Throwing Stones in Glass Houses of Worship
July 9, 2007
Posted by Dan Edelen in : Best of Cerulean Sanctum, Charismatic, Christianity in North America, Church Issues, Discernment, Dying to Self, Godly Character, Grace, Heresy, Humility, Judgmentalism, Maturity, Oddities Functions : Trackback,
Print This Post
,
Email This Post
Some arguments that crop up in the Godblogosphere just kill me. If I were a non-Christian, I’d have all the ammo I’d need from blogs alone to make a compelling argument to look somewhere other than Jesus for my salvation.
Can I reiterate the old aphorism that the biggest argument against Christianity are Christians? Hackneyed, yes, but sadly true.
Last week, the old divisive question of cessationism vs. charismata raised its perpetually ugly head for the umpteenth time over at Pyromaniacs. It seems that we simply can’t let this issue die, as if one more post on it’s going to force one side or the other to capitulate.
Whenever the supporters of a cessationist view want to make their point that all charismatics are “shambalahonda”-babbling, heretical nutjobs, they go to the same well again and again: TBN. The same tired arguments are trotted out. “Look at Benny Hinn! Will you get a load of that screwloose?” Or “What’s with Paul and Jan Crouch? I mean, seriously!”
And thus all charismatics—myself included—are painted with the same exceedingly broad brush. The blanket of condemnation falls on anyone who spoke in tongues after the Apostle John died, and we’re all Benny Hinns, W.V. Grants, and purveyors of error worthy of an extra bucket of red-hot embers when we finally croak and wind up in hell.
But is that the truth?
I’d like readers to bear with me through the next few paragraphs. Don’t even read them unless you’re willing to read to the end. Just stop reading now if you aren’t going to finish this post. I’ll even highlight the questionable words in blue so you know which ones I mean.
Pyromaniacs is a Reformed site. They support 5-point TULIP Calvinism. In truth, we agree on most things, though I understand that my Lutheran theology (though Reformation-inspired) coupled with a belief that the charismata are still working today would not endear me to my brothers there. Certainly, I would not be branded Reformed by their definition.
So while Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs talks of bad experiences with charismaniacs, I’d like to share my experiences in the Reformed church, since I was a part of a few Reformed churches over the years and have friends who have attended Reformed Calvinist churches.
One Bible study I attended consisted solely of men from a respected, wealthy Reformed church. Before the Bible studies started, these men would sit around and belittle the poor, talking about “those people” and how they were lazy and ignorant. (That they laughed while they tore down “the least of these” made it all the more excruciating for me to even be in the same room with those “Christians.”)
Or let’s consider the Calvinist church that split because some people in that church wanted to evangelize the nearby Hispanic community. Objections swirled that the church would be ruined should “those people” (there it is again!) come in and disrupt things by bringing their culture and customs with them.
Or how about greeters at a Reformed church “greeting” visitors by immediately asking if they were Calvinists, then walking away when the visitors said they did not know?
What can be said of the Reformed church that belittles congregants who can’t afford to send their kids to an exclusive, private Christian school (founded in part by the church)?
Or how about the couple who wanted to start an evangelistic outreach in their Reformed church, but encountered constant apathy on the part of the congregation because “those who were predestined were already in the church”?
In short, which is worse—the babbling, emotional, theology-challenged, snake-handling charismaniac OR the self-righteous, xenophobic, status-seeking, materialistic Reformed/Calvinist?
It’s a pointless question, isn’t it?
If we Christians want to speak words of death in the Church, then by all means let’s resort to naming the worst possible examples of living the Christian life that we might possibly find in some other denomination or sect. Then let’s write as if those worst possible examples were the norm.
I didn’t want to write this post. That this post even needs to be written saddens me. Writing those examples of how some perverse subset of Reformed/Calvinist brothers and sisters ignored the very heart of the Gospel gave me no pleasure at all. Why? Because I know that thousands more Reformed Calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ are NOT like that. In the same way, thoughtful, theologically-sound charismatics who don’t like TBN or the excesses displayed within some charismatic churches exist in large numbers.
Because some Reformed and Calvinist believers are jerks doesn’t negate the Reformed/Calvinist message anymore than wacky charismatics negate theirs. The truth here is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Before we disparage others from some other flavor of Christianity, we should ask if our own flavor has its house in order. Railing on “those other guys” comes easy to us because few of us wish to acknowledge the problems in our own house. (If Team Pyro wants to correct those Reformed churches I mentioned above, I’ve got the phone numbers for a couple of them. They can drop me an e-mail. I’ve already corrected charismania many times here.)
