several half-hour infomercials, aired almost round the clock.
Have you also noticed New Age music cropping up here and there, not to mention the infiltration of Eastern Mysticism into the West, and increased UFO sightings (not to mention TV programs about them)? How about the rise of “what’s in it for me” attitudes, a morality of convenience, and a market-driven society (i.e., making a living as an end in itself)? While we’re at it, we could add the increasing denial of absolute truth by most Americans–even though a large proportion claim to be evangelical Christians, the prioritizing of relevance over truth, of pragmatics over knowledge, of feelings over beliefs. Al Franken, of Saturday Night Live fame, some years ago epitomized what we are seeing with his self-serving commentary (he humorously suggested that this decade should be labeled the “Al Franken” decade).
A New Kind of Charismatic
Part and parcel of this phenomenon is the rising popularity of charismatic Christianity–especially among those who had never been attracted to the charismatic movement before. Specifically, the Pentecostal/charismatic movement historically has roots in Wesleyan theology and practice. In other words, it has historically been associated with Arminian theology. The reason for this is not immediately obvious, but can be seen through a variety of connections. Arminianism teaches, among other things, that a person once saved can lose his salvation. Hence, Arminians put a strong emphasis on moral duty, as well as spiritual experiences, as the continued confirmation that one is still saved. It is a natural extension from this stance that the test by which a person knows he is saved is various manifestations of the Spirit. Thus the craving for supernatural experiences is both endemic to the charismatic mindset and necessary as continued confirmation of salvation.
But this craving for confirmation is not the motivation of many who have become charismatics in the last few years. Indeed, what is unusual about the current popularity of the charismatic movement, principally the Vineyard form, is that has attracted many Calvinists as well as many well-trained scholars. Every year at the Evangelical Theological Society meetings1 I learn of a few more professors of theology who have joined the ranks of the Vineyard movement. Often, the response of colleagues when they find out about one these theologians is one of astonishment: “No! Not him! I never would have expected him to become a charismatic!”
Cognitive Christianity and the Impoverished Soul
Why are scholars suddenly becoming charismatics? What has happened in the last few years to attract the intelligentsia to this group?
We can give both a short answer and a long one. The short answer is that many Christian scholars have for a long time embraced a Christianity that is almost exclusively “from the neck up.” That is, theirs is a cognitive faith, one where reason reigns supreme. They are usually fine exegetes and theologians, able to defend the faith and articulate their views in a coherent, biblical, profound, and logical way. But (without naming names) many of these savants have lost their love for Christ. They love the Bible and know it inside and out. But their soul has become impoverished. They love God with their mind only; that is the extent of their spiritual obligation as they see it. In fact, for them, personal experience–especially of a charismatic sort–is anathema. It has no place in the Christian life. Study of the Bible so that they can control the text is what the Christian life is all about.
But when crisis comes–such as the death of a loved one, a teenage daughter’s pregnancy, or some major upheaval in their church ministries–their answers appear shallow and contrived, both to others and themselves. They have the inability to hurt with the hurting, though they know all the right verses on suffering! They begin to search for answers themselves, answers of an entirely different sort. Often, in the crucible of the crisis, they attend a charismatic meeting. And there, a “prophet” reveals something about their life. They are both amazed at the prophecy and deeply touched at the perception into their own condition. (Of course, cognitive types almost always marvel when other, more sensitive people, intuitively recognize traits and characteristics, internal workings and struggles in others.) Their souls get drenched with an emotional infusion that had been quenched for too long. It doesn’t take long before they hold hands with those whom they used to oppose, even to the point of now leading charismatic groups. They in fact become the theologians of a new breed of charismatic, giving a rather sophisticated rationale for charismata. In the process, they have gone through a paradigm shift: their final authority is no longer reasoning about the Scriptures; now it is personal experience.
Because of a crisis, personal, spiritual experience has replaced reason as the authority that guides their lives. They have exchanged, in some measure, their heart for their mind.2 That’s the short answer.
The Age of Epistemological Narcissism
The long answer is this. The history of the Church and indeed of western civilization, in terms of authority, can be traced out rather simply.3 Before the Reformation, tradition was the final authority. This included the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and all its trappings. When that pesky little German monk, Martin Luther, nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the Wittenberg church, a new authority was boldly announced: revelation. Actually, it was an old authority, but one which Luther and later Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and a host of others, argued had been subverted to tradition by the Church in Rome. The Reformation’s battle cry was sola scriptura–that is, Scripture alone is our authority. The Roman Church argued that we needed tradition, especially the interpretations offered by church fathers, in order to understand Scripture. This was so, they argued, because the Bible could not be easily grasped. The Reformers argued for the perspicuity of Scripture–that it was sufficiently clear to be a good guide in essential matters, such as the person of Christ, the Trinity, salvation. In order to prove the point they needed to exercise reason. New hermeneutical methods were developed, translations were made, commentaries were written. All of this was consistent with the view that the Bible should be clearly understood. The Reformers knew it to be so in their study; they wanted to make it so for the person in the pew.
