Some time back, Chris Rosebrough did an interview with Charismatic televangelist Brian Powers. It was an interesting interview, albeit Chris was going a bit too hard on Powers in my opinion; not even small talk to begin with.
While it is evident that Power clearly need to repent of his heresies, it would be good if Chris was a bit nicer, but then I guess the directness does make it clear the sharp contrast between biblical Christianity and Charismatism.
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. (1 Cor. 14:39)
1 Cor. 14:39 is one key text for reformed charismatics, who claim to be following the Scriptures when they promote the continuation of the charismata. Followers of the hyper-Calvinist Vincent Cheung likewise hold to this view, which is really interesting because here we have the quest for illegitimate religious experience (QIRE) meeting the quest for illegitimate religious certainty (QIRC), otherwise known as Rationalism.
The problem with the usage of verses like 1 Cor. 14:39 is that such usage of scripture texts are nothing more than mere acontextual proof-texting. There is nothing worse than trying to establish a doctrine with texts divorced from their contexts. Using the same hermeneutical principle, we could hold to the following:
My point should be evident by now. Merely citing Scripture without accounting for its context does not prove anything at all. In the case of the holy kiss and head coverings, understanding its historical situated-ness is the key to understanding the applicability of the commands for our time.
Likewise, when we deal with the sign-gifts, it is extremely simplistic to merely quote 1 Cor. 14:39, as if Cessationists have not read that text before or noticed it was there. Repeating 1 Cor. 14: 39 as a mantra over and over again is not an argument! One has to understand the text in its historical or rather redemptive-historical context before understanding how such an imperative applies to us. If we understand the sign-gifts to be revelatory, and as revelation it must end with the close of the canonical era (c.f. Heb. 1:1-2), then we understand the imperative of 1 Cor. 14:39 to be a past tensed imperative. In other words, through the passage of time, the command is applicable now NOT as "do not forbid the present speaking in tongues," but rather "do not forbid listening to the past speech of tongues and prophecy." No Reformed Cessationist have ignored this imperative, and thus none of us have violated 1 Cor. 14:39. On the contrary, it is the Charismatics who have violated 1 Cor. 14:39 in essence, by ignoring the clear revelation of the finality of New Testament revelation (Heb. 1:1-2).
Interestingly enough, reformed charismatics (mostly baptists) hone in to 1 Cor. 14:39, yet the much clearer commands in other parts of Scripture are ignored, like the following:
It is surely illustrative how reformed charismatics are so enamored of the imperative of 1 Cor. 14:39, while ignoring the other clearer imperatives of Scripture on church polity. But back to the topic, do we forbid speaking in tongues? No, we do not forbid the continual validity of the past revelations (which included tongues) as inscribed in the Scriptures, so we have not forbidden the speech of tongues, and as such we have followed 1 Cor. 14:39.
Cross-cultural investigations have shown that a glossolalic utterance is drawn from the basic sounds of phonemes of a speaker’s native language. Those phonemes erupt, not at random, but in patterns that resemble the phonological patterns of that language … Unlike all known languages, living or dead, glossolalia has no grammar. Nor does it have any semantic value, because the “words” are unrelated to the stock of public meanings within the speech community (although they may have a private meaning for the speaker, or a purely connotative meaning for the hearer)
— Grant Wacker, “Playing for Keeps: The Primitivist Impulse in Early Pentecostalism,” in Richard T. Hughes, ed., The American Quest for the Primitive Church (Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 211
Some time back, Dr. James White moderated an online Skype-facilitated debate between the Charismatic Dr. Micheal Brown, and the Reformed Baptist Dr. Sam Waldron. The debate can be seen as follows:
It seems to me that there is a much better way to deal with the issue of tongues and prophecy — return back to the Old Testament. What is the biblical theological understanding of language, and what is the biblical theological understanding of prophecy? Far too often, Charismatics think they know what tongues is, and what prophecy is, without any idea of how the themes are developed in the Scriptures. God does not just do the miraculous for a capricious show of power, but everything is done for a reason. Instead of challenging the Charismatics using various proof texts, the better way IMO is to show that the Charismatic idea of tongues and prophecy are not biblical. Tongues did not just leap out de novo on the Day of Pentecost, neither did prophecy begin in the book of Acts.
