Many within evangelical circles seem to have failed to recognize how influential and growing the charismatic movement is these days among the most theologically astute. By “theologically astute,” I mean that this new breed of charismatics is thoroughly evangelical, orthodox, and Christ-centered. They hold Scripture as the final authority and do not allow the controversial gifts such as tongues, healings, and prophecy to steal their focus. When these gifts are practiced, they are done so with order and intentionality – or not at all. I call this the “fourth wave” of charismatics and not only are these charismatics biblically and theologically driven, a large portion of them are Reformed Calvinists. Agree with them or not, all one has to do is look at the Acts 29 Network – a transdenominational, church-planting network – and see what an impact they are having.
Though I am not charismatic, I am excited about the popularity of this “fourth wave.” Why? Because they have brought so much balance. They have caused many of us (who formerly wrote off all charismatics as Christianity’s “nut jobs”) to seriously consider, for the first time, the continuationist theology and biblical exegesis that provide the backbone to the movement. Credit pastors like John Piper, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, and Sam Storms, along with scholars such as J.P. Moreland, Craig Keener, Wayne Grudem, and D.A. Carson for so much of this. And, like it or not, most of these men are far more well-known and popular than the fading “cessationists” (non-charismatics) who went before them (Chuck Swindoll, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Hank Hanegraaff, etc.), especially among the younger generation of evangelicals. It is hard to ignore such a growing movement within evangelicalism. It seems now that just about every scholar I talk to is either a continuationist or a wannabe continuationist. Hardly ever do I connect with those who find the old-line cessationists’ arguments persuasive anymore (just in the last few months I have talked to Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, Mike Licona, and Paul Copan, who all shared the same thoughts). And Dan Wallace, while not a continuationist, has not been silent about his beliefs that cessationists’ arguments can and have led to bad places. Things have indeed changed.
Nevertheless, it is still difficult to know who is and who is not a charismatic due to the fact that most of us don’t know what the term means. We use words like cessationism, continuationism, and charismatic. When I associate the term “charismatic” with Christians, six primary things come to mind. Any or all of these could be present in my thinking:
1. Unusual attention given to the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer
2. The tendency to seek and expect miraculous healings
3. The tendency to seek and expect direct prophetic communication from God (dreams, visions, experiences, personal encounters, etc.)
4. Unusual attention given to the presence of demonic activity in the world
5. Very expressive worship
6. Belief in the continuation of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit
I am going to briefly explain each of these. Please pay special attention to the graphs (yes, my mind works in graphs!) since I am going to attempt to show how, with all of these, the designation “charismatic” works on a sliding scale. Here is the model:
Please notice that the scale is not black and white (well, it is not red and white, but you know what I mean!). There is a gradation shown here, indicating that one can be more or less charismatic, depending on the issue in question. Better, I consider myself more or less charismatic, depending on the issue. The line in the middle represents that subjective place beyond which the designation “charismatic” is likely to be made. I don’t always know where it is, but I think it is safe to say that the line is there somewhere.
Below, I am going to briefly explain each of these options by speaking to the extremes. Please humor me. I think I know where I am going.
1. Unusual attention given to the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer
There are certain Christians who give unusual attention to the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. Conversely, there are Christians who rarely, if ever, recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit. For those on the far non-charismatic side of the scale, the Holy Trinity could best be described as the Father, Son, and Holy Bible! For those on the extreme other end, the centrality of Christ’s person and work is replaced with the centrality of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. In this case, the Holy Spirit no longer points to Christ, but to himself.
2. The tendency to seek and expect miraculous healings
Many Christians believe that God’s benevolent healing power is available for all (though faith may be a requirement). They would be on the far right. Other Christians, on the far left, never hope for God’s miraculous intervention in any way. One side believes that gifts of healing were given as a gift of benevolence to encourage the Body of Christ. The other side believes that the only purpose of this gift was to authenticate the message or messenger. Since the Bible has already been written, there is no longer any need for authentication. Therefore, this gift died out after the completion of the canon. Further to the left, some would go so far as to say that today, God never intervenes in any miraculous way at all.