As long as reason was the handmaid of revelation, there was no problem. But once reason became master, revelation was increasingly viewed as unnecessary and, in fact, untrue. With the birth of the Enlightenment came the promise of a new king. He would soon reign over virtually all human thought in the western world.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Enlightenment had so captured the evangelical community that the Bible became more an object of study than a guide to life. Seminaries in this century followed largely the Princeton model (a strongly Calvinist school) of reasoning about the Scriptures. Pastors were trained to expound the text of Scripture–and this came to mean explain the text, but not apply the text. Too many seminaries viewed one’s exegetical and theological skills as the lone spiritual barometer. There was no accountability of one’s life. Whether one believed the Bible and consequently tried to shape his life by its precepts was often not in view.
The problem with this model was that non-evangelical scholars could also do first-rate exegesis. Many of these non-evangelical savants would be considered nonbelievers: besides rejecting the Bible as the Word of God, they did not embrace the bodily resurrection of Christ or, sometimes, even the existence of God. Hence, if quality exegesis was an indicator of spirituality, then an atheist might be considered spiritual! The barometer of mere knowledge obviously has its defects, for without belief there is no life. Cognition is important for true biblical scholarship; but without conversion as a first step, such is certainly not evangelical biblical scholarship. Further, this approach trickled down to the pew: for many churches, even today, mere Bible knowledge, regardless of its application to one’s life, is equated with true spirituality. Reason has come to reign over revelation even for evangelicals.
With the advent of postmodernism, reason has increasingly become passé. It’s not necessarily that reason is rejected as untrue; rather, it is judged to be irrelevant. So what authority is left? What authority remains after tradition, revelation, and reason have all been abandoned? Personal experience. Ours is the age of epistemological narcissism. This is no longer the age of cogito ergo sum (“I think; therefore, I am”—the hallmark of Cartesian logic); it has become the age of sentio ergo sum (“I feel; therefore, I am”). And since there are no external standards by which to judge personal experience (since other authorities are rejected), anything goes–whether it be sensuality or hallucinogenic existence, full-blown mysticism or an uncritical embracing of supernatural phenomena from any and all corners.
So, how does the current charismatic movement fit into this? Why are so many intellectuals embracing the charismata? It seems that the vacuum left in their souls by a rationalistic faith has made them ripe for a different kind of authority. As sons of the Enlightenment, these cognitive scholars have embraced reason as the supreme authority in their lives. But the rationalism of the Enlightenment is, when unbridled, antithetical to revelation. These scholars viewed personal experience as the enemy of the gospel, while embracing reason as its friend. But when some crisis invades their lives, and their purely cognitive faith cannot supply the deepest answers (for it does not address the whole man), they have to find the answers some place. And they look to an entirely different authority. They are ripe for excess in one area, just as they had lived in excess in another. Ironically, they end up mirroring the present age of postmodernism, just as they had mirrored the past one of rationalism.
In reality, both personal experience and reason are part of proper human existence. Like fire, they can be used for good or evil. When they take on the role of supreme authority, consciously or not, they destroy.4 “I know” and “I feel” must bow to “I believe.” (When either one is elevated above revelation it produces arrogance.) The cognitive content of that belief is the revealed Word of God. It requires diligent study to grasp its meaning as fully as mere humans can grasp it. But it will not be believed unless there is a personal experience with the Risen One. Thus, the trilogy of authority can be seen this way: both personal experience and reason are vital means to accessing revelation. We are to embrace Christ, as revealed in the Word, with mind and heart.5 When either reason or experience attempts to escape the supreme sovereignty of the revealed Christ, the individual believer starts down a path of imbalance. Tragically, his service to the Lord Christ is thereby increasingly curtailed.6
1 The Evangelical Theological Society is a group of evangelical leaders, principally professors at seminaries and evangelical colleges. Full membership requires subscription to a minimal core of doctrines and a Th.M. (Master of Theology) degree or its equivalent.
2 This does not mean that these scholars no longer use their brains! But it does mean, for many of them, that reason is subordinated to personal experience in an epistemological hierarchy.
3 I owe the framework of the “long answer” to Dr. Bob Pyne, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary. He is not to be blamed for the details, however!
4 Most charismatics today would argue that their personal experiences are fully subordinate to revelation. But most cognitive Christians would also argue that reason for them is subordinate to revelation.
5 Thus far I have left tradition out of the equation. This is, however, something of an overstatement. In reality, most of us employ tradition as a conduit to another authority. Often we are unaware of the tradition’s influence. Those in Bible churches worship in a way quite different from those in more liturgical settings; Koreans worship in a way that is markedly different from African-Americans. And a given group may tacitly assume that somehow its worship style is the right one, or that others are wrong because they are different. The difference between evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics with reference to tradition is that evangelical Protestants generally feel more at liberty (and more responsible) to question their tradition, and to change it in line with what they perceive is the biblical norm. In other words, they are able, when it is brought to the conscious level, to subordinate tradition to revelation.
6 You will notice that I have not in this blog given any arguments against the charismatic movement. This blog is instead intended to set the stage, giving a rationale for why so many are flocking toward this kind of Christianity.