One claim about the Charismatic movement is that it has resulted in revival and renewal in churches especially in the Two-Thirds world (the primarily non-Western world). Phenomenologically, the claim seems to be true. "Dead" churches have been revived and renewed by the Charismatic movement as it spread throughout the world, resulting in renewed vibrancy and evangelism and witness. Yes, the Word-faith movement and the New Apostolic Reformation have shipwrecked the faith of many, but it seems on the surface that, at least in many parts of the world, the Charismatic movement has actually been a force for good.
It must be noted that where the Charismatic movement initially began, and where its growth has been. It began in the mainline churches in America, churches that were mostly apostate already. Its influence spread to the half-dead and dead liberal churches around the world, moving them away from Liberalism towards some version of Evangelicalism. The Charismatic movement has little if any influence on the churches that are the most biblical, the Reformed churches. That itself should give us some pause. Why is that so?
Now interpreting providence is always tricky, so obviously my view may not be right. One could of course interpret providence by stating that the origin of Charismatism is within apostate churches and its spread in other apostate churches proves that Charismatism is another form of apostasy, being derived from false doctrine. Or one can claim that the Reformed churches were "old wineskins" not able to "hold the new wine."
Coming from a Reformed perspective, and understanding the Gifts of the Spirit to be linked with the purpose for which they are given, which is for the foundation of the Church, it seems to me that one could very well hold to the fact that God does work through the Charismatic movement to reach the dead and dying churches, as using a crooked stick to draw a straight line. The Charismatic movement in some measure may have a bit of the foundation gifts only because of how far they have fallen. They are the condenscension of God in mission settings and in churches so far gone in darkness. In other words, the possible possession of the Sign-Gifts are a mark of immaturity and given for a time to aid believers in their dire need. The problem of course comes when the new believers grow and continue to think that the one or two exceptional manifestations ought to be normative for all time. The pursuit of experiences which God did not promise as normative may result in them going astray, or that they may later grow up and become cessationists.
Speaking from personal experience, I experienced the regenerating work of the Spirit in the church I grew up just as it was influenced by the Charismatic movement. The church I grew up in was a mainline Presbyterian church in Singapore, and thus much of the denomination is infected by Liberalism. I was a Charismatic and being young and naive, wandered towards the New Apostolic Reformation. In God's mercy, I was brought back and am now a cessationist.
So yes, I am willing to grant that God uses the Charismatic movement to reach people. But then, God also used Balaam's donkey, so being used by God proves nothing at all. I am willing to grant that God may in His condescension grant some measure of the Gifts temporarily, but ultimately they will not last. They are a sign of immaturity, and thus, as it is seen in church history, a more mature church will not receive them.
One of the main critiques of the recently concluded Strange Fire conference is that John MacArthur and the Conference paint with a broad brush and thus tar everyone in the Charismatic movement including those that are more orthodox like Wayne Grudem and John Piper. Phil Johnson has spoken tangentially on the issue in his conference presentation Is there a baby in the Charismatic bathwater? here:
After the conference, Johnson addressed the issue of the broad brush in his blog article on the GTY website The Broad Brush here, making the claim that the orthodox party are covering up for their heretical friends, and thus questioning whether the brush was actually so broad at all since the difference between the orthodox party and their heretical ministry partners doesn't seem so great. The exact point being driven at is succinctly put forward in Tom Chantry's blog post that "any Charismatic belief engenders a lack of discernment, enabling the worst sort of Charismatic excess," a point confirmed by Phil Johnson:
Tom Chantry’s point 1 nails it: http://t.co/NTb40paKcL (His point 2 is perceptive as well.)
— Phil Johnson (@Phil_Johnson_) October 29, 2013
So what are we to say about this? If the issue is the Charismatic movement as a whole, it is true that MacArthur is painting with a broad brush without sufficient nuancing and distinctions. If however the issue is how Charismatism results in little or no discernment, the conduct of Michael Brown and Sam Storms seems to go out their way to prove Johnson's point. Now, I do know Charismatic friends who warn against the charlatans in their movement. The problem is that they are nobodies in the movement. The leaders of the "Reformed Charismatics" like Sam Storms and Wayne Grudem have lent their credibility to heretics like Rick Joyner and Paul Cain. For those who claim to be more spiritual with the gift of speaking in tongues, their lack of discernment is rather telling I would say.