3. The tendency to seek and expect direct prophetic communication from God (dreams, visions, experiences, personal encounters, etc.)
Some people believe God communicates with them directly. They have little use for the Bible, since from their perspective God’s answers are available immediately upon request through direct means. Every dream, vision, or unexplained sound is God trying to tell them something. On the other hand, some believers do not seek God’s guidance in any way other than through the Bible. These often misunderstand the idea of sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is our only authority and source for guidance, not (as it should be understood) as our final and only infallible authority. Again, the two extremes are all I am speaking about here.
4. Unusual attention given to the presence of demonic activity in the world
There are those who believe that demons are the cause of every problem we face (far to the right). If someone is depressed, it is never due to a chemical imbalance, but demonic oppression. If someone is sick, medicine is not the answer, exorcism is. They have “deliverance ministries” in which all problems (including being overweight!) are solved by finding and breaking the demonic stronghold. On the other side of the fence (to the far left) are those who, while maybe giving lip service to spiritual warfare, don’t engage in battle against the forces of darkness in any way. In fact, they are quite embarrassed to acknowledge the reality of Satan and his demons at all.
5. Expressive worship
And, yes, there are the “expressive worship” people. You know, the ones who not only raise their hands during worship, but weep, scream, dance, and (way far to the right) go into convulsions during their time of worship. And then there are the others who lip-sync the songs, and have their hands in their pockets while singing. They are the ones who “accidentally” show up twenty-five minutes late to the service every week, just in time to catch the sermon and (oops!) miss worship time.
6. Belief in the continuation of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit
In the New Testament, we are told that God has gifted the church and individuals with gifts (charisma) and offices that are for the mutual edification of the church. On the far charismatic end of the scale, there are those who not only believe that all gifts are still in operation, but whose life and ministry are centered around the practice of the more extravagant gifts. For them, the gift of tongues is a sign of maturity and the presence of the Spirit in their lives. The further one gets to the right, the more every church service is chaotic, as people are uncontrollably “led by the Spirit” to prophesy, speak in tongues, and/or pronounce a word of wisdom or knowledge. On the extreme non-charismatic end of the scale, we have some who don’t believe in the gifts at all. They believe that all gifts of the Spirit ceased in the first century. I know of a very large network of churches which believes the gifts of teaching, giving, evangelism, tongues, healing, prophecy, and every other gift mentioned in the New Testament ceased in the first century.
It should go without saying that both extremes are not only unhealthy, but potentially destructive to the body of Christ due to their imbalance. There is a healthy middle which represents an orthodox position in all of these areas. Take a look at this modified version of my chart.
Unfortunately for all sides, the majority of professing Christians hold to extreme views, to the left or the right. Balance is a hard thing to find in any area. But when the charismatic is unbalanced, this creates some interesting and embarrassing entertainment that cameras love. This only enhances potential misconceptions, both inside the church and out.
In these types of discussions it is easy to create a caricature of one side (always the opposite of the side we’re on, of course!) by immediately associating them with the extremes of their positions. This is called a “straw man” argument; it is an unfair assertion which honors neither the issue nor the people involved, much less the Lord. Though I am not a charismatic, this does not mean that I am on the far left. At least, I try not to be. Similarly, I suspect most charismatics don’t want their perspectives to be portrayed as the same as those on the far right (which, unfortunately, is always being done).
Concerning these six options, I propose that a true charismatic in a theological sense is not necessarily one who holds their hands high during worship. Neither is it accurately characterized as someone who believes very strongly in the presence of demonic forces. In fact, I believe that a real charismatic is primarily associated with the sixth option, believing that all (or at least most) of the gifts of the Spirit are still in normal operation today and is personally seeking them.