If Reformed/Calvinists with a keen eye for discernment would work to clean up their house, and Baptists worked to clean up their house, and Nazarenes worked to clean up their house, and charismatics worked to clean up their house, I have an idea that God would bless each house in a profound way. Perhaps then, even our differences wouldn’t seem so large.
But if the Nazarenes decide to point fingers at the mess in the Baptist’s house, and the Reformed/Calvinists decide to ridicule the excesses in the charismatic house, then the world they all live in will go on spinning and the Church of Jesus Christ will smother itself with a blanket of words that kill.
Because I can always find a problem with my neighbor. It’s my own problems I’m not so keen to fix.
Dan,
I had just got done reading the thread at Pyromaniacs, and was so impressed with how you handled yourself there, I came here to say “thank you” and “good work,” even if it was off topic for whatever you had posted.
And look what I found when I got here, more truly excellent work, dead on with the subject matter. Thanks for the uplifting testimonies, for the respectful tone of your statements, and for asking tough questions of everyone, charismatic and cessationists alike.
Blessings upon you, my brother. Please, keep up the good work.
Not being a Calvinist, I suspect I’d be in a war of an entirely different nature at places like Pyromaniacs. :-O
Not to detract from the issue, but why are there so many fricking calvinists in the blogosphere anyway? I mean seriously, it’s all I ever find, and it irritates me to no end. It’s like I’m stuck at Daily Kos and try as I might, there is nary a conservative to be found. Where be the Wesleyan-Arminian bruthas?
Sorry, I’ll go rant elsewhere now.
I have a theory about the predominance of Calvinists in the blogosphere:
My experience has shown that most people I’ve encountered who are Calvinists come from more privileged backgrounds. That led to better education, better income, and a greater likelihood of being early adopters of high-tech. I also think something in the structured nature of Calvinism attracts people who prefer logic over emotion, facts over fancy. I’ve also found by my own observations that Calvinism attracts more introverts percentage-wise than what exists in the general population. In fact, I would guess that most of the well-known Calvinist bloggers will self-identify as introverts.
Combine all these traits and you get a picture that looks remarkably like the average tech gearhead of lore. For this reason Calvinist techies jumped on blogging in far greater numbers and kept with it as a discipline. That’s why they comprise a disproportionate number of bloggers.
It’s my theory and I’m sticking with it!
That’s along the lines of what I was thinking as well. I’ve always perceived the calvinist community as largely consisting of intellectual snobs who love to argue and debate, and then debate and argue, and then when they’re done with that…. debate and argue some more. Makes the blogosphere a perfect fit for them.
You’re absolutely right. Brus like George Mueller and Chuck Spurgeon were snobbish techie calvinist proto-bloggers too obsessed with debating and arguing things to ever get around to preaching the gospel or helping orphans and the downtrodden. Broad ungenerous generalizations are teh r0×0r. I ♥ you guys.
Never mind that a very large percentage of the blogosphere are emergent, or that many of today’s foremost calvinists are also charismatics (John Piper, Wayne Grudem, C.J. Mahaney and to some degree Don Carson), or that many Reformed bloggers are also Charismatics (Adrian Warnock, Joshua Harris of Kissing Dating Goodbye fame, anyone?). Have I mentioned that I ♥ you guys?
A good, good word this morning, Dan. You so eloquently wrote what I have experienced and believed for years now …
Blessings!
~Heather
Thanks. It’s kind of sad that we do this to each other in the Church. It’s one reason I don’t point out denominational quirks but stick to speaking to the individual Christian. If all the denominations went away, I wouldn’t be sad. I think in many ways they only reinforce stereotypes. Look at how easily we stereotype someone the second we find out what denomination they’re a part of.
That only closes down minds and hearts.
Dan,
Well said, brother.
Unfortunately, the Pyros would seem to only being true to their name - those with an “irresistible urge to start fires.” And in their attack on charismatics, they are only following the lead of their spiritual mentor, Dr. John MacArthur and his book, Charismatic Chaos. It is all rather old.
The reality is that it is not a hard task to build a case against any of the “designer labels” of Christianity based on the appalling things done in Christ’s name. We are, in Scot McKnight’s words, Cracked Eikons - broken image-bearers of the one we claim to follow. Or, as Rich Mullins put it:
We are frail, we are fearfully and wonderfully made
Forged in the fires of human passion
Choking on the fumes of selfish rage
And with these our hells and our heavens
So few inches apart
We must be awfully small
And not as strong as we think we are
My rather warped sense of humor sees those of us with self-appointed “discernment ministries” spending eternity wandering heaven saying “How’d you get in here?! How’d you get in here!?”
