Do Reformed Charismatics Have an Image Problem?
BibleA few weeks ago I was invited to speak to an Anglican evangelical group about engaging with our culture, and had a splendid time making some new friends. During the talk I made some passing comments on the subject of worship and truth, and how worship content should be connected to the scriptures, so that the delight of worship is transparently delighting in the Lord, rather than in emotion for its own sake.
Afterwards a man - a well known hymnodist as it turns out - asked if he could quote me in a piece he is writing. I asked him to let me know the context and he kindly sent it to me this morning. I was slightly bemused to read that he clearly liked my comments, but was very surprised to hear them coming from a reformed charismatic: "even an avowed reformed charismatic has said something similar..."!
Putting aside the fact that I didn't know I was an "avowed" anything (??!), the thing that immediately hit me was that he didn't expect to hear a strong message about truth in regard to worship from a reformed charismatic. The shock was in the "Even", ie, "the last person I would expect to say this". (For me, Reformed = doctrinally rooted in the Calvinist end of the Reformation; charismatic = continuationist on spiritual gifts in the church and lively with regards to the affections. Go read Jonathan Edwards if you want to know who I most closely identify with).
Then this week I read an article this week on gospel convictions that seemed to place clear blue water between evangelicals and charismatics: "[between evangelicals and charismatics] there are also significant differences of conviction." With the clear implication that charismatics necessarily stray from evangelical fundamentals at some key points. (Granted this article appeared in a conservative Australian journal and I accept that words may have rather different connotations and historical associations there to in the UK).
Here is the thing: I know a lot of people who are charismatics who want to strongly identify themselves with the very core of evangelicalism, by their doctrinal convictions and their mission-mindedness. We are Christ-centred, cross-centred, scripture-centred, grace-centred, faith-centred. Passionate to build churches to the glory of God. Not only so, but among some of these friends I number preachers and other Bible handlers of an astonishing degree of gifting: exegetically good, powerful in application and full of the Holy Spirit.
So why don't people expect to hear that from us? Is the question even relevant? You might respond, "who cares what anyone thinks, just get on with building the kingdom." Except that I think that biblical charismatics have a terrific role to play right at the very heart of evangelicalism - energising, showing how to build and plant churches, demonstrating what the best preaching and most inspirational Bible teaching can be like. I'm not happy to answer by withdrawing and just getting on with it.
Some other reasons might be:
- Conservative evangelicals haven't been exposed to the best that the charismatics do, leaving them with a one-sided negative view
- Charismatics have just done their own thing without believing that we can make a good contribution to the wider church
- Some people just spread nonsense around the place about charismatics. Search Twitter for "charismatics" and you will see some of the bizarre things that people say. My favourite is the current second from top which seems to suggest that "not all [charismatics] are bipolar and crazy" Well, thank goodness for that!
Or, just possibly, we haven't been as good as our biblical aspirations. I ought to at least allow the possibility that if someone is really surprised to hear me talk strongly about truth, then I haven't majored on it enough. Maybe its my lack, not theirs.
I think that people who self-consciously want to be full of Word and the Holy Spirit ought to be modelling the best preaching, the keenest regard for teaching the scriptures, and should be seen to do so for the benefit of others who need the Bible applied to their lives and ministries. Any reformed charismatic friends reading this, let's commit ourselves to building the strongest foundations on scripture and preaching and teaching of scripture that is accurate, profound, keenly applied and full of adoration. Let's do even better than we do at present.
Let's pray that in a decade's time anyone in the UK who is hungry to meet God in the scriptures automatically assumes that's what they will find from us, rather than being surprised or shocked.
Reader Comments (20)
I wonder if part of the issue is that people's assumption (and perhaps their experience) is that the "charismatic" but always trumps the "reformed" bit?