With all six issues, I would say that I am to the left of the charismatic line. On some, I am pretty far to the left. On others, I hug the midline. For example, as I alluded to just a moment ago, I am not expressive in my worship (although I can usually be found tapping my right foot – it is a bit charismatic). Yet regarding the reality of the presence and activity of Satan and his demons, I find myself moving further and further to the right all the time. Because of this, and because the line between being charismatic and non-charismatic is somewhat subjective, I imagine in many people’s eyes I would be labeled charismatic with regard to the issue of demonic activity. While I recognize that these issues are somewhat connected, I am nevertheless persuaded that none of them, with the exception of number six, is the final determinant of whether or not one is truly a charismatic.
Gifts of the Spirit across the Spectrum
Having laid some basic groundwork, here are the four positions (generally speaking) that one can take with regard to the charismatic issue (number 6):
1. Hard Cessationist: The term “cessationist” is taken from the word “cease.” The hard cessationist believes that particular gifts, such as tongues, prophecy, miracles, healings, and the like, necessarily ceased in the first century due to an exhaustion of purpose. The hard cessationist would distinguish between what are called “sign gifts” and all other gifts. “Sign gifts” are the gifts that are evidently miraculous, and therefore provide a sign to the witnesses that the message of the one who performed these gifts was truly from God. According to the hard cessationist, once the New Testament was completed, there was no longer a need for these gifts to be given to the church, since the Gospel message had been firmly established. They would be considered “hard” cessationists, since they believe that both the Bible and biblical theology necessitates their cessation.
2. Soft Cessationist: The soft cessationist would agree with most of the arguments of the hard cessationist, except they would be open to God’s use of the sign gifts in areas that are unevangelized. Therefore, the “ceasing” of the gifts has less to do with the completion of the Bible and more to do with God’s missional purpose. For the soft cessationist, it may very well be that God continues to use these gifts to establish the Gospel message in areas of the world that have yet to be penetrated with the Gospel. Once the Gospel is established, the gifts would cease. As well, Soft Cessationists are open to a new movement of the Spirit. In short, Soft Cessationists are open to legitimate expressions of these gifts, even if they have never seen them expressed in any normative way.
3. Continuationist: The term “continuationist” is taken from the word “continue.” Continuationists, simply put, believe that all the gifts of the Spirit have continued throughout the church age. For the continuationist, while many of these gifts would have indeed served as signs to the outside world, their primary function is not to evangelize the lost, but to ensure the health of the church. In other words, God gives them out of his benevolence. The continuationist sees no biblical evidence that these gifts would ever cease; on the contrary, the continuationist believes the Bible teaches that these gifts are normative for the church age.
4. Charismatic: Every charismatic is a continuationist, but not every continuationist is a charismatic. I think this is an important distinction to make. The charismatic would agree with all of the continuationist’s positions; the primary difference is in their pursuit of all the gifts for the church. I would like to propose this as a formal working definition of a charismatic for our purposes:
A charismatic is one who believes that all of the gifts of the Spirit 1) have continued, 2) are normative, and 3) should be sought out by individual believers and the Church.
The last characteristic of the gifts, that they “should be sought out,” is the key difference between a continuationist and a charismatic. In other words, the theology of the charismatic is not simply a passive academic argument, but one that should be practiced and affect the life of the church. If you believe that all of the gifts have continued, but neither practice them yourself nor belong to a church which seeks them, then you are not really charismatic.
Here is what my chart would look like now:
For the record, I think I would be best placed somewhere between a soft cessationist and a continuationist, most days leaning my back against the door of the soft cessationist. I don’t like the word “ceased” with regard to the gifts (too definite) but I don’t like the word “normative” either.
I hope this helps a bit to clarify what the word “charismatic” means in theological context. I think with such a definition, it would be easier to tell who the real charismatics are and who are just more charismatic-leaning than others. As well (and most importantly for now), it will help us to keep from labeling the entirety of a movement by its less orthodox extremes. Many continuationists unfairly characterize cessationists as deists. This is a straw man and damaging to the body of Christ. As well, many cessationists unfairly argue against the orthodox charismatic movement by setting up Benny Hinn and other TBN extremists as representatives of what it means to be charismatic. This slanders and alienates so many whose involvement in the charismatic movement they should be celebrating.