So in conclusion, if Phil Johnson's point is that Charismatism engenders a lack of discernment, the behavior of the "Reformed Charismatics" merely proved his point. In fact, I'm really interested to find any prominent Charismatic that actually warn against all of the charlatans associated with the Third Wave, including those less known like Randy Clark, John Arnott and Steve Hill.
In today's Dividing Line (Oct 24, 2013), Dr. James White helpfully interacted with the contents of the conversation of a caller calling in to Michael Brown on his Line of Fire show, as it deals with the issue of the Charismatic movement and John MacArthur's recently concluded Strange Fire conference.
Dr. White's manner of dealing with the sign gifts is definitely the way to go about doing it. More often than not, Charismatic (reformed or otherwise) treat the subject of the gifts atomistically, which is to say they isolate the question of the continuation of the gifts and deal with that question without situating the question within the larger context of redemptive history; within the whole issue of the purpose behind and function of the gifts. Those questions are not addressed holistically with the issue of the continuation of the gifts, but rather the Bible is treated ahistorically like a Systematics textbook just on THIS issue. It would really advance the argument if Charismatics can began to actually start addressing the Reformed Cessationist arguments instead of trotting out the same old rationale of there being no explicit mention of the cessation of the (extraordinary) charismata (I do note that some have tried, just not the rank and file "apologists").
The New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) is a restorationist movement from within Pentecostalism which veered sharply away from orthodoxy. It is the forerunner and ancestor of today's New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). In its 23rd General Council, the Assemblies of God rejected the entire movement as being unbiblical with an overwhelming majority of delegates voting to sustain the findings of the committee producing the report. The minutes of that General Council would thus be illustrative especially if one were to compare what it condemns to the current craziness in the NAR.
“The New Order of the Latter Rain”
Resolution No. 7 was read by the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee as follows:
WHEREAS, We are grateful for the visitation of God in the past and the evidences of His blessings upon us today, and
WHEREAS, We recognize a hunger on the part of God’s people for a spiritual refreshing and manifestation of His Holy Spirit, be it therefore
RESOLVED, That we recommend to the ministers of the Assemblies of God and to churches affiliated and associated with us, that we set our hearts to seek for a continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit founded upon the clear teaching of the Word of God, and be it further
RESOLVED, That we disapprove of those extreme teachings and practices which, being unfounded Scripturally, serve only to break fellowship of like precious faith and tend to confusion and division among the members of the Body of Christ, and be it hereby known that this 23rd General Council disapproves of the so-called “New Order of the Latter Rain,” to wit:
- The overemphasis relative to imparting, identifying, bestowing or confirming of gifts by the laying on of hands and prophecy
- The erroneous teaching that the Church is built on the foundation of present-day apostles and prophets
- The extreme teaching as advocated by the “New Order” regarding the confession of sin to man and deliverance as practiced, which claims prerogatives to human agency which belongs to Christ
- The erroneous teaching concerning the impartation of the gift of languages as special equipment for missionary service
- The extreme and unscriptural practice of imparting or imposing personal leadings by the means of the gifts of utterance
- Such other wrestings and distortions of Scripture interpretations which are in opposition to teachings and practices generally accepted among us
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we recommend following those things which make for peace among us, and those doctrines and practices whereby we may edify one another, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith.
The motion was made and seconded that this resolution be adopted. After brief debate it was adopted with an overwhelming majority.
— Assemblies of God, Minutes and Constitution with Bylaws, Revised: The Twenty-Third General Counci (Seattle, WA: Assemblies of God, 1949), 26-7
The first major problem with the Shepherding Movement was that it was extremely adverse to institutionalism, as was much of Charismatism, and thus could not see that what they were doing was essentially creating something analogous to a denomination. The Fort Lauderdale Five were Idealists who believed there could be “organic unity” and discipleship without actual institutionalism. As Idealists, they believe they could just minister to all regardless of the practical reality of church and denominational differences and divisions.
The second major problem with the Shepherding Movement is their unbiblical ecclesiology resulting in an errant view of church office and an errant view of authority. They embraced the idea of “every-member ministry” to such an extreme that anyone and everyone could be a shepherd, thus opening up the ministry to those who were neither called nor trained for the task. Their errant view of authority also gave rise to the excesses and abuses of authority, as they did not have a proper view of authority as it relates to Christian liberty.