The thing that gets me is that John MacArthur and Jack Hayford are good friends, so obviously there’s some common ground there. I wish we could speak to the common ground rather than trying to amp up the differences.
I hold absolutely no grudge against Christians that come from a different background than I do, even ones who rabidly oppose my beliefs. In fact, I hope that I can always grow in sanctification by the Lord placing Christians in my life who think differently than I do. He’s done that in the past and I believe it’s one of the main reasons I’m the believer I am today.
I remember trying so hard to encourage kids at Wheaton College who spent all their lives in their parent’s denomination to explore what other denominations have to say in order to broaden their understanding of the Faith. I wish we didn’t compartmentalize the faith the way we do through denominations, but now that those kids were away from mommy and daddy, it’s a good chance for them to see “how the other half lives.” But you’d be surprised how many absolutely refused to consider attending even one service from another denomination than the one they grew up in. I mean, would it kill a Baptist to attend a high Episcopal church one Sunday? Or a Nazarene attend a Vineyard church? Honestly, are we expecting a lightning bolt out of the blue to strike us in the heart and that’s all she wrote?
I think some of this animosity would vanish if we got out of our denominational ghettos.
Perhaps the reason you cannot fathom how MacArthur and Hayford can be friends in spite of this problem is that you do not understand how criticism or disagreement works.
I am grateful to God for the men who have criticized me — and proven me wrong! I am grateful for those — like my presbyterian brothers — with whom I may never settle my disagreements. There are some things which are important which are not places where you turn people out of larger fellowship — and I’d say this topic is one of them.
I have a great friend who is a wildly-charismatic pastor — claims to have healed the lame in his trips to India. He has a slowly-growing church in which they take doctrine and work seriously, but they are charismatics. He won’t even hear it from me regarding why there’s no way he can be right about his views, and he doesn’t bother to try to convince me because, well, I’m a Calvinist. We all know what they are like.
But you have never met two guys who, when they are together, can find so much about Scripture to -agree- on. When he’s in my bookstore, it’s like a theological frat house.
The problem is that some people think that disagreement — even hearty, strenuous agreement — means hate. Dude: where’s that in the Bible?
I totally understand how MacArthur and Hayford can be friends. But you and I know that some people out there can’t! When I say “that gets me,” I’m referring to people who don’t know that fact or will just dismiss it and go on railing.
Amen, Frank.
I could not disagree more with the thrust of Dan’s post:
“If Reformed/Calvinists with a keen eye for discernment would work to clean up their house, and Baptists worked to clean up their house, and Nazarenes worked to clean up their house, and charismatics worked to clean up their house, I have an idea that God would bless each house in a profound way.”
So… As a Reformed (Continuationist) Baptist, I should not be allowed to correct (or receive correction from) a Lutheran, Presbyterian, Charismatic, etc.? What if Paul only concerned himself with his followers, and not with the followers of Apollos or Peter?
I used to be an Arminian. I used to be a cessationist. I used to think paedobaptizers were nuts (I still think they’re wrong, but no longer believe they’re nuts). Were in not for certain divisive discernment types harping on “old, tired, arguments”, I would never have had the opportunity to change and grow on these issues.
I think your post should have stopped at: “Don’t paint all charismatics as the extreme.” I would agree with that.
@Lincoln,
Being an Arminian too, I know what you mean!
I don’t disagree with what you said. I have read the post, but didn’t read the comments yet, so I don’t know what was said there. But if I remember correctly it was a charismatic that pointed Johnson to Hinn as an example of someone with the gift of healing.
Again, I don’t disagree with your point here. But I just wanted to point out that it wasn’t Johnson just looking to start a fight, but he posted his response to an email.
Phil could’ve responded in a personal e-mail. That’s what I would’ve done in a case where I knew that my public response was going to rile a large swath of Christianity.
I know he’s not hot on charismatics. This issue has come up before. I harbor no grudge against him. I’m just not happy that he tends toward the strategy of lumping people. He could have easily said that he knew sound charismatics (Sovereign Grace churches, anyone?) and that people like Hinn were aberrations, but he went the “all charismatics are suspect” route and that’s sad to me. Like I posted, I would never hold up Calvinists for that kind of lump rebuke even though the examples I gave above are absolutely true and the experience of some people, myself included. I know that’s not true of of all Calvinists. And even though I’m only about a 3.5-pointer, I respect Calvinist theology.
“Phil could’ve responded in a personal e-mail. That’s what I would’ve done in a case where I knew that my public response was going to rile a large swath of Christianity.”