89 replies to "What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic?"
@Missy M: Doesn’t one know a “doctrine of demons” by its fruit? Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares: you deal with them when they’re full-grown, not when they’re seeds or little shoots. Have you ever wondered why Jesus gave this instruction? Perhaps because there would be too much danger of pulling up wheat shoots?
@TUAD: It is never acceptable to extinguish falsehood with falsehood. If cessationism is false, no Christian should want it to go around imposing itself upon Christians.
” It is never acceptable to extinguish falsehood with falsehood. If cessationism is false, no Christian should want it to go around imposing itself upon Christians.”
Luke, take a look at Pastor C. Michael Patton’s second chart/graph.
In it, you’ll see that both “hard cessationist” and “soft cessationist” is included as “Healthy/Orthodox.”
🙂
@TUAD: That doesn’t change my point. If continualism is true, extinguishing illicit uses of the charismatic gifts with cessationism is fighting falsehood with falsehood. If cessationism is true, then any and all expression of the charismatic gifts is of Satan, and we should call it that. There is a huge danger though, and that is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as described in Mt 12:22-32. Are you willing to run that danger without examining the fruit of the so-called illicit uses of the charismatic gifts? I suggest we follow the parable of the wheat and tares.
Luke
And a false spirit is what? If MacArthur believes charismaticism and its by-products to be from a false spirit and continued to be fostered by a false spirit then it stands quite reasonable to call continuatiinism it a doctrine of demons by your own formula. Now you are free to argue his claim of this nyt not the actual doing of it again, by your own measure.
[…] that MacArthur is losing his voice among Evangelicals, and has also informed the whole world what someone who’s never been part of the charismatic movement thinks a Charismatic is. Michael Patton’s fellow team blogger Clint Roberts has tossed out some thoughts on lessons […]
@Missy M: What do you think of the danger posed by falsely attributing an act of the Holy Spirit to Satan? (Mt 12:22-32) To what extent do you think it is good to judge a doctrine ‘intellectually’, vs. by its fruit?
I would argue that the danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is not worth it unless there is empirical evidence upon which many can agree. Then, we must be careful to analyze the exact cause, and criticize that, lest we throw out the baby (Holy Spirit) with the bathwater.
A pointed answer to your question is easy: “You shall know them by their fruits.” It just seems odd to me that MacArthur has determined that all fruits of charismaticism are bad. Has he really done the requisite research? Does he have a book where he takes down the best arguments and evidence that charismatics can muster? Or does he just go off of his intellectual interpretation of scripture, plus some cherry-picked examples which support it? I don’t know the answer, but I know that Christians are like regular humans in terms of confirmation bias and not wanting to be directed by the evidence.
TUAD,
“Since you deny the responsibility, then let’s appreciate the Strange Fire Conference for doing what you claim is not an obligation by the “careful” Charismatics.”
Except that is not what Strange Fire did. Instead it lumped everyone together in one heretical boat. Apparently you have a very thick skull because I have tried to be clear that my complaint is not that radical charismatics should not be rebuked – they should be (personally I consider the Prosperity Gospel one of the greatest heresies facing the Church today). If MacArthur had done a conference on the excesses and made it clear who he was, and was not rebuking, I would be nodding in approval. This is the point of disagreement, nothing else. I don’t know how many times I have to make that clear. Myself, and just about everyone else here agrees that attacks against the radical charismatics are warranted, however we disagree with the indiscriminate way MacArthur went about it.
It would be like an Eastern Orthodox Priest deciding to do a conference on the dangers of Protestantism stating that “Protestants are liberal, demon influenced, resurrection denying, heretics”. Now no doubt some are, but such a statement includes many who are not liberal, and do not deny the resurrection. In other words the statement is false because it is over inclusive. MacArthur commits the same fallacy.