The following paragraphs are an excerpt from the article (or mini-book by the time it is completed) I am working on which gives a brief overview of the history of the Church. The Shepherding Controversy is important for all Christians not just because of its practical outworking in some branches of Charismatism, but also because it is an object lesson of what happens when anti-institutional Christianity suddenly encounters texts in Scripture that promotes institutionalism.
[Protestant] Charismatism, with its naive biblicism, rejects most of historic Christianity as it tries to be "fully biblical." The restorationist impulse is prevalent throughout the entire Charismatic Movement. Distorting the Reformation of Sola Scriptura into the principle of Solo Scriptura, Protestant Charismatics are notorious for always claiming that they are just following the Bible (as if their opponents do NOT!) Thus, the Charismatic Movement will always reinvent the wheel. Compounding this problem is an over-realized eschatology, and we have the conditions for the Shepherding Controversy.
We note that the Fort Lauderdale Five, the guys behind the Shepherding Movement in the '70s and early '80s, attempt to reach out to all the Church. Given the anti-institutional nature of Charismatism, this of course means the "Invisible Church." Since there are no denominations in heaven, so denominations are likewise irrelevant on earth. The Church should be one, united in Christ. So if denominations are utterly irrelevant, if unity is so paramount, then what's wrong with the idea of trans-local discipleship? Is the pastor of the sheep being discipled merely being jealous because of the influence someone outside his church has on a member of his church? But I thought we are all united in Christ and thus we should not have such petty jealousy? So are denominations important or are they not? The Charismatic critics of the Shepherding Movement seem to want their cake and eat it too. Is denominationalism actually bad? Then why object to trans-local discipleship?! Furthermore, it is extremely ironic when the Charismatic critics object to trans-local discipleship. Just what does anyone think they are doing when charismatic churches reach across denominational lines (ignoring them really) to minister to other charismatics?! Pat Robertson and the Full Gospel fellowship does it, circumventing institutional denominational lines, but then do they cry foul when someone does it to them?!
On this first point, the Shepherding Movement likes its critics similarly wants to have its cake and eat it too! How can one set up an entire hierarchy comprising churches and ministers and and then claim that they are not a denomination? This is disingenuous, for then what is the reach of this "hierarchy"? Since all of these shepherding relationships are not public, it is understandable that much suspicion be cast on the movement, for who knows whether one's pastor is actually submitted to (and thus under the authority of) one of the Fort Lauderdale Five?
The second point is the radicalization of the idea of "every-member ministry" (the idea that essentially all Christians are able to and may minister like pastors and elders and deacons, thus there is no such idea of the special office). If there is no special office in the church, then the Shepherding Movement's concept of appointing intermediate level shepherds from the "laity" is logical. Since everyone can do the ministry which was once retained for the special office, then the only criteria left is perception of spiritual maturity and whether the person is willing and could commit the time to do the work. Criticism of the Shepherding Movement being a pyramid authoritarian scheme is unwarrented. Swap the "shepherds" with clergy and you will get the episcopal system of church government, so the hierarchy by itself does not necessitate abuse. The problem is the radical "every-member ministry" results in the potential for all manner of abuses by people who are uncalled and untrained for the work they are entrusted with. The Shepherding Movement is thus merely being consistent with the idea of "every member ministry" and thus much of Charismatism have no moral high ground to critique them on this point.
The third point is of course that they have an unbiblical view of authority as it relates to Christian liberty. Much Charismatic criticism it seems are basically unbiblical knee-jerk reactions to the idea that God has actually ordained HUMAN authority over them; radical individualists chafe at the idea that somehow they have to answer to God-ordained HUMAN authority. The problem with the Shepherding Movement as it relates to authority is that it abuses authority, which is not surprising since, well, what can you expect from untrained and uncalled people who are suddenly given almost total power over another person? As Lord Acton says, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." One should not be surprised that untrained and relatively young Christians, given much power over the lives of others, would actually abuse that authority; that abuse is guaranteed to occur!
Much better is Scripture's view of authority as it relates to Christian liberty. As the WCF states:
II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life. (WCF 20.2-3)
Christian liberty is given to all believes, yet the liberty ends where the law begins (just as liberty begins where the law ends). Authority within a church therefore follows the word of God, and it is only to be obeyed insofar as it conforms to God's Word and God's Law. Where Scripture does not speak however there is liberty, and no person can bind the conscience of another on such matters.
