Do Reformed Charismatics Have an Image Problem? - Again...
CharismaticsIf you didn't see the previous conversation here about whether reformed charismatics have an image problem, you might like to follow this link to the previous post.
I have recently met conservatives whose ONLY experience of those who call themselves charismatics has been either:
1. Health and prosperity false teachers; or
2. People who have treated them venemously and damaged their ministries; or
3. People who have no concern for doctrine and who are therefore not rooted (nor concerned to be rooted) in the scriptures
Or some combination of all three.
If that is your only experience of charismatics no wonder you want to run a mile. I want to run a mile. I don't want anything to do with any of that. All reformed charismatics want to distance themselves utterly from any such thing.
The question I want to put is this: how do reformed charismatics help more conservative folk understand them and relate well to them. You might ask if that is even necessary? Why bother, let's just get on with the gospel work in each of our corners. For gospel unity and wider evangelisation of the UK I really think it is necessary. Maybe I am in a minority, I don't know.
But if you would like to comment, I would like to hear from charismatics: how do you think conservative brothers and sisters could best be helped to relate well with us? And from non-charismatics: how would you like to be helped?
Keep comments kind and winsome please
Reader Comments (12)
Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears' book 'Doctrine' defines the Charismatic position (which Driscoll, generally considered a Reformed Charismatic, declares himself to hold) as "Supernatural gifts are given to every generation. Contemporary revelations are valued but always second to Scripture. Supernatural manifestations are sought, but must show the fruit of the Spirit."
The Continuationalist position (Breshears' view) is defined as "Supernatural gifts are given to every generation and should be practiced today but always tested according to the guidelines of Scripture". (both from p386, Chart 12.1)
Where would a reformed Charismatic be there? Charismatic, Continuationalist, somewhere in between?
Here's my main question as a Continuationalist who goes to a church led by Charismatics to the Reformed Charismatics: are you making, or seeming to make, some gifts - healing, revelatory gifts, showy gifts seem more important than those who have 'mundane'/hidden gifts like intercession, giving, administration, helps, etc? Are you being 'Arian' (see Dave Bish's blog for an explanation of my use of that word)?
I think, to be honest, the best way for Reformed Charismatics to help to relate to others is to not use the word "Charismatic" to describe yourselves - Marcus shows rather a lot of the baggage attached to it, none of which applies to you guys as far as I can see.
A few points to throw out: Regarding 1, RCs have to show a clearer scriptural epistemeology that separates the bits of charismaticism they don't approve from that which they do. Regarding 3, Show that the term 'Reformed' is more than a wax nose.
Somewhere there has to be the generosity and humility to cross the existing lines. Whether charismatic or non-charismatic to reach out a hand to any who are evangelical in your own town or city, and perhaps to ask: how can I pray for you? how can I learn from you? how can I serve (not fix) you?
Much charismatic preaching within Anglicanism lacks clarity and makes the jump to experience without establishing a strong exegetical platform for its assertions concerning the work of the Holy Spirit. American Reformed Charismatic preaching doesn't tend to make this mistake, which may explain why Piper, Driscoll, Mahaney, Chandler et al are more readily embraced by British Conservative Evangelicals.
My personal approach as an Anglican Reformed Charismatic is 1) to follow a more conservative hermeneutic whilst maintaining a stronger charismatic application. I have found that my straight conservative friends are more prepared to trust my testimony to 'the things of the Spirit' if they can see very clearly that I approach the interpretation and exposition of scripture using the same principles as they do. 2) I try to openly and unashamedly express deep trust and high expectations - both in prayer and in conversation - that the Holy Spirit's empowering presence will result in regeneration, repentance and conversion on a regular basis. 3) Sometimes you just have to risk being seen as dodgy and fight against the fear of man that lurks just below the surface of some expressions of British evangelicalism!
Thanks again for this discussion - always makes me think. Do you think 'Reformed Charismatic' sounds all wrong at first glance? A bit like 'reformed alcoholic' - ie. I once was one (a Charismatic) but now I aren't (I'm reformed?!) Just a thought.... I wonder too if the intent is to communicate someone who is essentially reformed in theology but continuationist in use of the gifts, why give such prominence to 'charismatic'? I think this is problematic because of all the stuff people have said re charismatics generally regarding the dominate view of the gospel and the Bible, and as you have pointed out in this article. Why not say 'Reformed Continuationist'? In other words, why give one line (the use of gifts) out of (say) hundreds of confessional lines (God, Jesus, Spirit, Church, etc) such prominence?