Me: “Since you deny the responsibility, then let’s appreciate the Strange Fire Conference for doing what you claim is not an obligation by the “careful” Charismatics.”
Michael T.: “Except that is not what Strange Fire did. Instead it lumped everyone together in one heretical boat.”
First, I’m glad that you tacitly acknowledge that you do indeed deny that “careful” charismatics have an obligation, or duty, or responsibility to speak out against the excesses and abuses of the “reckless” charismatics, contra Pastor Clint Roberts.
Second, with regards to your accusation of an indiscriminate lumping, please endeavor to allow the scales to fall off your eyes. Read and agree with the following:
The speakers recognized distinctions within the charismatic spectrum.
Excerpts: “Leading up to the conference, cessationists and continuationists expressed the necessary desire for speakers to identify the diversity within the charismatic movement. And they did. Not all agree, however. For example, Adrian Warnock claimed, “MacArthur seems to have missed all these nuances [of the charismatic spectrum] and simply want to reject all charismatic thinking as heretical.” But a careful scan of the conference shows otherwise.
For example, in the opening session, MacArthur made it clear that he believes many in the movement desire to worship God in a true way, hold to sound theology, and believe the truth.”
Read it all, Michael T. It will help the scales fall off so that you won’t be blinded anymore.
@Michael T: To be fair, you did say:
I think it’s fair for folks to ask you how heresy among charismatics ought to be dealt with. You combatted one extreme in the quote above—that of being Big Brother—but you left yourself open to sitting on the other [bad] extreme.
It seems to me that TUAD is saying that if nobody else is going to criticize heresy among charismatics, someone like MacArthur will. So, his Strange Fire conference can be seen as an attempt to act where nobody else is doing his/her job. I can see a bit of validity here; the best response, IMHO, would be for charismatics to set up a conference which explains that we ought to judge trees by their fruit, and that certain bits of charismaticism have bad fruit.
@TUAD:
Meh, this is a backhanded compliment. “I’m sure they’re trying to worship God, even though they’re falling into heresey.”
I’m glad to hear that not everyone at the Strange Fire conference is as radical as MacArthur.
Missy
“If MacArthur believes charismaticism and its by-products to be from a false spirit and continued to be fostered by a false spirit then it stands quite reasonable to call continuatiinism it a doctrine of demons by your own formula”.
What is the standard for determining whether or not something is the product of a false spirit??
@ Luke (and TUAD)
I look at it like this.
1. I believe that radical charismatics should be confronted
2. I do not believe that conservative charismatics have a DUTY to confront radical charismatics simply because they are charismatics. Many conservative charismatics have and continue to confront the radicals and this is perfectly acceptable but does not create a duty. At the same time pastors do have a duty to protect their flocks from heresies that their flocks are confronted with.
3. I welcome anyone (conservative charismatic, cessationist, or other) who wishes to confront the radical charismatics. At the same time I do not believe that this is what MacArthur did. Instead he took on all Charismatics and in doing so slandered many good people. There were some backhanded (as Luke notes) statements here and there to try and soften this ever so slightly (and I don’t know how you can say Piper is “unclear” on the issue), however the general statement was that all forms of charismaticism are from Satan. This is my problem with Strange Fire and this alone.
Michael T.: “What is the standard for determining whether or not something is the product of a false spirit??”
What do you think of Luke’s suggestion?
“the best response, IMHO, would be for charismatics to set up a conference which explains that we ought to judge trees by their fruit, and that certain bits of charismaticism have bad fruit.”