The Shepherding Movement misunderstanding of authority is what give rise to the specter of shepherds dictating to their sheep who they can date and who they should marry, among other "excesses" of that movement.
The Shepherding Movement is not dead, although it has officially disbanded. Its doctrines can be found in the G12 movement (which in Singapore is found in Lawrence Khong and FCBC), and possibly many other charismatic movements. While the critics like to paint the Shepherding Movement as alien to the Charismatic Movement, even "demonically-inspired," the fact of the matter is that the Shepherding Movement drank from the same well as the Charismatic Movement. Their ecclesiologies are remarkably similar, and both unbiblical. The only major difference between the Shepherding Movement and its critics is that the former focus on visible church unity through formal accountability while the later focus on invisible church unity without formal accountability.
As long as Charismatics continue to be anti-denominational and anti-institutional, they are always susceptible to errors such as the Shepherding Movement. There will always be Charismatics who react against the "invisible church" mindset and focus more on the visible church, and since they are still operating with the same foundationally errant paradigm, all manner of error and abuses may arise.
The movement held high expectations for participation and involvement. Members were expected to verbally commit themselves, to tithe their income, be fully involved in all aspects of church life, and submit all areas of their personal lives to their shepherd's counsel. Members were confronted by their shepherd if they failed to live up to their commitments.
[S. David Moore, The Shepherding Movement: Controversy and Charismatic Ecclesiology (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2003), 78]
I believe Scripture knows of no such power given to any man, church or denomination.
Evangelist Tony Miano has posted an interesting testimony of his journey through Charismatism (of the Third Wave variety) entitled Spiritual Heroin and Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit: A Personal Testimony here. An except:
I came to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, during the Fall of 1988. Mahria came to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ a month after the Lord saved me. The man who shared the gospel with me and took me under his wing was a sergeant with whom I worked in the County Jail. Sadly, in a year's time he would prove to be a false convert. He was an elder in a church. He had to explain to me what an elder was. He also said the church was a "charismatic church." I had no idea what that meant, either. My family and I began attending the church.
Mahria and I had both grown up in formal, liturgical churches. As a boy, I had been bored to death by the formality and darkness of Roman Catholic services in Latin. Mahria happily grew up in a typical Methodist Church.
[more]
A hostile witness is always a great witness. NAR apostle Mike Bickle [of the IHOP (non pancake) movement] had shared his view on charismatic experiences, as follows:
It is certainly revealing that Bickle admits that most charismatic experiences are faked and that there are "auto-manifesters" and others like them. So is all the hype about the "move" of the Holy Spirit a real work of the Spirit? I doubt so, not when these people are getting experiences for the purpose of confirming them in false teachings.
[HT: MennoKnight]
Pastor Conrad Mbewe has posted an interesting blog post on one reason why Charismatism has grown so much in African culture, namely that Charismatism does not challenge traditional African spirituality but merely baptizes it with a veneer of Christianity. An excerpt:
Many explanations have been given for the explosion of the Charismatic movement in Africa. Many have seen this as a powerful visitation of the Holy Spirit. Whereas there is probably more than one reason, I want to add my own observation to this for what it is worth. In this blog post, I do not refer to the old conservative form of Pentecostalism once represented by the Assemblies of God churches. I have in mind the current extreme form that is mushrooming literally under every shrub and tree in Africa. How can one explain this phenomenon?
I think that one reason why the Charismatic movement in Africa has been like a wild bushfire is because it has not challenged the African religious worldview but has instead adopted it. It has simply baptised it with Bible verses and Christian words that previously meant something totally different.
[more]
There is a recent session at the Desiring God Conference 2013 where the speaker Tope Koleoso attempts to argue for his case that Reformed people should be Charismatics. The Cripplegate has analyzed his talk (Part 1, 2, 3), while Dr. R Sott Clark has responded to it from a historical point of view.
Perhaps the greatest issue that irks me about all these Charismatic arguments is that almost all of them totally misrepresent the opposing side. To disagree with Cessationism is one thing; to misrepresent it is another. I admit my still limited exposure to Charismatics, but I have not yet found one Charismatic who has adequately represented the Cessationist argument in its strongest form, and then show why he rejects it. Instead, we are treated to trite nonsense like "Cessationists fear the Holy Spirit." If I want to be polemical, I could very well state that Charismatics like Koleoso probably believes in a different Spirit than the one I and other cessationists believe in, because his description of the Holy Spirit certainly does not seem like the person I see described in the Scriptures. So I could very well counter that cessationists do not fear the Holy Spirit; we just fear that the Spirit Koleoso described is not the Holy Spirit at all.