150 replies to "Charismata and the Authority of Personal Experience"
What amazes me too is the rise of all the “Ghost hunter” shows (not to mention how much I watch them!)
Absolutely outstanding article. The idea of the “neck up faith” and simply quoting scripture to those in pain hit me at my core. I felt totally convicted of this. It is important to know scripture, but more important to put its lesson into action in our own lives. LOVE this article. I will be reposing it on my blog, with my thoughts on it as well.
God bless.
-Neil
Dan,
Thanks for a thoughtful look at the extremes that seem to be becoming more prominent in the modern day church.
You have described my journey from an SBC church to hyper-charismaticism, and then back again, and the reason for it. The problem is finding proper balance between good Bible based teaching and the hands on compassion of Christ in the church nowadays. Thankfully, we have found just such a place.
However, it seems in our area a pastor who can exegete properly in the pulpit, and also provide practical pastoral care to the flock has become the exception rather than the norm, sadly. For the most part there is no middle ground.
I am curious as to how you see this being able to change through modern day seminary training, (if it can be done that way), or even accomplished through personal counseling for would-be minsters to make sure they are putting first things first. Also, with church leaders becoming more like CEO’s, as administrative demands upon them increase, what do you see as a middle ground practical solution?
Do you completely discount the possibility that it is exactly because Calvinist believe that we should be submitted to what the Bible says that inevitable drives us toward Charismaticism? Have you ever attempted to preach exegetically through 1 Cor 12? It’s incredible difficult to come out on the other side of that not convinced that the church should not only see the gifts of the Spirit working i our lives but to earnestly desire that the gifts work even more in our lives and in the ministry of the church.
The same careful study of scripture caused me to be a Calvinist, informed my eschatology and led me to be a Charismatic.
[…] Wallace has an intriguing post on “Charismata and the Authority of Personal Experience.” Apparently, there is an increasing number of scholars who are embracing the charismatic movement. […]
Still, consider the excesses of a neck-DOWN faith. All body and heart, but no mind; a headless, mindless body.
You rightly say that it has to be a balance. But I find in my experience, that the average believer is not too rational, but just the opposite. The most common failure by far, among believers, is not too much reason, but the opposite of that.
If scholars are “guilty” of presenting too much reason, it is no doubt in an effort to counterbalance the massive imbalance we see in ordinary churches.
“Come, let us reason together”; the “heart” is often “deceived” or false.
I would agree that we need to balance reason and emotion and the final authority must be Scripture. But I think it is simplistic to write off every issue involving charisma as reason versus feeling. As one of those Charismatic Calvinists I believe one of the key issues is that we tend to dismiss the supernatural due to living in a materialistic age. This is not just a question of feeling versus reason but of what God actually does or will do.
Interesting post, with some intriguing insights. I think it would be helpful to distinguish between the Charismatic Movement and pastors/scholars who believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts such as tongues, prophecy, etc. There is an incredibly large number of churches and pastors who are non-cessationist but who do not fit at all into what we usually think of as the “charismatic movement.” Many leaders, from a wide range of denominations and traditions, have become (rightly or wrongly) convinced through exegetical study that we cannot rule out the continuing nature of these gifts. They are thus cautiously open to their usage—within biblical parameters—but are not seeking sensational manifestations of God’s power or presence.
I would characterize myself as a post-Pentecostal. I still believe in the perpetuity of these gifts, but in spite of my experiences not because of them! Don Carson is a good example of a scholar who teaches the perpetuity of gifts such as tongues and prophecy—but I wouldn’t characterize him as part of the Charismatic Movement!
[…] did that happen? This post at Parchment and Pen notes a changing attitude toward study of the Bible over the course of church […]
Wow, was the introduction to this post lifted from some John MacArthur book from the early 90’s? Psychic hotlines, creepy New Age music (boo!), and Arminians losing their salvation all the time…uh huh.
So all these smart buddies of yours who suddenly went charismatic were clearly “…ripe for excess in one area, just as they had lived in excess in another. Ironically, they end up mirroring the present age of postmodernism, just as they had mirrored the past one of rationalism.”
Perhaps, but what if, instead of completely throwing their rationalism in the garbage in exchange for a ticket on the miracle-chaser bus, they have only tempered their scholarly Christianity with (dare I say) a legitimate take on it from another angle they had, up until then, successfully insulated themselves from?
You say their cognitive faith does not address the whole man. Indeed. Neither does much of charismatic Christianity, which is why intellectual-types (like you, I, and probably everyone else who reads this blog) find it pretty obnoxious at times. Nevetheless, I think this explanation assumes the very worst about these converts. Poor saps abandoning all this good stuff in exchange for making personal experience king! I personally know enough folks that don’t fit this description to make me think there are more dimensions to consider.
I think the question is excellent – why have some really smart Calvinists been giving up their cessationism lately? I think it’s pretty clear were you are going with this discussion (despite your last footnote). That’s fine. I’d love to hear some other avenues explored though, by someone (Michael?). 🙂
Dr. Wallace,
You wrote: Arminianism teaches, among other things, that a person once saved can lose his salvation.