Mind you in a way the whole description of someone as a "reformed charismatic" is a bit odd isn't it? Like calling someone a "reformed baptist". Because it takes one adjective which is about the sovereignty of God, our view of how God saves and the way that God reveals himself and allies it to another which is about a fairly narrow range of gifts (in the first case) or our practice of the Christian initiation rite (in the second). The relative triviality of the second item is overwhelming!
I thought reformed charismatics were those who used to be continuationists but have been through rehab...
But seriously, there are an awful lot of reformed continuationists out there who you'd never expect to be. They just don't go by the charismatic name, which will forever have associations with all the off-the-wall stuff.
There's another key belief that arises out of our committment to scripture, and that's discernment.
As long as the reformed charismatics seem willing to submerge discernment to pragmatism, it's doubtful how charismatic they really are. Our Reformed beliefs should inform out Charismatic beliefs, as well as vice versa.
I love your blog - but why do you only provide a summary of your blog in the RSS feed - can you provide the full text of the blog - then I'm much more likely to read your blog again as I'll be able to do it in my Feed Reader. Thanks.
Thank you so much - a much needed tonic of words that i am hungry to hear at the moment.
Bless u
Rachel
Thanks for that encouragement. My fiance and I are currently trying to decide where we'll go to church when we get married. I'm frustrated because it seems that one either has to chose somewhere with good preaching but little obvious use of charismatic gifts, or somewhere where charismatic gifts are used and encouraged, but the Bible teaching isn't all it could be. My beloved views this as inevitable thanks to the histories of evangelical and charismatic churches, but thinks that at some point in the future there is likely to be more cross-fertilisation and thus an end to the need to chose. I don't really understand why things should be that way. I want it all - faithful truth-filled preaching, charismatic gifts encouraged for the building up of the church, freedom in worship and beautiful songs with profound and God-glorifying lyrics. Good to know I'm not the only one.
Marcus,
Just out of curiousity, what Reformed confessions (those grand churchly statements) do Reformed charismatics subscribe to? I'm not aware of any, but that may be my ignorance ;-)
I agree with Andrew, unsurprisingly. The issue is that over the years, reformed charismatics have got on much better with charismatics than uncharismatic reformed people. Undoubtedly that is fault on both sides, but there you have it. I wonder if the people you describe Marcus are willing to admit that the first descriptor is far less important than the second. My experience is, not so much!
Thanks for the post! In answer to your question, YES. At least in Australia. I'm not sure which conservative Australian journal you were referring to (but I could take a guess it was Brief...) There has been a concerted effort by leading conservative evangelicals in the Sydney Anglican diocese to hose down the whole reformed charismatic thing by addressing everything from prophecy, to tongues, to miracles/healings/gifts, to baptism in the Holy Spirit through various means - websites, journals, preaching, etc, particularly in the last 6-12 months. Clearly they are worried by the term. You can see a sample of the concern here: http://phillipjensen.com/video/reformed-charismatics/
Phillip is no dummy - he gets the reformed bits spot on but paints a caricature of charismatics (only interested in experience, don't hold the bible as authoritive, etc) which is very easy to refute, and hence he concludes that reformed and charismatic don't go together. My suggestion is in Australia, don't use the term because of the prejudice against it. It just causes arguments, misunderstandings, and deep suspicion. I know this from experience...
As an earlier contributer said, however, other terms are being used in place of reformed charismatics. Like 'reformed non-cessationist' or 'reformed continuationist'. Some even venture to use 'cautious charismatic' (although only in context of referring to gifts). Driscoll's term 'charismatic with a seat belt' is too extreme for most, and my impression is that Mark's charismatic leanings have played a part in getting him offside with the Sydney Anglican powerbrokers. But what all these terms betray, unfortunately, is an theoretical acknowledgement of charismatic pneumatology but in reality there is no change in actual ecclesiology.
So I like the term. But I think until the lines are drawn more clearly and definitively, and movements have matured which powerfully demonstrate the best of the reformed and the charismatic working together, the term will be generally viewed with suspicion - particularly from our reformed brothers.
