I’m not interested in discussing the pros and cons of the Strange Fire Conference organized by John MacArthur, but as I watched people react to it across various social media platforms it got me thinking about my own understanding of the Charismata, or spiritual gifts. On Facebook Carson T. Clark made this observation:
Regarding the positions on the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, I see a spectrum:
1. Cessationist
2. Cautious but open
3. Continuationist
4. Charismatic
5. Pentecostal
This spectrum works for me. If I were to define these five views I’d say (1) Cessationists teach that individuals are not endowed with particular gifts of the Spirit such as healing, prophecy, etc. This does not mean that they deny miracles in general, or that one might be used to prophesy on rare occasions, but that people do not receive these gifts as something permanent (or even long lasting?)in which they can operate over time. (2) Cautious but open tends to be the perspective of Mainliners and Evangelicals whose exegesis and theology leaves room for the idea of Charismata, but who wrestle with how to recognize it in practice. (3) Continuationists are people who both affirm the possibility of Charismata, and the practice of it, but who do not emphasize it as a central aspect of Christian worship and discipleship. (4) Charismatics affirm the Charismata while emphasizing its importance for Christian worship and discipleship. (5) Pentecostals not only emphasis the Charimata, but teach that it is essential to Christian worship and discipleship. Some Pentecostals teach a doctrine known as the “Initial Evidence” doctrine where one cannot know one has the holy Spirit (i.e., that one is an authentic Christian) without the “sign” of glossolalia, or speaking in tongues.
My introduction to Christianity was through Pentecostalism, specifically the Oneness sect who did in fact teach the doctrine of Initial Evidence. I have many funny and many sad stories to share from those days: some things that I saw and experienced made me very skeptical of those who practice and teach the Charismata, but stories of Christianity in the Majority World have prevented me from being a full-blown skeptic. I don’t doubt the idea of miracles, and I know this isn’t rational of me to say, but I’ve had experiences that I’d deemed miraculous (this doesn’t mean there isn’t a rational or even a materialistic explanation, but it does mean that these things happened at the time of prayer, while seeking God). One can be a Cessationist while affirming miracles. So, do I think God empowers people to be used as healers or prophets over a life time or at least a long period of time. I think so, theoretically, though my experience has not been friendly to confirming this belief. I’ve had many more people “prophecy” things to me that proved to be ridiculous than those who have been accurate (without being absurdly vague, like a Nostradamus prophecy). I’ve heard dozens of tongues-and-interpretations since I was five years old where the immediacy of the Second Coming of Christ was announced, and, well, I am thirty-one years old now.
If I am honest I am currently “Open but cautious” in practice and a Continuationist in theory. I have no reason to confidently say that God does not empower and gift people with the Charismata like it has been testified of early Christians, especially Pauline Christians, but neither has my own experience amongst Pentecostals/Charismatics led me to people who were obviously gifted in this way.
Tomorrow I’ll say a bit more about these categories and whether or not I think some revision is necessary.
Yes – I did see some talk on FB on this conference. I almost replied but thought I could not contribute without being as negative as those who were speaking there. I was disappointed in the rather mixed bag of condemnation – not a great mark for a Christian – and snippets of sentences that I might have not disagreed with. I normally worship at a high Anglican church – or a middle of the road one. A few weeks ago I attended a big Pentecostal church. There was not a single sign of any charisms that I heard. There was a pretty good brass band – and when the preacher, who dominated the whole service and the band changed keys together the singing was too high, but the result was OK. (When they failed to change keys together, the result was comical.) So I think your 5 options are not a great taxonomy.
I do recognize that there are those who believe the perfect came with the canon and the imperfect ceased. These words have no place in my faith. The are idolatrous. May God have mercy. I am not a cessationist. I am clearly not Pentecostal, nor am I cautious – but some gifts are private – ( 2 Cor 12 – heard things that it is not lawful to be uttered – what a curious phrase for the antimnomials among us!). So I am somewhere in your groups 3 and 4 – not sure I can distinguish them.
Personally – something is that cannot be learned from our vantage as humans – but can be taught by the One who teaches humanity knowledge and therefore can be learned in conversation with the same nurturing Father. There is no substitute for that conversation and communion. I am in the midst of all gifts or not – mystified at how to express this for others. But it must be expressed – that is the role of the Psalms.
I have sung with some of these famous people. They age like the rest of us. They err like the rest of us. They are uncertain even when they are expected to be certain. And so on. Faithfulness is something different – that reminds me – you didn’t mention the prosperity gospel. That is off the continuum of any of these categories. The psalm of luxuriant flourishing is Ps 92. I just did a post on it here. http://meafar.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-place-of-psalm-92-in-sequential.html
There is zero possibility of the Psalms or any other book of the canon supporting the prosperity of one at the expense of another as is currently the case in our society.
I think this taxonomy is the ideal. Of course, in practice, there will be Churches who identify as “Pentecostal” that don’t seem to be Pentecostal. It is likely that at some point these Churches were “Evangelicalized” if you will. I presume in theory these musicians and the Pastor maintain a self-understanding that is traditionally Pentecostal, even if the practice has changed, but I might be wrong. It would be interesting to see if this Church is the same week in and week out if you were to visit a few more times.
Apparently Mark Driscoll is not a Cessationists.