I would consider myself Wesleyan and Arminian, but certainly would not hold to the view that a believer could “lose” his/her salvation. I know several other Arminians but not one of them would believe you can lose your salvation.
Is that still held by most Arminians today, or is this a statement about the early Reformation Arminians?
CQ
Dan,
I must say that your understanding of the charismatic movement is a horrible caricature.
This supposed exposé of the charismatic movement would only work on someone who has never tried to view charismatic theology from within. The over-the-top rhetorical association of charismatics with UFOlogy and psychic “hotlines” is ludicrous, and so is the attempt to account for the rise of the charismatic movement as parallel to those ideas. The insinuation that charismatic theology’s gains come from the present turn to postmodernism, and a willingness to embrace “sensuality or hallucinogenic existence, full-blown mysticism or an uncritical embracing of supernatural phenomena from any and all corners” is just as ridiculous.
I have never met anyone who thought that manifestations of the spirit served as confirmations of salvation. You also seem to think that present-day Arminians think of salvation as something overly fragile, which isn’t at all accurate.
BTW, I was fascinated with your reconstruction of a typical encounter with prophecy: “Often, in the crucible of the crisis, they attend a charismatic meeting. And there, a ‘prophet’ reveals something about their life. They are both amazed at the prophecy and deeply touched at the perception into their own condition.” What I find so fascinating about this reconstruction is that it exactly parallels what Paul says (in 1 Corinthians 14) happens when one prophesies in church in the presence of those not used to such things. Did you catch the similarity?
You ask, “What has happened in the last few years to attract the intelligentsia to this group?” I would like to offer a different answer from yours: there has been a real turn, among Evangelicals, toward an honest reading of Scripture, and that has exposed some of the pat cessationist readings of certain passages (esp. 1 Corinthians 13) as riddled with errors. The rightness or wrongness of charismatic theology should come down to questions of…
The last two words of the previous post, which were cut off, are supposed to be “proper exegesis”.
This webpage says that 3000 characters will be allowed, but it appears to trim one’s responses to 2000 characters.
John,
I think you have misunderstood Dan’s introduction and thesis here. There is a sensationalistic bent to our current culture. Charismatics are often associated with this sensationalism, and they certianly have their guilty members, as all would admit. These “intellectual Charismatics” (as I have called them in another post: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/10/the-intellectual-rise-of-the-charismatics/), cannot be identified with this more sensationalistic wing. There is simply more respect today for continuationalists and a newfound acceptance among Evangelical scholars. These scholars are not going for the Benny Hinn-UFO type of sensationalism, but searching for a true movement of the Spirit that, as Dan has said, may be lacking in some ivory tower adademics.
I think that your response here was a bit defensive, but interesting. I do think that many Evangelicals are moving away from their former presuppositions which did not allow the to entertain a charismatic worldview. I certainly have. However, I would certianly not say that a charismatic interpretation of the Scriptures is a slam dunk!
As well, you must know how loaded the term “charismatic” truly is. Who knows what we really mean?
I have written a series on this subject not too long ago on this blog: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/why-i-am-not-charismatic-part-8-i-am-a-de-facto-cessationist/.
John,
I agree with CMP that your response was over the top. I don’t think Prof. Wallace was trying to make a one for one correlation between charismatics and UFO’s or postmodernism. He was simply providing context for the culture in which charismaticism has arisen and to that extent I think he is right. The rise of charismatics has largely taken place in a culture which places great value on personal experience, often to the exclusion of more intellectual pursuits. This article to me was about the need for balance. Placing too much emphasis on experience alone is a very dangerous thing, as is being an ivory tower academic. It’s just in our culture the former tends to be more of a danger then the latter which is why many more traditional Christians are skeptical about the charismatic movement and leery of where it “may” lead us.
Like CMP I consider myself a de facto cessationist, but I have friends who are charismatics and have gone to charismatic churches on numerous occasions. I have nothing against it directly. I am just skeptical and sometimes a bit concerned about the emphasis on experience.
Michael, the first thing I thought of while reading was you and the “ghost hunter” type shows. Then I saw your comment and laughed out loud!
Funny thing is that in my world, I see far less emphasis on the “sign” gifts than I used to. I actually checked to see if this was a re-post of something old that got lost in one of the crashes. I used to see the psychic hotline shows on the tube, but haven’t in quite a while. (Maybe Dan is watching too much late night TV? Turn it off after the Simpsons and go to bed!) I’d wonder if it could be a regional thing, but I’m in SoCal.
In my area it seems like the Pentecostal/charismatic churches are shrinking.
Interesting post. I’m curious about how the UFO sightings factor in.
John C. Poirier:
Dr. Daniel Wallace is no stranger to Charismatic Christianity. He writes about his personal experiences in one of his finest (IMO) essays (a talk, actually):
http://bible.org/article/uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical
We shouldn’t discount our experience. But we shouldn’t trust in it, either.
The devil is more than capable of showing up anywhere, anytime as an “angel of light”.