Michael T.: “I don’t know how you can say Piper is “unclear” on the issue”
Pastor Phil Johnson speaks to Dr. Piper being hesitant and uncertain:
“Dr. Piper has shown a pattern of hesitation and uncertainty on issues like this for decades. In 1990, he preached a message titled “Are Signs and Wonders for Today?” At the time, the charismatic movement was obsessed with the so-called “Third Wave” of charismatic phenomena. The gift of tongues was just beginning to be eclipsed by talk of other signs and wonders—especially the gift of prophecy. Wayne Grudem’s book on the gift of prophecy was clearly a powerful influence on John Piper’s thinking, and as Dr. Piper considered the latest trends in the charismatic movement, he said he was gripped by a “heart-wrenching uncertainty.” Those are his exact words. “Heart-wrenching uncertainty.” He said:
I sit at my desk with my head in my hands and plead with the Lord . . . . Here are two stacks of books by evangelical pastors and teachers. One stack argues that signs and wonders (like healings) were designed by God to help people recognize and believe in the Son of God and then to vindicate the authority of his apostles . . . . After the apostles died and their writings were gathered in the New Testament, the place of signs and wonders was past, and we should not seek them today. The other stack of books argues that signs and wonders should be sought and performed today in Jesus’ name. The reason we don’t see so many is because of how little expectancy there is in the church. . . .”
Piper says, “I read these two stacks of books. I comb the Scriptures. I pray. And I wind up again and again somewhere in the middle with a lot of uncertainty.””
Read the rest at Is There a Baby in the Bathwater?
@Michael T: Thanks for breaking it down like that; I like numbered lists. 🙂 My one objection is that I think Christians have some sort of duty behind their own congregations. I am my brother’s keeper and my brother is he who thinks he is doing the will of God. But this doesn’t mean I ought to be checking in on every other Christian on the planet. I’m tempted to say that the Holy Spirit is responsible for provoking those who ought to do the criticizing/questioning, but I believe we are in an age where many people who would be best at that are refusing that call, requiring second-, third-, and even twentieth-best folks to do the job. If nobody is criticizing possible heresy that is being self-described as ‘Christianity’, I think that’s a problem. Don’t you?
What this means to me is that if MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference is the first instance of providing a ‘strong enough’ critique of heresy, then we ought to see that as a call by God to provide a better critique. It ought to be seen by charismatics as a rebuke, for not standing up to heresy. Remember Habakkuk: God will use terrible people to punish his people. If he’s willing to do that, I’m sure he’s willing to use someone with false doctrine to rebuke other false doctrine, if there is no other option.
@TUAD:
Uncertainty is a lot better than false confidence. God despises false confidence. My particular belief on the charismatics and MacArthur-types is that they need to balance themselves out with the other parts of the body, parts which are currently telling each other, “I have no need of you”, or “You are not part of the body”. The church is not unified right now and I believe a curse comes from that. See John 13:34-35, 17:20-26. Will revival come without unity? I doubt it.
Michael T.: “Instead he took on all Charismatics and in doing so slandered many good people.”
You keep asserting that. But it’s been refuted. Again, please read the linked article in #51.
@TUAD: That article talked about:
A) What MacArthur said.
B) What others said.
Michael T seemed to be targeting A, and perhaps B. But let’s not forget A, and with respect to A, what Michael T has been saying seems correct. Or do you contest this? Does MacArthur allow for some expressions of the charismatic gifts to be orthodox?
Luke: “Michael T seemed to be targeting A, and perhaps B. But let’s not forget A, and with respect to A, what Michael T has been saying seems correct. Or do you contest this?”
Yes. You already read the linked article in #51.
“Does MacArthur allow for some expressions of the charismatic gifts to be orthodox?”
I can’t speak for MacArthur. But this article might help you, Michael T., and others understand this more deeply:
Cessationism: What is the Issue?
Excerpts: “There is an old saying that cessationists believe in divine healing, they just don’t believe in divine healers. That saying underlines exactly the distinction that most cessationists actually make. They believe in praying for healing, and they believe that God can and does answer such prayers in ways that medical science cannot explain. Even so, they do not believe that God is presently granting the miraculous gift of healing to individuals who then dispense it at their discretion. The debate is not about miracles. It is about whether God presently grants miraculous gifts.”
“The debate is not over whether God is able to do miracles. It is not even about whether God actually does miraculous things during the present day.
So what is the debate about? In the first place, it is about miraculous gifts rather than about miracles per se. A miraculous gift is more than a miracle.”