The question isn’t what YOU would have done. The question is what you implied Phil did do…which, frankly, he did not.
The *charismatic fellow* pointed to Hinn, and you vilified Phil for pointing out Hinn as the example.
Be honest or don’t blog.
Phil made no attempt to distance abberant charismatic behavior from godly charismatic behavior. Knowing what he has written on this topic before, I know he feels all charismatics are aberrant. He knew exactly what he was doing by lumping all charismatics together and I noted why that was wrong by reversing the accusation and showing how intellectually dishonest it is.
So be very careful when you throw the “honesty” accusation around. It has a way of boomeranging.
From what I heard about John MacArthur, he seems like a nice guy, and I’m not so sure he’d approve of Pyros’ incendiary style.
@slw: Us heathens gotta stick together! LOL
Phil Johnson works for John MacArthur.
I never really did understand why non-Charismatics are so vehemently opposed to operating in the Spirit. Can anyone enlighten me?
I think the revelatory nature of some of the charismata bother folks who can’t seem to separate them from the closed canon of Scripture. That always seems to be the sticking point.
Frankly, I’ve never understood that sticking point since I see the dividing line clearly. No matter what I say, though, others can’t carry that difference in their heads.
Discernment is tough business. There’s a reason why the discerning of spirits is one of the charismata. I think some people think its better to just blanket exclude everything but the Bible rather than fall into error—as if no one ever misinterpreted the Bible! I believe that’s a mistake on a hundred different levels that I could blog on for the next year if I wanted to. This in no way denigrates the Bible to say that God still speaks today, though.
I am not a charismatic (though I’m told my personality is) but I STRONGLY disagree with the man-made theology that says sign gifts are not for today. The verses that are used to back that up are a serious stretch at best. As I’ve talked with people of that persuasion, one thing comes out loud and clear (at least to me). There is a serious fear issue. There is an underlying uneasiness with what cannot be controlled, and so it’s simpler to just clamp down on it and discredit it.
But the Spirit of the living God cannot be controlled or boxed or confined into or by our limited finite minds. Um…He’s GOD!
Throughout my Christian walk, I have had wonderful, blessed fellowship with brothers and sisters in the many facets of the Church. I have also had serious concerns and questions with brothers and sisters from the many facets of the Church.
Some of the most loving, following-hard-after-Christ men and women I know are “Spirit-filled.”
The gift of discernment is a touchy gift. The immediate, pressing response to those with this gift is intercessory prayer. I know in my own life, when I’ve been judgmental and condemning, I was not praying for those who were the recipients of my “discernment.”
Lord help!
Love wins.
(except in tennis)
Is it possible that perhaps it is the charismatics who do not understand the non-charismatics?
For example, can you find anyone who is actually a christian (small “c”, so that there’s no quibbling about which denomination you might want to refer to) who would deny that the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, etc.? Or anyone who would deny that the spirit gives many gifts — discernment, administration, teaching, preaching, hospitality — for the edification of the church?
The problem is not “does the Spirit equip the church?” The problem is “does the Holy Spirit manifest the miraculous gifts (like healing, tongues, prophecy, etc.) today in an indiscriminate way?”
See: this is the core problem, and it is akin to the problem of the closed canon in a way which people who pride themselves as being able to reach out to postmoderns ought to be able to fathom. When these charismatic gifts are in evidence, the Holy Spirit is saying something though His own work. It is a testimony to something — and we can assume this something would be Christ. But in charismatic circles, the gifts manifest is such indiscriminate ways that they evidence nothing at all. They point to nothing.
Is the Holy Spirit a sort of eternal blatherer? May no one ever think so! And this is specifically why Phil, Dan and myself take offense to charismatic claims: the denigrate the actual work of the Spirit described in Scripture, and only serve to confuse rather than enlighten the word and the work of God.
Shaking one’s head at criticism is not responding to it. Claiming the other side is just too dim to see the truth doesn’t answer their questions. And claiming better experience doesn’t clear up doctrinal confusion.
I think part of the issue here comes from the question of how God works. Cessationists tend to place God’s workings outside the realm of the believer’s life. God works as a sole entity and believers don’t really have much to do with what happens as God works. If anything, God works around the believer. Charismatics believer God works His power through the believer’s life. God works through imperfect vessels to show that His power is made perfect in weakness. (Think of all the miracles in the life of Paul, yet consider his thorn in the flesh.)
I think that’s one of the major distinctions. It’s also why cessationists and charismatics tend to talk around each other yet arrive at the same destination. Someone was healed of a devastating disease, praise God! We’ll both agree that was a huge blessing. Our main contention is of mechanism.