Interesting subject. As a charismatic who doesn't subscribe to reformed theology (I have a particular disagreement with TULIP), let me offer three comments. I am treating reformed charismatics as primarily being the SGM (USA) and NFI (UK) groupings. Firstly, reformed charismatics have not been immune to the deception that is found in the many other parts of the charismatic and pentecostal worlds. Whilst they have generally avoided word of faith and prosperity teachings, they still jumped on the "revival" bandwagons that came hurtling out of Toronto and Lakeland. These are now discredited but I have yet to hear any sort of apology or "we were wrong" admission from the reformed charismatic camp. Secondly, reformed charismatic churches typically have dominant leaders who they see themselves as "apostles". There is little scope for discussion in these churches, and accountability only goes in the downwards direction - pastors are not accountable to their flocks. The end result is that tales of abusive behaviour are commonplace. Thirdly, there seems to be an arrogance in some reformed charismatic circles - along the lines of "we are the only true believers" - hence cooperation with other churches rarely occurs.
Thanks Dave
I can see the strength of all three of those comments. The nebulous nature of labels can tend to hide some wide variety on each of those issues. Most of my reformed charismatic friends would at least be cautious to want to apply biblical tests to supernatural or revivalist claims, if not extremely cautious of a Lakeland situation. But just because they would doesn't mean everyone who defines themselves as a Reformed C does.
On the nature of the ministry that apostles exercise, my own viewpoint has been rather limited (not worshipping or leading in a Ref C church), but what I have seen has impressed me. I have witnessed an understanding of apostles as respected fathers and establishers of a base of biblical doctrine in new churches work, and work well. I don't doubt that there are over-dominant leaders out there, who justify power under the title of apostleship, but I think there is good practise too. Those I know are humble, biblical men. From where I am looking I don't see stories of abuse being commonplace, and am sorry that they are where you are. The danger is of taking the most negative extreme and assuming that is the norm.
The issue of cooperation with others has some more weight where I am, but I have seen it cut both ways - ie Ref C's tending to insularity because they feel forced into it, sometimes for historical reasons. And there are always local factors to how well relationships work that have nothing to do with the larger categories or groupings. For your encouragement I see increasing amounts of goodwill and desire for working with others among a a good number of NFI friends of mine.
The issue of insularity also plays to the "did they admit they were wrong" question. To offer or receive that kind of admission you have to be close enough to people to (a) know whether they really did or affirmed something they ought to subsequently hold their hands up over (b) to know whether they already have. I have been involved with discussions (unrelated to this issue) in the past in which one constituency has effectively said of another "we will not offer olive branches of fellowship without prior indication of repentance over issue X." The trouble being that there was so much clear blue water between the parties that the second had no idea that there was something that needed repenting of and nobody was telling them. Or if they were, it came out as a demand. The first felt justified in their stronghold precisely because "if the other lot were really biblical then they would automatically see it."
Dave's comments got me thinking. Although the term 'reformed charismatic' implies an embracing of the best of both these worlds, does it also mean it will be susceptible to the worst of both these worlds too? Dave brought up the Lakeland revival as a 'worst of' (my term) charismatic - is the tendency to 'we are the true believers' a 'worst of' reformed mindset?
Labels always have a best and worst side to them. There is always a best and worst of worlds,regardless of which constituency (or even doctrinal camp) you identify with. That's the problem. We assume the best of terms we use of ourselves because we fill them with positive meaning and associations. Other people might assume the worst because of the association that the terms have for them.
It therefore becomes critically important to do four things:
1. to define ourselves by more than short-hand terminology
2. to be very clear about what we mean by our labels
3. to assume the best about other people's labels and discover why they think their terms for themselves say something positive.
4. to be honest, as far as possible, with what the worst connotations of our own terminology might carry for others. If we don't we will never help them relate to us
Yes - which is why the 'Reformed' part of 'Reformed Charismatics' needs to be defined very clearly - at the moment it just seems to mean a token subscription to 4 or more points of TULIP, plus a vague idea of the sovereignty of God. One reason among others that it needs to be defined clearly is that it affects the way in which you fellowship with the rest of the 'Reformed' community.