Good question. I think it's because the word Charismatic refers to a whole pneumatological complex which includes the charismata but also includes certain expectations concerning the affections, inaugurated eschatology (particularly with regard to the Kingdom of God), sung worship as a means of grace, and the role and function of experience in regeneration, repentance and conversion.
Good point Howie. Lexically the better way to say it would be "charismatic reformed", which makes reformed out to be the bigger theological term with charismatic being the qualifier. And it doesn't allow the "reformed shoplifter" kind of lexical confusion. "continuationist reformed" is better still. However labels are strange things that almost have a life of their own. They arise, very often, not out of a definite thought out strategy, and they start to assume different meanings for those who apply them to themselves to the ones they hold for people who wouldn't apply them to themselves. In short, they are fairly organic and problematic.
For myself I don't think the "reformed charismatic" label is inherently a great deal more problematic than the "conservative evangelical" one (except that the latter gets the order the right way around). But the fact is they both need qualifying to fill with content if they are to be meaningful (and therefore useful). I want to know that all of us conservatives regularly rejoice in the content of that label rather than the label, and the same for all of us presently using reformed charismatic as our preferred moniker.
The most interesting thing is that both sets feel we have to attach an extra-biblical, systematic label to our self-definition. For whose benefit? For our own, to keep us on track? A label will never do that. That's God's job. For others, to act as a boundary marker? But why do so? Presumably it keeps more people out than would be the case if we didn't. Don't we want people who don't currently identify with us for label reasons to gradually start to do so?
My preference, if I am honest, is to settle for "evangelical". You will say (correctly) that this is now so broad a term as to be meaningless without qualification, and I agree. But the qualification should come via stated content, not the shorthand of a label.
I spent 17 years in a charismatic church, mainly happily. They sometimes used the term 'evangelical' as shorthand for cessationist. I have now been nearly 4 years in an evangelical church, mainly happily, who are generally cessationist but hate being called that. My own views remain somewhere between these two positions, so I feel both doctrinally and culturally not quite at home in either. Both churches regard themselves as being both biblical and Spirit-filled, yet in my view one has a weak view of Scripture and the other has a weak view of the Spirit. What should I call myself? I don't like 'Reformed charismatic', because for me the word 'Reformed' has some negative connotations. 'Spirit-filled evangelical' or 'biblical charismatic' might insult my friends on both sides, and sounds arrogant. I am a little suspicious of 'continuationist' - could it mean charismatic in theory but cessationist in practice?
So what do you call a fairly conservative evangelical, yet who uses the gifts and believes that we all need to ask for more of the Holy Spirit, but cannot approve 'name it and claim it' and similar excesses? Names are useful, if not pressed too far. If we believe our position is true, and important, then we will want our friends to join us. It helps if there is a name. Maybe we should wait for our enemies to name us, then wear our badge with pride?
It sounds like you and I are in similar places Dave. Wayne Grudem mentions a category of "open but cautious" towards the things of the Spirit that I think is probably the major position of British evangelicals today but that I am quite suspicious of. In practice it seems to mean "theologically can't sustain that these gifts did not cease with the closure of the canon of scripture, so God can still give them. But pragmatically we are not very interested (or actively resistant) in our church." This can seem tantamount to saying "God gives gifts for the building of the church, but we don't want them", often with a caveat that we are simply being cautious to avoid excess or error. It is a slim line between being cautious about God's gifts and quenching the Holy Spirit.
In addition almost every situation I have ever come across where "conservative charismatics" wish to have fellowship with "conservative non-charismatics", and the question is asked "how can we best help you relate to us," the answer has been "downplay the stuff about the Holy Spirit." Rather than "we will try to learn from you and eagerly desire more of the Spirit's work." This isn't intended to be a cheap potshot at my many more cautious friends, simply an observation that it is frequently assumed that the more charismatic should be the one to roll over in order to make the less charismatic one feel less uncomfortable. Which is, of course, a shaky basis for growing in mutual understanding. The sad thing is that in many cases you can't really get a piece of paper between them on almost anything else (because they are both conservatives) yet the person and work of the Spirit becomes a separating issue.