I have a very busy week, but I’ll try to blog on this at some point in the next week.
I’ll post my response with no time limit for your answer as I understand busy. However, you answer here cannot wait for an answer.
I can’t think of anything someone would say about cessationist theology that would be less insightful, Dan, than this. “God works around the believer”? In the new birth? In sanctification? In gifting for service? In receiving and understanding the word? Isn’t it somewhat astonishing that the NT spends so little time talking about the “mundane” gifts and work of the church and so little time talking about the way prophets will operate in the next generation of the church, or what to do with all the people who get miraculously healed by the charismatic hand-layers-on?
Saying what you say here is glib at best. If you can agree not to toss out examples of lifeless muppets who mouth cessationist theology to endorse your claim here, I’ll stay away from Hinn and Robertson whenw e get back to your own claims of what the in-working of the Spirit must mean.
Again, I think there’s a serious problem in how you perceive the cessationist position. The question is not “Can God — or will God — accomplish miracles today?” God will do what God will do. The question is, “Does God today, as a part of His normative expression in and through the church, demonstrate the miraculous for the same purpose demonstrated in the book of Acts?”
When we can agree that the answer to this question is, “NO”, we will then find out whether the believer should seek after and claim these things for God’s sake.
Have a nice week, and e-mail me when you get a response up.
As to the quote you cite first, I’m not making that up out of my own perception. That’s what I continually hear from a large number of people who are cessationists. We don’t need the charismata because God will do the work apart from us. It’s as if God does an end run around the believer to create a result similar to a “charismatic” gift but without the charismata. That’s one common argument when discussing miraculous healings. Did the healing happen because God imparted a gift of healing to an individual who then prayed for another to receive healing OR did God not need to impart a gift to heal a person, choosing a more direct route by just healing the sick without the need for the believer to be a part of the process?
Surely you’ve encountered these two opposing views. I think that in many ways they are the dividing line on this issue. What happens then is that we get into a tussle over means rather than ends.
As to the second quote, I cannot agree with you that the answer is no. I believe the answer is very much yes. This is especially true in nations that have not been blanketed with the Gospel. The charismatic gifts still have a place because the Gospel has not been heard by every tongue and tribe. Power gifts are still a sign, an imprimatur of God upon the life of the Christian who ministers to those who have not heard the message. They function in exactly the same way as they did in Acts under exactly he same circumstances. Again, as A.W. Tozer once said, no one comes to the Scriptures fresh and comes away thinking the gifts have ceased. Tozer also wrote in his book Tragedy in the Church:
That’s what I believe because that’s what the Scriptures teach.
The fulfillment of the prophet Joel’s words in Acts 2 at no time fixes a limit on the length of time the Holy Spirit will work miraculously through the lives of men EXCEPT the Great Day of the Lord. As that is the last day of this world as we know it, that is the day that the gifts cease. That is the day that “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13 comes. That is the arrival of the Kingdom and the King in their unveiled glory. At that point, we will no longer need the gifts.
Until that time, however, nothing has changed since Pentecost. No command of the Lord has been altered regarding our commission, nor have the tools He’s given to fulfill that commission been rescinded. And that includes the charismatic gifts.
That’s where I stand.
Great Tozer quote, brother.
I think it’s funny that you don’t want to be marginalized by Benny Hinn but you want to marginalize those who think you’re full of theological hooey by refuting those on the opposite side in the same credibility class as Hinn.
See my detailed response, below.
I tried reading your comment several different ways, but I’m still uncertain what you’re trying to say. I’d like to respond, but I don’t understand who you say I’m marginalizing or by what process.
Lincoln, slw, there are a few of us out there. I rarely blog any more at my own place, but occasionally I’ll stick up for us Wesleyan-Arminians at the BHT
Dan,
Yet another Spirit-led word delivered with humility.
Thank you.
Thanks for being a reader!
This whole discussion reminds me that we all need to fall on our faces before God, seeking forgiveness for our disunity. How often we forget the truth of the old cliche, that the ground at the foot of the cross is level.
I like that about the level ground at the cross.
Great article Dan. I grew up in a traditional Methodist church, attended an Assemblies of God college, and currently attend a non-denominational church, through if pressed we are probably more Baptist than anything. There are things in all denominations I don’t agree with, but to each his own.
The point to all this? We are all Christians. Our identity is not in our church but in Christ. We can argue the finer points of theology all we want, but in the end the truth of Christ and our gift of salvation are all that matter.