There are many reasons why Reformed Christianity is antithetical to Charismatism, reasons which I cannot do justice to in this short post. My main contention has always been that Reformed Christianity believes in Sola Scriptura, particularly its teaching on the sufficiency of Scripture and thus the sufficiency of the means of grace ordained in God's Word for our growth in Chris, while Charismatism in every form denies this to some extent. In Charismatism, Scripture is not sufficient for the Christian life, for extra revelation of some sort (e.g. prophecy, word of knowledge, interpreted tongues) is necessary for the Christian life. Granted, reformed Charismatics do not consider such revelations on the same level as Scripture, but still they are considered necessary for the Christian life in some sense. In practice, the ordinary means of grace are deemed to be insufficient for the Christian walk. Rather, Charismatism must in some sense add practices like receiving "word of prophecy," "speaking in tongues," "dreams," "vision" etc as being needed for the Christian walk, even if they are needed merely to "enhance" one's spiritual walk. Charismatism therefore has a denial of the fullness of Sola Scriptura inherent within it. They could very well hold to parts of Sola Scriptura or even most of it, but in the final analysis they must depart from the Reformation slogan of Sola Scriptura, or cease being Charismatic in any real sense of the term.
There is thus no way for Reformed Christians to be Charismatics, for there is a fundamental difference between the two beliefs. Reformed Christianity cannot be reduced to the TULIP or the 5 points of Calvinism, for Reformed Christianity is not just Reformed Soteriology, but rather Reformed Christianity has its own pneumatology which is diametrically opposed to the pneumatology of the Charismatics. Koleoso's call therefore only makes sense in the shallow waters of New Evangelicalism, where doctrines are disjointed and not seen holistically.
There are Reformed, and there are Charismatics. There are 'reformed' Charismatics, but there will never be Reformed Charismatics. The whole term itself is an oxymoron, not even historically, as Dr. Clark points out, but doctrinally and logically. One might as well speak of a Oneness Pentecostal Trinitarian, or an Arian Modalist, all of which do not exist in the same logical sense that square circles don't exist.
Perhaps the day will come when 'reformed' Charismatics will stop having Charismatic altar calls. Perhaps the day will come when Continuationalists will finally adequately represent the Reformed objection to their position. But I'm not holding my breath for any of that to happen.
[See also: This is why Charismatics are simply not Reformed]
Erin Benzinger has posted the link to the second episode of the No Compromise Podcast, which focuses on the topic of Sola Scriptura, mysticism, and some interactions with John Eldrige's idea of masculinity.
It seems that Mark Driscoll has preached a sermon attacking the "Cessationists" who do not have a need for the Holy Spirit. Eric Davis from the Cripplegate has responded to this video excellently here.
The whole dichotomization of sound doctrine from the Holy Spirit is sadly a systemic problem within Charismatic circles. While there are certainly Charismatics who try to be biblical, the problem is that such a dichotomization of doctrine from the Holy Spirit is foundational to the very essence of Charismatism. The idea of a distinct separate second baptism of the Spirit that happens after one's conversion means that it is possible for one to believe in sound doctrine but not to be "baptized in the Spirit." It is hard to see what kind of Charismatism would be left if one rejects the second baptism of the Spirit doctrine, for if one rejects it, then there is no necessity to pray for people to be filled with the Spirit. Either these people are saved and thus filled with the Spirit already, or they are unregenerate and need to be converted. To deny holding to a second baptism of the Spirit while continuing to pray for filling in the Spirit with new gifts (with a particular emphasis on the gift of tongues) is to deny the doctrine in theory and affirm it in practice.
Driscoll's speech against sound doctrine is hardly new. Before him, the Zwickau prophets and the Anabaptists were proclaiming "the Spirit" and stating that to pay attention to sound doctrine is to be a minister of the dead letter, referring of course back to 2 Cor. 3:6. Getting new revelations from "God," Jan of Leyden instituted polygamy, imposed a totalitarian autocratic state with him at the head and initiated a reign of terror in his "New Jerusalem" in 16th century Münster. Truly there is nothing new under the Sun.