Take the recent NFI magazine - whilst supporting believers baptism it did so in language that is probably un-necessarily inflamatory ('we refuse to baptize unregenerate babies') and in doing so elevated it to an issue of primary importance. Is that the official message to - say - Vaughan Roberts or Tim Keller the next time they turn up to Word Alive ?
If you want to hear a bunch of Reformed and Lutheran believers from different traditions talk ambicably together even whilst they defend their distinctives, you could do worse than listen to the White Horse Inn. The reason they are able to do so is - of course - because each know exactly what they believe in.
Or, you could stop calling yourself Reformed :-)
Incidentally, it's hard not to harbour the suspicion that the reason for doctrinal wooliness is a product of attempting to hold together a movement with lots of disparate parts.
I suspect there are lots of British churches in which it would be difficult to push covenant theology (as one example) without a lot of resistance.
Chris
Your comment raises the issue of definition very well. Question: do I have to belong to a traditional British "Reformed" constituency to be a reformed man with reformation doctrine? ie, is "reformed" a constituency label in your view?
Or does it hold such historical connotation with certain credal statements that one cannot describe oneself as doctrinally reformed without a wholehearted signing up to every detail of them? Take the issue of infant baptism. I am a baptist. Do I have to stop calling myself doctrinally reformed because I disagree with various Reformed catechal questions and answer that affirm paedo-baptism such as Augsburg article 9, Heidelburg 74 or Westminster ch28?
You seem to say several different things in your two comments: 1. you would like self-defined reformed charismatics (you note NFI in particular) to carefully define themselves and they need to do it without doctrinal wooliness. 2.However you don't like their clear statement on being credo-baptist. (Does this mean that you think (a) that clear statements against infant baptism make you not reformed; (b) that baptism is a secondary issue on which reformed people may differ despite historic catechisms (in which case what else is it OK to differ on and still be reformed?); (c) that people who make baptism out to be a more primary issue than you do can't be reformed? (d) you would rather people didn't define their position on this issue too clearly for fear of offending reformed paedo-baptists?) You see my point - you can't ask for detailed doctrinal clarity on the one hand and then complain when they give it.
In your view what is the minimum commitment on primaries that allows someone to honestly say "I am reformed"? And what are the acceptable secondaries we could disagree on and still remain convinced that the other is reformed? I contend that all movements have disparate parts and all movements that stay together allow generous difference on secondaries without declaring others outside the camp. I agree this is not always easy when a constituency is in its formative phases and its desire to be reformed currently outpaces its credal formulations.
Is TULIP, sovereignty, a high view of scripture, the great solas and a high degree (but not total) agreement with historic catechal statements enough minimum definition? If not, why not? (Your assumption that a reformed person should and will fellowship with other members of the reformed camp is good and generous but inadequate as a boundary marker on who is reformed. Just because people don't, logically doesn't make them not reformed. There may be reasons other than theological difference why people don't fellowship together).
(incidentally, reading between the lines I suspect you think that I am an NFI-er. I'm not, although have lots of friends there)
Hi Marcus -
The point is that the answer to question "What does the 'Reformed' mean in 'Reformed Charismatic'" seems to be the rather Alice in Wonderland "It means exactly what I say it does, neither any more or any less". In your other post you point out the importance of what our terms mean, but bandying the 'Reformed' label around does in fact make it devoid of meaning.
My problem with the statement on infant baptism was less about the emphasis on believers baptism, and more about the way in which it was stated in the negative. Compare the LBC of 1689: http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc29.html. The fact that they *do* have interactions with Reformed leaders with other beliefs makes this look even less well thought out.
A high degree of agreement with *any* of the historic reformed doctrinal statements, with a willingness to state which statements they agree with and which they differ on, and a doctrine of scripture and a doctrine of God that allow for charismatic belief even whilst allowing for the traditional Reformed view of Scripture and God.