The Word and the Sacraments (visable Word) are all we can really trust in, absolutely.
This actually was already posted on Bible.org some time ago.
Cornell You wrote: Arminianism teaches, among other things, that a person once saved can lose his salvation.
I would consider myself Wesleyan and Arminian, but certainly would not hold to the view that a believer could “lose” his/her salvation. I know several other Arminians but not one of them would believe you can lose your salvation.
Is that still held by most Arminians today, or is this a statement about the early Reformation Arminians?
I am Arminian, and I think people can lose their salvation (for want of a better term), as do many other Arminians. Here is a statement of Arminian belief, note that Security allows for either view.
*****
John C. Poirier, I hold to Charismatic theology but did not find Dan’s post insulting.
I guess I saw the intro as stating there has been a general increase in interest of things spiritual, not that Charismatics are New Age. This is probably the case in the West, I am not certain it is a bad thing? Perhaps, but are the evils such as narcissism, pleasure-lust, or atheism worse than non-Christan spiritualisms? CS Lewis thought it easier to convert the Pagan than the Rationalist.
I went to the Bible.org link provided. It seems that Dr. Wallace might be judging charismatics through his experience with some of the nuttier ones out there.
Unfortunately, there was very little there in the way of actual theology or exegesis of Scripture. For example, Wallace provides no support for his claim that the charisms were “sign gifts”. This seems to be something that cessationists take for granted, but where is the scriptural evidence?
Is there somewhere else I can go where Wallace provides scriptural backing for his views? (In the Bible.org piece, he seems to base his views on experience!)
Dan,
Interesting perspective. Could it not be that a number of evangelicals are looking for something “more real” in their Christian life. Many evangelicals simply interact with a book not the person whom the book is supposed to reveal. They realize that they need a God who acts now not just one who acted in the pages of an ancient book. I think they intuitively long for a “deeper” experience and so the Vineyard movement offers an alternative to their dry, academic, spiritual life.
Here is an interesting contrast for you. A former colleague and I were both on the staff of a very conservative evangelical church. Both of us sensed that there had to be more to the Christian experience or it was not real. One of us went into the Vineyard movement and one of us left the faith altogether becoming an agnostic.
Ken
Regarding the charistmatic vs. the agnotic: which one made the right choice? In a way, there is an odd similarity between the two; charismatics are also dissatisfied with the idea that we really know God through conventional churches and theology.
In any case, I think that Dan probably does almost lump together Charismatics and Emergant Church and ghost-whisperer folks. Though there is a common thread in them; in their desire to go beyond staid theology, to find some kind of authentic new personal/emotional tie to God.
And I also think Dan’s major point here is good: that there are excesses on both sides. You can be too staid and academic; you can also be too emotional and personal and subjective.
Ultimately Dan seems to be for “balance.” He is not really attacking charismatics, (though he self-depricatingly caricatures their excesses?) and even ghost whisperers. He is even allowing that they do have some good ideas; that can help balance out the excessive dryness of academics.
While hinting too however, that some discipline and conventional theology, a little Reason, might tone down potential excesses and abuses here.
Ken Pulliam:
So, how is your former colleague’s experience of the Vineyard working out?
Eric,
He believes that he has found the genuine article. I have asked him to read the post by Dan and comment, I think it would be an interesting dialogue. He, of course, thinks that I have thrown the baby out with the bathwater .
BTW, both of us have seminary degrees and spent considerable time in conservative evangelicalism (very similar to the theological position of Dallas Seminary).
Ken
Has your friend read The Quest for the Radical Middle, a very good book on the history of the Vineyard Movement? (FWIW, I had many years of involvement with Vineyard churches and teachings, including the Kansas City Prophets, Toronto Blessing, Mike Bickle’s church, read Wimber’s, Jack Deere’s and others’ books, saw/heard Wimber speak, etc.) I’m curious how the Vineyard is these days now that Wimber is gone. I’m not sure there’s as much to distinguish it from all the many other non-denom churches these days. There was a small Vineyard not far from us that we attended briefly a few years ago, but it’s apparently no longer there.
Interesting article. It is quite interesting to consider how many theologically minded scholars are moving into Pentecostal, charismatic and neo-charismatic (Third-Wave) church circles.
A colleague (who graduated from DTS) and I (graduated from Covenant Seminary) have started a blog-resource site entitled To Be Continued (you can find it at http://www.continuationism.com). It was created as a resource providing a solid biblical and theological case of continuationism.
I hope it is of interest to people. (Eric, we’d love your continued interaction).
Scott,
I think you are right to expect miraculous gifts today. If they occurred in the NT, why shouldn’t they occur today? All of the arguments for cessation that I learned in grad school seem to be either exegetically unsound or just plain ad hoc .
However, I don’t see or hear about any miracles today from the Vineyard churches, the Charismatics or the old line Pentecostals that seem to be anywhere close to the types of miracles recorded in the book of Acts. If I were to see those kinds of miracles, I would be impressed.
How do you explain the fact that the “miracles” today are so far less impressive than the book of Acts “miracles”? (BTW, I don’t believe in either).