If push comes to shove I prefer a short statement about myself rather than a label: "conservative biblical by theology, baptistic by polity, high view of scripture, charismatic with regard to the religious affections", etc. But that is a bit of a mouthful. Actually the label I want to put on this is "evangelical", and then define clearly what I mean by evangelical. The trouble with riders (ie conservative evangelical, charismatic evangelical, etc) is that the rider becomes the important bit that we debate over, but they are inevitably single issue. I don't want to be defined or define other evangelicals over single issues.
Thanks for your reply. It set me thinking: maybe we should try to reclaim the name "evangelical" from the more extreme cessationists - their denial of the supernatural today puts them dangerously close to deism, in practice if not in theory. I believe I became more of an evangelical, not less, when I embraced the gifts (and the Gift himself) because I found I no longer had to ignore or explain away significant chunks of the NT. My parents' generation of evangelicals expected God to intervene in their lives in quite tangible ways, even though the gifts were not really in evidence. Since then the rise of the charismatic movement has driven a wedge into evangelicals, and forced people apart - the 'pros' and the 'antis' no longer worship together. Church leaders must accept some responsibility too - in my experience leaders tend to be more extreme in their favourite direction than the bulk of their members.
Returning to your first paragraph, I think that describes my current church. The pastor once told me that he wants charismatics to feel welcome here, and he is aware of a few people who use tongues privately, yet there is no visible sign of the gifts in any of our meetings. He is open but cautious, with the emphasis (as far as I can see) on cautious. We pray that God will guide us, yet by what mechanism? If a prophecy was given most would regard it as a personal opinion; if it came true, most would regard it as coincidence. Asking God to tell us what to do is apparently a bad idea as it leads to laziness! Sometimes it feels like "Come in, but please leave your gifts at the door." However, I haven't given up praying and there are occasional encouragements.
What is the biblical position between "open but cautious", and "open and reckless" - "open and embracing"?
"Open and discerning", I think. We are told both not to despise prophecies but also to submit them to scriptural tests. In the process indicating where the authority lies - that edificatory words are subservient to scripture.
For some of my less charismatic friends I know that a chief issue is that they think that charismatics hold contemporary words to be more important than scripture - at least in practice, if not in theory. Some may have seen examples of this. Which is such a bad thing that they can reason that any amount of caution is acceptable to make sure it never happens in their congregation. It would be better to not have anything vaguely looking like a prophecy than to risk it supplanting scripture.
I understand and sympathise with this instinct but it can tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For at least three reasons: (a) God tells us in the Bible to eagerly desire spiritual gifts - we are disobedient if we we ignore this; (b) it reduces the church's opportunity for edification, under a disguise of protecting the church's edification; (c) Paul's answer to the church in Corinth - who would have been in great danger of doing this - wasn't "be especially cautious about prophecy because of all the possible dangers that surround it."
As David Watson used to say "the opposite of abuse is right use, not non-use." I believe some conservatives still think there are only two options on the table - biblical (them) and wacky, unbiblical, low view of scripture, purely subjectively-driven (charismatics). (Or, as one well known speaker I heard recently put it "Christian OR charismatic.") It might be that these are the only two options they have personally seen, but more likely (IMHO) that these are the two caricatures that are bandied about by leaders and speakers they respect.
Maybe the caricatures were true once. Maybe it is still true in some places. I can only speak for the situation I know where, thankfully, it is resoundingly not true. I know a lot of people who are passionately scriptural, utterly submitting to the Bible who would agree with your comment that growing in a knowledge of the Holy Spirit's work has made them more evangelical, not less, by any classic definition of evangelical. More passionate about the Bible, more concerned for mission, more bold in proclamation, more cross-and-resurrection centred.
Open and discerning. Yes, I like that - wiser than "embracing".
In my previous charismatic church I once spoke on prophecy, and the need for weighing/sifting in the light of Scripture. I was concerned afterwards to find that to some people this came as new teaching! Some charismatics seem very keen to roll up ammunition for the cessationists to fire at them, which of course they do with great glee. To some extent the converse is also true.