I’ve found that each denomination has latched onto a small chunk of the larger whole of the Gospel and elevated that chunk to primacy. Also, I’ve found that race, class, and personality type also lead to denominational differences, much more than people are willing to admit.
Pentecostals tend to be less educated, less wealthy, and more attuned to emotions than Presbyterians. The Pentecostal feels out of place in the Presbyterain church and vice versa. Honestly, if a predominantly white church and a predominantly black church exist right across the street from each other, they may very similar theologies and yet when new people move into the neighborhood they’ll favor whatever church aligns with their race more often than not.
Sad? Yes, but I don’t have a clear answer how to solve that. People choose churches for the dumbest reasons and most of those dumb reasons have to do with personal preferences rather than the quality (or lack if it) in a particular church.
It’s been clear in my experience that the only ones who really have it right are those who grew up in a United Methodist Church in Annapolis, Maryland, attended an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Easton, Pennsylvania during most of their college years, and then became a member of an Evangelical Free Church in Easton in the mid-’90s.
Everyone else has got it all wrong and should be opposed if not avoided altogether.
Well at least we cleared THAT up.
I usually can’t bring myself to insert a smiley face symbol. Hope it’s not necessary when what I’ve written is sufficiently ridiculous.
Is that the one with the punchline “Die, heretic!”?
I’ve been in a Restoration church all my life. Its unofficial position is cessationist. That troubles me.
Because the folks that I encounter in scripture who get in the worst jams seem to be the ones who are incontrovertibly convinced they are right about what God cannot or will not do ….
Yeah, I think a dividing line exists in the Church between those who believe that God can do anything (within the self-imposed limits of His nature) and those may say they believe that, but then start adding their own rules and limitations.
If a man says, “I don’t want to experience God THAT way,” that kind of resistance isn’t going to get him any closer to what God wants unless that man humbles himself and says, “Not my will, Lord,but yours be done.”
Can God utterly blast through that mentality? Sometimes, but I don’t see that as the norm. Sure. modern-day equivalents of Jonah exist, but again, God’s got a better way.
Hi Dan,
Interesting post.
Can I ask a question of you with the understanding that I only want to start a discussion, this is not a form of attack?
If I can, then the question is this:
Is writing a post saying essentially that ‘those people’ are terrible and bad examples because they constantly tear each other apart over their theology not actually you stooping to their level and doing the same thing?
Are you not actually adding to the volume of arguments in the blogsphere which would turn people away from Christianity?
This is a question I wrestle with and I would be interested in your opinion.
Thanks
Peter
If you’ve been a regular reader, you know that I write to the Church by addressing individual believers. Any change that comes must come through individuals. This lessens the tendency toward labeling others as “those people.” I try very hard not to address groups or talk about groups.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God—you, me, them, us, whomever. Correction implies that we get our own house in order, as my post notes. Nothing is wrong in getting your house in order. When your blog consists of telling other groups or denominations to get their house in order, you better darned well have your own in top shape or else you’re a hypocrite. We have to take the logs out of our own eyes before we can help another group with their specks.
I’ve gotten many private e-mails from people that Cerulean Sanctum is one blog they always read because it represents sanity amidst the insanity of the Godblogosphere. I don’t write to pick fights. I write to hold up a mirror and say, “This is how we are. What are we doing to be more like Christ? Here is a better way….” I pray that everyone who comes here goes away challenged, blessed, and ultimately changed. You simply won’t achieve that if your focus is “the other guy.” Here the focus is on presenting a spotless Bride to the Bridgegroom, helping us become more like Christ by looking at ourselves and recognizing the need for the Spirit to conform us to that image.
I would totally agree with those who tell you that Cerulean Sanctum represents sanity amid the insanity of the blogsphere.
I guess the wrestling match going on inside me is more to do with how sad it is that you would even need to write a post like that.
My preferred route would be to completely ignore people who are less interested in furthering the Kingdom than they are with picking a fight with anyone they can find to pick a fight with.
On the other hand though, many people come to the Internet to learn about God and if the people like you who can see clearly do not introduce a counterpoint argument to what some people put out there, then all people will be able to find is the maybe less-than-theologically-correct stuff.
I guess the issue is that, with the internet being international and impersonal, compromise, agreement and acceptance of one another is very difficult to achieve. On a local level reconcilliation is possible, on an international stage where people get to hide behind their keyboards, it’s almost impossible (although I do firmly believe that NOTHING is impossible with God).
Maybe the root of my discomfort is frustration at where we are as a family. Maybe I’m just frustrated that the divisions are there at all.