Ken
Ken –
I think the same miracles, gifts of the Spirit, etc, of Acts are happening today and have always been happening. I’ve seen them, my friends have continually been involved with them, I read about them. Some stuff is over-embellishment, but there are real things happening all the time. So, I believe what I read in Acts is still alive and well because the same Spirit is alive and well. Might sound a cop-out, but I really do think we can boil it down to that in the end.
But, I will say that, by no means do I want to make the P & P comment boxes a place to take over the conversation. Maybe you can interact with our articles on To Be Continued.
Scott,
Thanks. I will take a look. So you have seen people raised from the dead (Acts 9:39-42)? You have seen adults who have never walked, suddenly able to walk (Acts 3:1-8)?
Ken
I think we need to be careful of stereotyping people we disagree with. I am a Calvinism because I am convinced the the Scripture taken in a straightforward way teaches God chooses who will be saved. (I am aware of the intellectual problems with other teachings of Scripture teachings but still conclude it is what the Bible teaches. I am a Charismatic, though I will admit a rather moderate one because I do not believe the arguments that certain spiritual gifts have passed away holds up Scripturally. I am unaware of either decision being a result of a desire to follow reason or feelings rather than Scripture. Can we not disagree without attributing to each other questionable motives?
Ken –
Actually, I’ve not seen those two things personally. But I hope you are just resting your case on me. 🙂 I believe these things are still happening today. Here are 2 books that might interest you:
The Heavenly Man
Megashift
But the churches I work with have seen very related things, true miracles. My friend prayed for a man with warts all over his hands. While praying, he laid his hands on the man with warts. When he finished praying and removed his hands, the other man’s hands were wartless. Another friend of mine was asleep at night. A man busted into his room with an ax in hand. My friend immediately awoke out of sleep and with a rise of faith said, ‘In the name of Jesus, stop!’ The man stop and dropped to his knees and could not move. My friend’s life was spared. These are such testimonies of our miraculous God still at work.
FWIW, I can testify of two women in our church whose brother suffered several heart attacks about a year ago before getting to the hospital. He was dying and unresponsive. They prayed for him in the name of Jesus and and he responded. At various times when he was slipping away, prayer brought him back. He was released from the hospital shortly thereafter with no testable signs of damage to his heart. He was/is a hopeless alcoholic and/or substance abuser and smoker – which could explain his heart attacks at his young age – in fact, despite the fact that he recognizes that Jesus literally saved his life and perhaps brought him back from death, he is back as he was before. (Calvinism? 🙂 )The nurses at the hospital were totally spooked at what the women’s prayers did for their brother and avoided the woman. But one time as they were leaving the hospital, a man chased them down and into the elevator and asked them who they were. They told the story, etc., and he told them that he was a hospital chaplain, and had seen what had happened to and with their brother, and he told them that their brother’s miracle had restored his faith. They also prayed for another man in the hospital as the Lord led them to – an elderly Latino man, IIRC, who couldn’t even speak English, nor his family – and he apparently had a remarkable recovery as well. A young man who is a friend of the church spoke today about his family’s plans to move to India shortly, and he was extensively involved with ministry to homeless people and drug addicts, and experienced demonic manifestations and deliverances and supernatural healings. One of our pastors knows this man’s ministry quite well and has affirmed and confirmed these things. The man has been in contact with people in India who are apparently experiencing the kinds of things one does read about in the Book of Acts. I guess he’ll find out how true these are for himself pretty shortly.
1) The Human skin is particularly responsive to our mental state: when we are embarassed, it flushes; scared, it blanches; even acne is thought to be caused in part by anxiety. In particular, hives are well known to be caused by psychological tension.
2)So it is known in medicine, that it is quite common that a mental state causes a physical symptom; this is called a “psychsomatic illness” in the literature.
3) And since the disease was caused by a psychological tension in the first place, it also often disappears with a mere psychological change, as well.
4) These are not miracles, but are examples of psychology. Though to be sure, there are real effects here.
5) Young people often recover unexpectedly well, especially from say heart attacks caused by a temporary drug overdose; the attack having come not from a longstanding and more destructive degeneration, but from an often relatively more temporary and less destructive drug situation.
6) If a bear or a person rushes at you, and you yell at them to stop, something they will; not as a miracle, but because they hear the sound and are startled, and are hesitant.
7) To this very day, even those who claim to believe in medical miracles, don’t rely on them entirely, but when they are sick, go to medical doctors; whose cure rate is a thousand times better.
In any case, remember that your emotional state often causes many diseases; from skin situations to even heart stress and attacks. COntrol your emotionality; learn how to control your heart, with a little reason.
“Control your emotionality; learn how to control your heart, with a little reason.”
Whew. I’m glad that’s not the gospel.
Interestingly though, in a lecture I attended by C. Peter Wagner (third wave charismatic proponent), he said that he thinks probably half of charismatic healings are psychosomatic, but that doesn’t make them illegitimate. The pain is gone.