Read it all.
@TUAD:
I just read a book about the gift of healing, and it contests the part I bolded. The author, Bill Johnson, says that God works through certain people more than others to heal, and heals according to his purposes. He notes that the authority to heal comes to us through Jesus, and it is in Jesus’ name in which we assert that authority. A key bit from page 221 of the Kindle edition:
The healer won’t always be able to discern this, and the person who is sick won’t always want to pay the cost of healing (e.g. forgiving someone). The healer isn’t the one who decides whether the healing takes place. Furthermore, lest anyone fret, Bill Johnson has harsh rebuke for anyone who thinks that “you don’t have enough faith” is an appropriate response to failed healing.
Bill Johnson’s stance resonates with my understanding of scripture, and I’m not a charismatic (although I’d like to be one). From the bits you’re quoting, it seems like the author is criticizing a heretical charismatic Christianity and not an orthodox one!
Micheal T
I was responding to Luke about the doctrines of demons and his suggestions. He set up the standard that if one determines something to bear the fruit of a bad spirit then we may say it is so. I was simply stating that this is precisely what MacArthur did. I am not asserting the principle, rather its valid use.
Luke, if I’m mot mistaken, Pastor Bill Johnson and his church was named at the Strange Fire Conference as being unorthodox.
That Bill Johnson one is actually one of the criticisms that interested me because the condemnation of them by Phil Johnson on the article TUAD posted seemed a blatant appeal to ridicule. Never really heard of the guy, nor Bethel Church. I am vaguely familiar with Jesus Culture through some of their songs. The thing was nowhere in the article Phil posted did he actually lay out where they were wrong theologically – he just complained about some of their more (admittedly) unusual practices. Yet many churches, even cessationist ones, have practices that could be viewed as unusual by outsiders. I grew up in a church where we passed the bread and grape juice down the aisles like the offering. I remember how bizarre it seemed to me when I first went to a church that had people come forward for communion. I’m not saying that what they are doing is right or wrong, just saying that more critical thought needs to be done then just appealing to ridicule.
TUAD – going by my charismatic experience in the 70’s and 80’s in the UK (evangelical non-pentecostal), no-one I knew then believed there were “healers” who could heal at will, because such healing was not taught in the NT. Any spiritual gift was sovereignly given by God even to the apostles – though we can and should ask for them, and at least in theory any Christian could experience any of the gifts if God so gave in the circumstances applying.
I long since gave up calling myself charismatic because of the lunatic element that dominates the image of charismaticism – heresies that originated in the States and were subsequently exported. I can understand JM opposing that. However, it bears little resemblance to what “charismatic” meant when I was in a church with charismatic sympathies. I fear God too much to now say everything I experienced then was not of God, this is a way of quenching and grieving the Spirit. Hard cessationalism can rob you of any expectant faith that God actually does intervene today, and can rob Christians of legitimate blessing. I was even ‘nastied’ out of a church because of tongues – though if they had asked, I didn’t have the gift!! If I speak in tongues/don’t speak in tongues, but have not love …..
I suppose as far as the NT goes, I am still charismatic (and borderline Calvinist), but I don’t want either label because of the baggage that comes with it – heretical lunacy in the case of the first, and an opinionated attitude problem with the second. And I know I am not immune to making an extreme my ‘norm’ or hobbyhorse either!
[…] hope my recent posts didn’t give people the wrong idea. The guy at Credo House has done a decent job in summarizing a lot of the issues. Based on his criteria, I am nowhere […]
[…] by C Michael Patton October 21st, 2013 66 Comments […]
I note that my last contribution is still awaiting moderation. Is this just because moderation just takes awhile on this site, or because it “slipped through the cracks”, or because there is some issue with what I wrote?