Keep up the good work and the sanity. You’re doing what you believe God has gifted and called you to do and that’s a great example to us all.
God bless,
Peter
Reformational vs. “just reformed”…
…
I so love Technorati.
Hey Dude: no question that every one of your mad-cap examples ought to be absolutely abhorred. Racism trumps evangelism? Using the word — not even the theology but the -word- — “calvinism” to draw a spiritual picture of a visitor? A de facto prosperity gospel?
If you can get Dan or Phil to defend any of that, I’ll eat my shoes.
See: if you drop that dime on Reformed churches, any one of us Pyros would give you an “amen”. In fact, to keep the confusion factor low, here you go: AMEN!
But when Phil or Dan (or me — don’t forget me) bring up Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson as examples, we don’t get an “amen — these are kooks”. We get, “yeah but — !” Sure Benny Hinn is a widow-fleecing liar and an offense to the Christian church and the Gospel, but the Holy Spirit really does work that way — just not in Benny. Yes, Pat Robertson is a quack who ought to shut up more often rather than letting his bigotry and ignorance pose as God speaking through him, but there are men today who are prophecying — just not Pat.
We keep coming back to the subject because this is the kind of tom-foolery that keeps coming back to us. When we find a serious charismatic who will not slyly (if shame-facedly) defend Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson, we can start closing up the conversation on that subject.
But these guys — these serious charismatics who will not defend prophets who makes false prophecies and healers who mostly don’t heal — never show up.
Please: invite them to the discussion. Send them to me, or to Phil, or to Dan. I’ll open up the DebateBlog for 25 questions instead of 5 so they can nail me to the Scripture and force me spiritually to speak in tongues. Bring those guys around. I’d love to meet them.
Thanks for dropping by. I tried to trackback to the post at Pyromaniacs, but it didn’t seem to go. Glad you found this through Technorati.
I’m not asking Team Pyro to defend my examples of nuttiness in the Reformed camp. Heck, I know it’s nuttiness. Every house has its nuttiness.
I’ve written extensively against charismania. In fact, most of my posts categorized as “Charismatic” at this blog address the excesses. I’m a serious charismatic and I absolutely do not support Hinn or Robertson or anyone else that goes that charismaniac route. My post “How Not to Be a Charismatic Headcase” should prove I’m serious about stupidity in charismatic circles.
Solid, serious charismatics do exist. Gordon Fee immediately springs to mind. Wayne Grudem wrote the Vineyard’s positional papers. In the blogosphere, Mark Lauterbach of GospelDrivenLife astonishes me with his incredibly solid posts. Rob Wilkerson of Miscellanies on the Gospel is also a serious Reformed charismatic. Of course, Adrian Warnock comes to mind. And you’ve got the whole Sovereign Grace movement—Mahaney and Harris. And though I differ with him on a few things, Jack Hayford’s a solid guy, a great teacher/preacher and probably the elder statesmen of respectable charismatics. Of the deceased, A.W. Tozer and Leonard Ravenhill are remarkable. Then, though some cessationist folks of the Reformed persuasion don’t want to believe this, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones endorsed modern day charismata toward the end of his life and even wrote a book about it called Joy Unspeakable. Dwight Moody wrote of how his ministry was dramatically improved after having a charismatic experience, and later Moody named the very solid charismatic, R.A. Torrey, to be the first leader of Moody Bible College.
And though I may not know who they are by name, I’ve got to believe there’s some very reputable charismatics teaching at Assemblies of God and Pentecostal schools across the globe. I also know that many people in the mainline churches have a charismatic story to tell. That was me. The most Spirit-filled man I know is a charismatic Lutheran and his influence on my life has been profound.
So when people say that they can’t find any examples outside of Hinn, Copeland, and guys like that, I just shake my head. Folks just aren’t looking very hard.
Then it’s official, Dan: please join me at the DebateBlog for a give-and-take on this subject. I have a couple of thesis statements in mind, and you can choose one of them, or provide one of your own.
The Charismatic Gifts, as manifest today, point people to Jesus Christ.
-or-
Churches which do not manifest the Charismatic Gifts today fail to manifest the full expression of the Gospel.
-or-
The apostolic offices are still in force because the apostolic, charismatic gifts are still in force.
And I will throw in this: I will ask and answer without the use of snark or sarcasm. I will take this exchange at least as serious as you do.
I’ll take the first statement and I’ll give you my answer right here.
“The Charismatic Gifts, as manifest today, point people to Jesus Christ.”
My answer:
Were they used to point people to Christ in Acts? Yes. Were they used in conjunction with sound teaching and preaching in Acts? Yes. Has the Lord altered his commission to us believers since the book of Acts? No.