Historically, Driscoll is the spiritual descendant of the mystics and the Anabaptists. He is what Luther would call a Schwärmer or fanatic, one who believes that they can know God through direct immediate revelation, instead of knowing God through Scripture. Driscoll holds to the theology of glory (theologia gloriae) and seeks God not through His ordained means of the Word but through his vain imagination.
Biblically and theologically, such a false dichotomization between sound doctrine and the Holy Spirit pits God's attributes against God's person. It therefore is a practical denial of the doctrine of the simplicity of God. Given that Driscoll wrote some sort of systematic theology, I wonder if Driscoll actually knows what he is doing? Did Driscoll teach or deny the doctrine of God's simplicity in his book Doctrine? If he indeed holds on to the orthodoxy doctrine of God's simplicity, why does he not practice it here?
Those who denigrate sound doctrine denigrate God's attributes, and thus denigrate God Himself. Saying that one listens to the Spirit while denigrating sound doctrine indicates that one is actually listening to oneself and the voices of others, even unclean spirits, and thinking that one is actually listening to God. God does not reveal Himself in audible voices today, and whoever thinks he is listening to God through such immediate revelation is self-deceived or deceived by demonic powers instead.
A Tanzanian pastor has asked me to review his latest book, which is entitled We are Called for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I thought it would be something interesting to do, so anyway, here is my review of his book.
This book by Dr. Norman A.S. King, a Tanzanian pastor, is written with the intent to help Christians grow in Christ, which to him is through what he calls the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
[more]
Over on Driscoll's The Resurgence website, pastor PJ Smyth has written a short write-up regarding the Driscollite unique blend of ministry distinctives. It seems that the inclination to combine the three ministry distinctives of "missional," "charismatic," and "reformed" continues. However, are these really biblical, and are they really compatible?
Missional?
Let us look at the first distinctive: missional. The term itself has various shades of meaning, but we will focus on its understanding and use in the Reformission movement. According to Smyth, "missional" begins with the understanding that "Jesus came to [the] earth as a missionary and he commissioned us to follow his example." Another synonym for this distinctive is the term "incarnational." What are we to make of this term? First of all, they are in error in claiming that Jesus came to earth as a missionary. Jesus' mission was to die on the cross, not to proclaim the Gospel everywhere. Jesus did call people to faith in Him, but more often than not, Jesus concealed the Gospel in parables (Mt. 13:13-15) and such a concealment is judgment upon a nation and people who do not respond in faith to His miracles. Jesus as an intrusion of the last days even proclaimed that certain people are reprobates and not His sheep (Jn. 10:26). Do these actions strike us as something a missionary should do?
Jesus came to inaugurate His Kingdom. As God and Savior, He is unique in this aspect. When Jesus spoke in parables, and when He for a moment revealed the secret decree of God that His opponents then are reprobates, He is functioning as the King of glory, with these actions being a foretaste of the Last Judgment when all will be laid bare. Missionaries are NOT kings or the King. They are not inaugurating the Kingdom of God but proclaiming it. They are not privy to the secret decree of God in exposing the reprobate status of reprobates. As such, missionaries are not to preach to people in parables. They are not to conceal the Gospel message as a judgment upon people.
Jesus was not a missionary but a King and a suffering servant. We are therefore not to be "missional" but "mission-minded." We witness the Gospel to the world, not like Jesus as Jesus did not do so, but as those sent out by the King we serve, like the Apostles and the early church.
Charismatic?
If there is one thing that truly irritates me, Smyth misrepresents Charismatism and non-Charismatism. It is reprehensible that Charismatics go around claiming that they believe in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, as if they are the only ones who do so. Similarly, spiritual warfare in the biblical sense is not peculiar only to Charismatics, neither is the link of sickness with the Fall nor that God heals.
The fact of the matter is that Charismatics add to the biblical teaching on the presence and power of the Holy Spirit an under-realized ecclesiology and an over-realized eschatology. By the former, we mean that the Charismatics have an immature view of the Church as if she is still in the same infancy stage of the apostolic Church. Ignoring the fact that the Gifts of the Spirit have a purpose ordained for them, they insist on the continuing gift of tongues, interpretation of tongues, foreknowing prophecy, words of knowledge etc as the ordinary (as opposed as extra-ordinary) reality of the Church. They ignore the fact that the Church has matured with the closing of the Canon and thus the completion of the function of the sign gifts in general.