Brett:
I’ll take the testimony of two people I know and trust (and the shocked and incredulous reactions of the hospital staff, who know the difference between skin responses and unexplainable recovery) over your speculations and musings about what happened to and with their brother. 🙂
Eric,
Your anecdotal evidence is interesting but nowhere near the kind of miracles reported in the book of Acts. Until we see some documented case of an adult who has never walked in his entire life suddenly being able to run and leap or a person who is dead raised to life, I will remain skeptical.
ken
Scott,
I have not read those books you mention but in looking at them on Amazon I am not impressed. There are lots of anecdotal stories, mostly but not all in third world countries, of “miracles” happening both today and in history. Why should I believe them? These miracle stories are not found only in the lifes of Christians but Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, new age adherents, etc. etc.
BTW, I have you seen this book: We Saw Heaven?
Four stories of Christians who were caught up to heaven and then brought back down to earth. Do you believe these stories?
Ken,
I haven’t commented on this thread but have been reading it. I have a question for you as I am not sure I understood what you said earlier. Did you say that you do not believe that the miracles recorded in the Book of Acts were real?
Ken:
Skepticism is good. I’ve personally seen/heard more bogus than authentic in my 30+ years in and among Charismatic churches. At times I’m like CMP, i.e., a de facto cessationist. Though I find the case for cessationism to be less valid or Biblical than the case for continuationism, my life experiences have been more cessationist than continuationist. Maybe there’s a place for modified continuationism – i.e., not Acts-level activities or miracles/healings or signs, at least in terms of frequency or regularity, but not cessationism, either, nor denying that Acts-level activities can and sometimes indeed do happen.
From ScottL:
“A man busted into his room with an ax in hand. My friend immediately awoke out of sleep and with a rise of faith said, ‘In the name of Jesus, stop!’ The man stop and dropped to his knees and could not move. My friend’s life was spared. These are such testimonies of our miraculous God still at work.”
Then from Brett:
“6) If a bear or a person rushes at you, and you yell at them to stop, something they will; not as a miracle, but because they hear the sound and are startled, and are hesitant.”
To me that sounds a whole lot more like a miracle then it does being startled and hesitant!
Cheryl,
No I don’t. I used to believe them but after 20 years I deconverted from Christianity. I am now an agnostic atheist.
Eric,
Okay, that’s fair enough.
Ken,
Thanks for your honest reply.
I don’t want to derail this thread, but I am truly sorry to hear that. Personally, I can’t wrap my mind or my heart around any other explanation for the beauty I see around me in the natural world every day then that God planned it and created it that way. That is only one of the reasons that I believe in Him.
To be quite honest, I really appreciate Dan’s contributions to the wider Church, but disagree with him on this issue. I am a Calvinist Pentecostal minister finishing a grad degree. I am actually quite thankful that there are more scholars becoming Charismatics and Pentecostals as the wider movement has sorely lacked much critical thinking over the years. Perhaps there will be a toning down of the uncritical charismania if there were in fact more Biblically grounded Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars.
I do not personally see these issues as “experience” replacing Scripture, but as an actual experience of Scripture. It is the difference between ‘secular’ biblical scholars who speak of what the Bible says, but don’t believe we need to be concerned with any experience of what it teaches. Thank you anyways Dan for your thoughts.
Friends, I’m in Israel right now with limited access to the Internet. I also had surgery on my left hand recently, and am not allowed to type with it for another month. For these reasons, my comments will be brief, and, most likely, not followed up.
Some of the critiques of my essay are as follows (with my response immediately after):
1. There are other reasons than a recovery of feelings as to why some folks become charismatic.
Quite true. And although I painted with a broad brush, what I wrote is by no means the whole story. At the same time, most of the scholars I have seen become charismatic have done so because, in large measure, their brand of Christianity was lacking an experiential element. But I know several wonderful scholars who, as far as I know, have not had some sort of existential crisis that brought them into charismatic theology.
2. “Was the introduction to this post lifted from some John MacArthur book from the early 90’s?”
Close. It was lifted from an essay I wrote in the 90s, posted at bible.org. In fact, the whole essay was simply reproduced here. Michael Patton asked if he could post it, and I agreed. Take some of the comments that seem to be dated in that light.
3. “I must say that your understanding of the charismatic movement is a horrible caricature.”
Let me note three things: (a) I was a charismatic and have had an ongoing relationship with charismatics for decades. What I wrote grew out of my long-term acquaintance with charismatic Christianity, including personal experience. (b) What I wrote hardly was meant to describe every charismatic. It is only a caricature if it’s not true at all, which I would strongly dispute. (c) Elsewhere I have written about the positive contribution of charismatic Christians, even to the extent that I would now consider myself a ‘soft-cessationist.’ My essay, “The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Christian,” first published in Christianity Today, then at bible.org, and finally, in the book, Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? (Biblical Studies Press) clearly shows appreciation for charismatics and their emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.
4. Miracles still happen today; to deny this is to deny that the Spirit of God is working. Nowhere in the post do I deny that miracles still happen. This is a caricature of cessationism. I believe—as other cessationists believe—that God still physically heals, that God still performs miracles, that God still is in control of the universe. Where I would disagree with charismatics is that there is such a thing today as the gift of healing, the gift of miracles, or the gift of prophecy. It is gifted people, not the miraculous, that is the problem that cessationists have with the charismatic movement.