Therefore, the gifts as expressed today are still intended to point people to Christ. And this they still do when ministered by humble, faithful, discerning servants who minister them in an atmosphere of love and sound teaching and preaching.
Done. Look for an e-mail invite to DebateBlog today.
We can trade e-mails on details regarding length and format, and then I’ll be glad to give you the first question to answer.
I think I’ve given my answer already. Would you like to refute it?
{sigh}
The brief aside I would start with is that the D-Blog is a better format than ranting at each other in the meta here because it gives the readers easy access to the exchange, and it requires both clarity and brevity. If you’d rather do this here, I’ll be glad to oblige. let’s simply not pretend that this is a reasonable format in which to hash out a reasonable thesis.
[1] We do not disagree that in Acts, the Holy Spirit did something through the earliest disciples — particularly the apostles — by which the message of the Gospel was given supernatural witness. No sense at all in arguing about something we agree on.
[2] However, there is the question of whether God’s action here is a necessary function of the church either then or perpetually. For example, why does Paul give neither Titus nor Timothy instruction about the use of supernatural manifestations? Why are the categories of God, sin, Christ, faith far more important to Paul than any private prayer language or presentation of visions?
[3] Look at the -extensive- demands Paul places on “daGifts” for order and edification, and also what he places far above them. Those other things he calls a “more excellent way”, things which are far better than these manifestations (cf. 1 Cor 13). In that, Paul also tells the Corinthians that somehow, in spite of their enthusiasm to be prophets, and to speak in foreign tongues, there is something which they have nearly forgotten (cf. 1 Cor 15) — which is the Gospel. So the claim that even in Paul’s day the gifts where pointing people to the Gospel requires a little more consideration in the best case.
[4] In that, it is a mistake to interpret the manifestation of gifts in the people the NT describes as necessary for either the message or the church. In the best case, those signs were for the sake of fulfilling a specific prophecy and not a general promise. (cf. Acts 2, Joel 2) A fantastic and frequently-overlooked counter-example to the necessity of miraculous gifts is the man Jesus called, “among those born of women there has arisen no one greater”: John the Baptist. John performed not one miracle, and yet he was the herald of the Messiah. Surely if miraculous signs ought to accompany anyone it should be the one who proclaims, “Look — there is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”
[5] The specific problem with the thesis you have here endorsed is that charismatics do not demonstrate a greater consequence of self-validating evangelism for all their claims that the Gospel is somehow lifted up by miraculous manifestations. Particularly, I’d point to the work done by Barna and Rutz as categorical testimony by friendly witnesses that the “gifted” do no better than the ungifted in bringing people first to the Gospel and then through discipleship. Charismatic hijinx create people who desire a metaphysical experience rather than an incarnational outworking of the meaning of the Son of God’s precious sacrifice. You might find exceptions, and I would be extremely willing to stipulate your exceptions. I’ll even give you two to start: Josh harris and John Piper. But the vast majority of charismatic churches are (at best) not any better than the run-of-the-mill vanilla evangelical country club when it comes to developing people to true discipleship.
There’s my rebuttal, and it’s less than 500 words (excluding the brief aside).
My singular question back to you is this:
Why is martyrdom extolled by Christ as a sure sign of being His true disciple, but doing signs and wonders in His name specifically named by Him as a broad attribute of those whom, in the final account, He will say He never knew? That is: why doesn’t Christ tell us in His own personal ministry about the Gospel-pointing ministry of supernatural gifts if they are as important as the Continualist position suggests?
Thanks.
I’ll be honest here and say that I find this whole debate moot. As I noted in my comment, Christ setup a way for His people to witness to the world. Nowhere in the Scriptures has any aspect of that witness been rescinded. If you and I agree on that point, there’s nothing further to debate.
Please keep this in mind: at some point, rather than merely scowl at people who disagree with you about this, you’re going to have to engage in something other than a lecture which doesn’t answer any of the questions those who disagree with you offer. Your post today about the Western church is evidence that you would rather hand out lectures than answer criticism and discuss rational points of disagreement.
Your friends who are honest with you will tell you that this practice is far worse than sarcasm or funny comic book covers. Your friends who are not honest with you will cheer you on for evading direct criticism and questions.
I’m letting you off the hook this time, Dan, because I am concerned with other things. But it is your credibility that is at stake here — not in whether you believe the things you say you believe, but rather whether you believe them in a way which conforms to Scripture and therefore compells others to agree with you.
God bless you and good luck.
No one’s running away here. I’d like to engage you, but you said