Hey all, this is worth the read. Interview of MacArthur by Tim Challies regarding the Strange Fire conference. Tim collected top questions and critiques and gave MacArthur a chance to respond.
http://www.challies.com/interviews/john-macarthur-answers-his-critics
Credit pastors like John Piper, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, and Sam Storms, along with scholars such as J.P. Moreland, Craig Keener, Wayne Grudem, and D.A. Carson for so much of this. Michael have you read Paul Petry’s story about Mark Driscoll? Not the best example to use.
Yes, indeed, Margaret – well, them, AND the Word (they’re just reading it, & teaching it)… however, I am very thankful for their faithfulness to do so! Great men of God, and solid, Biblical scholars, the whole lot!
Shannon do you really believe Mark Driscoll is a man of God? He has been compared to CJ Mahanney. These are men who do not see women as equal to men.
I think that even the liberal Rachel Held Evans would disagree with you on that. If anything, they see the value of women as even GREATER than that of men – and treat women well… they just disagree with you (I would guess, by your statement) on what women can and should DO. Of course, we all know (or SHOULD) that our value doesn’t rest in what we do, but rather in who we ARE. We need to be careful not to go the irrational route and demonize individuals who disagree with us. I know, as a matter of fact, a great number of families who’ve met Jesus through Driscoll’s ministry, and in every case I’m familiar with, it was a VAST improvement for the whole family – per the wives’ testimonies! If anything, Driscoll & Mahaney both, are maybe TOO HARD on men.
Shannon Rachel has written about Mark Driscoll and so has Wartburg Watch. Do a google search and you will learn about these men.
I know she has, which is exactly why I said what I did. She disagrees with him, but even she recently wrote that, to say their position means that they don’t see women & men as of equal value is to misrepresent their position. It was a post just this past week responding to another author’s ridicule of their position about women in ministry. I know this: I am good friends with men & women who know Mark up close & personal, & they have nothing bad to say. It’s easy to criticize people we don’t know – it keeps us from looking closely at ourselves, our own predispositions, & our own sin & need for growth.
http://joyfulexiles.com/ please read before you continue to comment. Mark Driscoll hurt the Petry family CJ Mahaney hurt many of his pastors. These are not men of God. They abuse the power they have. Do some research.
Do me a favor: please don’t always assume that anyone who might disagree or question you is an idiot. Not only have read it – know some of the people involved, even some who were hurt. Sad, indeed. Life is complex… people are complex… these stories/issues are FAR more complex and nuanced that you could ever know. I am glad to know that you’ve never hurt anyone by things that you could have done but didn’t. I’m, myself, am as guilty as any of them. And I know Jesus, love Jesus – even pastor others. King David, apparently wasn’t a man of God, either, by this standard. Nor was most any leader in the Bible, other than Jesus, Himself. C.J. is a sweet, tender, God-fearing man… I’ve met him myself on a number of occasions, & know almost half of his current church staff. Again, it’s pretty hard to throw stones when you know someone, because you then know the whole story. I, for one, am glad we are covered by Jesus… otherwise, none of us are men (or women) of God.
CJ Mahaney has been accused of conspiracy of covering up child abuse and blackmail. Mark Driscoll of plagiarism. Michael Patton is a man of God. I don’t think you are an idiot. I think if there is a god he/she sees all people as equal. Believe what you want Shannon!
This one is about John Piper
http://eaandfaith.blogspot.ca/2009/09/john-pipers-ignorance-is-killing.html
The graphic is incorrect because it fails to take into account beliefs about salvation and Christ, essential doctrines which reveal whether we are saved or not. Charismatics believe we are saved by repentance, can lose salvation, and that Christ forsook His divine prerogative on earth. There is no gradual spectrum between these erroneous views and orthodoxy.
Andrew, I’m sorry your experience has been with Charismatics teaching the doctrines you are speaking of. I don’t know ANY of those. Even the craziest batch of “Holy Rollers” I know locally are “Once Save, Always Saved” types, who “Plead the Blood of Jesus” over not only their own lives, but everything else that they SEE. Your description sounds MUCH more like the Holiness leaning Pentecostals than any charismatics I’ve ever been in contact with.