5. I offered no exegesis for the cessation of certain gifts.
Quite true; this essay was not intended to do that. I do offer some in an essay entitled, “Two Views on the Sign Gifts: Continuity vs. Discontinuity.” See also my essay, “Hebrews 2.3-4 and the Sign Gifts.” Both are posted at bible.org. Also, see my comments on Ephesians 2.20 and Wayne Grudem’s view of gifts in my monograph, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin, 214-28.
Ken –
I cannot convince you of miracles today, miracles that are real, just as real as the Bible. Again, I’ve seen them, my friends have been used in them, friends I trust and who are not interested in embellishing so they can be on tv or get in a book. The two books I listed are not bogus, but real.
Again, I cannot convince you, and that is ok. I’ll keep pressing forward in seeing God’s kingdom rule come on earth as it is in heaven. And when his kingdom comes, it brings salvation, forgiveness, reconciliation, right-living, joy, peace, and healings. I’m glad we get to taste now what will be the full reality upon His return.
Dan,
Thank you for responding to my charges.
I read your essay “Two Views on the Sign Gifts: Continuity vs. Discontinuity”. My main question, once again, has to do with your use of the term “sign gifts”. What is your justification for using that term?
I asked that question about a year ago on this blog, and received no response.
The problem, of course, is that by referring to certain charisms as “sign gifts”, you are allowing your terminology to perform the work of an argument. If you can get people to think of those gifts in terms of their working some sort of “sign” function, then it’s easy to convince them that those gifts were meant to do something that would be obsolesced by the creation of the NT canon. But where is the exegetical basis for thinking of these gifts as “sign gifts”?
John C. Poirier:
Perhaps 1 Cor 14:22 is the basis for regarding the gifts of tongues (and interpretation) and prophecy as “sign gifts.” Note that Paul doesn’t here call the gifts of miracles and healings “signs,” though he does elsewhere (e.g., 2 Cor 12:12) refer to “the signs of an apostle,” which no doubt included these gifts/workings.
On the other hand, Paul’s instructions/exhortation in 1 Cor 14:1ff. re: prophecy would seem to argue against this gift/activity being a temporary “sign” or something limited to apostles.
I’m not sure what Poirier is talking about. But here’s a possibly related question.
The OT presents miracles, as real physical wonders. The NT does this too at times. But other times speaks of them as metaphors, symbolos, for spiritual things. Moses gives real material, literal, phsyical food, bread in the desert. Jesus does too at times – but other times says he and his spirit, are metaphorical, spiritual “bread indeed.”
When we don’t see many miracles today, some attempt to explain this, by way of this kind of metaphoricalization. In a sense, miracles are often read by many holy men, not as promises of real physical wonders, but as becoming only symbols; “signs” in that sense. Symbols of spiritual, not physical, wonders. But the question is, is this metaphoricalization/spiritualization (as this is current called) of miracles, good and honest?
Many millions of people were definitely promised real physical things; real actual material physical literal food, bread, when starving; not just the spiritual “bread” of good thoughts, spirits, from Jesus. Can we suddenly change the rules, and call the promises of miracles only “signs,” in the sense of being merely metaphors, and not real promises of real material things? Wouldn’t that mean that the many generations that were promised real material miracles by holy men, were deceived? Lied to?
John,
The terminology for ‘sign gifts’ comes from this verse:
2 Cor 12:12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle were performed among you with great perseverance by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.
There were apostolic sign gifts that were given to the apostles as evidence of their unique succession to Christ. These were basically the messianic gifts that Christ performed in his life. The gift of Apostle was to lay the foundation for the Church. Their gifts ceased when they died. Hence, Hebrews 2.3,4 states that these signs and various miracles were NOT performed by any second generation Christian.
Dan makes an excellent statement when he notes that the issue is not miracles or healing, but whether or not people have the GIFT OF signs and wonders. Heb 2.3,4 clearly states that the sign gifts were non-operative among second generation Christians. That is, there were no longer any people with those gifts. But God was still active in this world performing miracles when he sovereignly decided.
As the foundation was laid, the gifts of Apostle and Prophet (Eph 2.20) had served their temporal purpose.
And this is the same pattern we observe in the OT. Moses, for example, performed miracles, but the miracles did not transfer to the next generation.
Again, it is so important to remind Charismatics: cessationists believe God heals and intervenes into the affairs of mankind; we simply acknowledge that God no longer gives out these gifts today.
Keep praying to God for him to heal someone; you don’t need to ask a person to do that. All Christians have the ability to pray to God and ask for a needed miracle.
In fact, the next time we will see these signs will be when the man of sin arrives on the seen, 2 Thes 2.9. That is how he will be identified.
Remember, these are not the only verses; the cessationists uses dozens of verses to come to these conclusions.
All the ‘miraculous’ gifts you see in the NT are all under the sign gifts.
Hope this helps.
CQ