On the latter, we mean that the Charismatics believe that the blessings of the last days have already come to a great extent if not has come and is coming with the immanent millennial earthly kingdom. Thus, we have Charismatic healers who are more certain that God will heal people when they pray than God Himself. We have Charismatics who are so thirsty for the presence of God that they seek spiritual experiences outside of Scripture, not realizing that on this side of heaven, Christ is absent from the earth and His presence in this age is only mediated by the Holy Spirit through the Word written (Holy Scripture), the Word preached (exegetically sound sermon), and the Word performed (sacraments). Thus, we have Charismaniacs who see "visions" (of their own delusions) and see the "glory-cloud" of God, seeking by such experiences to drag Christ down from heaven to earth. Yes, more biblical Charismatics do denounce such antics, but one wonders upon what basis they can do so, since such flows logically from their over-realized eschatology.
Charismatism therefore is in error, and should not be embraced by the Church.
Reformed?
As a Reformed Christian, most definitely I think the Church should be Reformed. But what does the Reformission movement think of the word "Reformed"?
As we can see from the article, the word "Reformed" is defined as the "mainstream tradition of Christian theology that acknowledge the sovereignty of God in and over all things." One wonders then if Smyth and the others Driscollites think that Lutherans and Barthians and others should be included under the term "Reformed," since both of these groups also "acknowledge the sovereignty of God in and over all things," at least formally. I mean, Karl Barth not only claims to be Reformed, but he also denies infant baptism, which should be a plus point for the mainly baptistic Reformission guys!
Such a reductionistic definition of the word "Reformed" shows the utter ahistorical nature of the Reformission and the YRR movement(s). "Reformed" is defined by the Reformed Creeds and Confessions, not just an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God and the embrace of TULIP. It is then no surprise that Smyth can claim to be "Missional, Charismatic and Reformed," for his understanding of what "Reformed" means is indistinguishable from mere Augustinianism. To be truly Reformed however would sound the death knell to this synthesis, for being Reformed means that one embraced the whole of the teachings of the Reformed Creeds and Confessions which proscribe Charismatism (cf WCF I.1).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Reformission synthesis is unbiblical and ahistorical. We agree with Smyth's point that we should remain God-centered, and not only God-centered but Christ-centered, Spirit-led and Word-founded. But we disagree with Smyth's beliefs and synthesis as they are none of these.
I have recently read a very interesting historical theology book on the views of the Westminster Confession and the Westminster divines with regards to the issue of the Gifts of the Spirit, with an eye to that of prophecy. Seeing that this is indeed an important topic, I have done a review of the book here. An excerpt:
What was the view of the Westminster divines with regards to the continuation or cessation of the sign gifts, and especially the gift of prophecy? As the Charismatic movement continues on unabated, such questions with regards to the continuation or cessation of the sign gifts throughout history are looked at. The traditional view has been that the sign-gifts have ceased after the time of the Apostles. Charismatics who insist on the continuation of the sign gifts have to address this historical view. Either they agree that the sign-gifts have ceased in history but blame the cessation on the apostasy of the church, or they must try to find continuation of the sign gifts throughout history and as such dispute the traditional position that the gifts have indeed ceased. In this light, this reviewer has heard both arguments attempted. The first one however does not seem plausible in light of Jesus' promise that the gates of hell with not prevail against the Church (Mt. 16:18). True, the Reformation did happen, but the Reformation was the attempted reformation of the church not its revolution. The Reformers were totally unlike the Radical Anabaptists who insist on overthrowing the Church entirely to create a new one altogether. Only after Trent anathemized the Gospel did the Roman Catholic Church officially cut themselves off from Christ, for as we see from Scriptures, wickedness while serious does not immediately destroy the church (as in the case of the Corinthians, although persistent unrepentance does) but heresy immediately does (as in the case of the Galatians).
In his book, Garnet Howard Milne focused on the narrower scope of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the Westminster Divines and their view(s) concerning special revelation and prophecy. The book thus is a historical study of the primary sources, being mustered to show forth that the majority view of the Westminster Divines and the Puritans after them was that Special Revelation and thus prophecy has ceased.
[continue]
Mark Driscoll's recent hack job on cessationists have seen his pronouncements on the topic scrutinized to a greater degree. Over at Pyromanics, Phil Johnson has written an excellent post on this very troubling aspect of Driscoll's ministry.