In this context making a statement on baptism is actually a very safe thing to do - I doubt if there is a big constituency amongst Reformed Charismatics pushing for paedo-baptism.
Then I think we are agreed. But I can't resist a couple of caveats... ;-)
1. The constituency you are referring to tends to be very loose by very dint of its independency. The thing about the big reformed doctrinal statements is that they often came from a community that were forced together to hold on to and proclaim orthodoxy in the face of a large threat to the same. I am not sure you are likely to get that today from those who identify themselves as reformed charismatics, not because they are in disagreement with historic statements, but because they are a loose and unconnected bunch. Granted NFI in the UK could do that as a constituency as a whole, but they are the only ones who could. I wish my friends there would, it would stand them in massive good stead and contribute greatly to their gospel growth.
2. Historic statements are always made in a context and respond to a set of situations and issues. They are never pure theology. Therefore, while having a careful and grateful eye to them, I am inclined to think that I can agree with the theology while needing a document that helps me apply biblical truth to a very different situation. I often find a careful more recent statement of more use to the current time than an older one. Something like the Gospel Coalition statement of faith (unashamedly self-confessedly reformed) or The Gospel of Jesus Christ - an Evangelical Celebration (especially useful in an age that ditches truth because of its series of affirmations and denials). Or, more basically and simplistically, the UCCF doctrinal basis. I would say that because I am a UCCF/IFES creature at heart.
Finally I think I ought to come clean that I really do personally use "reformed charismatic" as a loose label more than I ought. I search round the UK for a term or constituency that describes someone who is passionate for the scriptures and reformed doctrine, charismatic with regard to the affections and stylistic preferences, really keen on living as well as preaching the doctrines of grace, continuationist on spiritual gifts, modified (mooian) Lutheran on the law and calvinist (reflected through Edwards) on just about everything else, keen on church planting, world mission and expository preaching, and there just isn't one that is tightly defined. But I know enough people who currently use that term to mean that raft of things who are doing wonderful gospel work that I want to cut the term some slack and probably identify as closely there as anywhere. It is no more or less loose than "conservative evangelical", but that it could do with some careful definition I don't doubt
Hi Marcus,
Thanks for an interesting post. Regarding your comment:
> Conservative evangelicals haven't been exposed to the best that the charismatics do, leaving them with a one-sided negative view
Yes, I think my view about charismatics (using the conservative-evangelical label about myself) in the past was negatively tainted, from my time at university in 1994 when I attended an NFI church that was far more interested in "Toronto" experiences than preaching (and indeed dedicated entire services to it) to the provocative setting up of "rival" Fusion groups, instead of working with existing CU groups linked to UCCF.
However, in the last few years, there has been more bridging across this gap in the UK, e.g. with Terry Virgo speaking at Word Alive, and conservative evangelicals recognising that some charismatics are reformed in their theology and that there is much in common between us as brothers and sisters in Christ. I think we'll still disagree about secondary issues, which is fine. (Personally speaking, I'm still not convinced that most charismatic gifts are genuine, and it seems a bit distraction from really knowing God through his word. Maybe I'll have to visit my local NFI church again soon to see what it's like, as my last experience was > 10 years ago).
thanks Jon,
Grace means that we believe that God changes people and churches, which always makes me optimistic that revisiting a relationship after several years might produce some welcome surprises. Your comment highlights two things that seem common in this debate: (a) how much we let past experience, sour relationships and associations (unsurprisingly) define the terms of the discussion, regardless of whether the situation may have changed (I am of the view that a lot of what hardens into theological difference may start a generation earlier as sour relationships); (b) that labels without content are inadequate, except as a loose constituency boundary
Your comment on most charismatic gifts not being genuine is interesting for its assumption that some are. The existence of a lot of counterfeit, hype, fluff or emotionalism is no argument that we shouldn't be pursuing and eagerly desiring the real thing.
Grace