Brian, Cautious but Open – this captures my position quite well. My theology has me in limbo on the matter. 😀
Tim Challies attended the conference and has been blogging about it, labels your second classification “Cautious but open” – Conservative Continuationists
@Andrew:
Correct, Driscoll is not a Cessationist, though I don’t know where he’d fall on this list. I do think Conservative Continuationists may be a more helpful term than “Cautious but open”.
@TC:
I think theologically I maintain “God is free, so God can do as God wants” which may not fit with either group. That said, in practice, I don’t know how to approach this topic all that well. I do not miss openly and active charismatic Christianity, but I fear at times that this is my Euro-centric, privileged, I-have-access-to-medicine-so-why-pray? worldview blinding me to a greater reality.
Reblogged this on Sunday School on Steroids-The Seminary Experience.
I like your listing and explanation…. I don’t recall seeing anything quite as complete (not that I still read much about this area as I did decades ago). As to the “immediacy” of Christ’s return, I’ve been hearing that in mostly non-charismatic circles (generally dispensationalist) since my youth also… and I’m 64! (That whole “prophesy” thing is a whole other subject, of course.)
But as to “categories”, I would suggest at least one other, and put myself in it. I haven’t thought through how to label it and could say more re. it than I will in sum here. It would involve those of us MORE “progressive” (or Process or “Integral Theory” related) than most Mainliners. The main written source exemplifying and describing this position and practice would be Paul Smith in “Integral Christianity”. At least for me, and I think for Smith, a 45+ year pastor (yes, one church for 45+ years) of a mid-sized church in KC, Missouri, that the “gifts” are present to be accessed and developed, to some degree, by anyone, regardless of what type of faith, even non-Christian or Christian, non-orthodox.
Their use I consider of great potential within a faith community, but (reflecting the “caution” aspect) only as used and applied with good discernment (often mainly “common sense”, which can be in short supply in many settings!). I think you and other readers would find Smith’s description of his own experiences (some via Vineyard influence, as in my own case) and of practices in his church interesting and refreshing, tho you probably won’t agree with key parts of his theology. His is the most developed written description of “Integral Christianity” and particularly of the “worship” aspect of it that I know of (yes, he retains the word as do I, though from within a panentheist paradigm)
@Howard:
In tomorrow’s follow-up post I allude to other views like one that some liberal/progressives may hold: there were never charismatic gifts, period. I don’t know where the view you propose falls along the spectrum without reading the works you recommend. Obviously, this spectrum is limited and it factors the most commonly held views amongst global Christians. That limits things a bit, but the alternative might be a never ending list with as many entries as people who’ve thought about this topic.
Also, I should add that there does seem to be something that holds together the five views I listed that wouldn’t apply to other views (and again, since I don’t know the content of the view you suggested I don’t know how to relate it to those I mentioned) though it is hard to put my finger on exactly what that might be. I will suggest (1) a willingness to allow the New Testament an authoritative role in determining “normative” Christianity (I don’t want to press that too far, but I think the general point makes sense) and (2) a desire to remain closely tied to or work within traditional “orthodoxy” (again, this is somewhat fluid and hard to define precisely). So, the view that suggest that there has never been anything like Charismata wasn’t considered here not because it isn’t a logical option, but because it turns things into a whole new discussion altogether. The five views I shared have the common ground that there was something like Charismata among early Christians.
@ Brian,
I understand your “limitation”, per your first reply, and appreciate the one above also. I do find it fascinating what we see when comparing the Gospels/Acts with OT and broader ANE texts. To me, it lines up well with in-depth explorations from modern cultural anthro, esp. in the “thick description” era of just the last 40 years or so (Geertz and following). Basically it is that “charismatic” type phenomena are very widespread, take many forms, and serve important social as well as personal functions. Incidentally, many Christians look to the work of Eliade in terms of an anthro study, it being by a Christian (not sure his specific affiliation but one at some level I believe). But the main, and I believe valid criticism of his body of work is that he USES a “norm” of Christianity to discover the “norms” supposedly from comparative cultural/religious practices. His work was relatively early in the development of anthro… I think mainly first 2 decades of the 20th century… haven’t read him for a long time.
I always have wondered about some of the original gifts myself.
Like raising the dead, who claims that gift now? Ah, I know some people really claim it, but, the evidence is lacking.
So, did it stop? It’s a reasonable question. If it did, then cessation is part of the Divine Plan. Then the question is which gifts were temporal and why?
@Patrick:
Interestingly, while I don’t think Paul’s list in 1 Cor is exhaustive, I also don’t recall any place where raising the dead was seen as a gift. Maybe a one time event. So this brings up an important question (something I’ll try to discuss tomorrow): is a gift temporary, long-lasting, or can a one time miracle be considered a “gift”? How are we using this language? How did Paul use it?
Also, its worth considering whether or not the cessation of particular Charismata must equate to Cessationism.
@ Patrick:
Seems very clear to me that “it” didn’t stop. And that from virtually ANY theological position that at least allows that such things did/do happen. However, attributing them to God, Satan or some other source is often the problem. (I’m leaving aside the pure naturalists/rationalists who, of course, are not Christian or religious in any sense.) The Christians who are cessationists have a virtually impossible line to argue for and from… I view their position as growing largely out of a strange sort of rationalism. It employs a sort of intellectual mysticism (as per orthodox theology) though not a “practical” one, within which I’d place charismatic gifts and practices. Fear of emotions, of anything “ecstatic”, and/or of emotional excesses I think may drive it bottom line. Also that use of the “gifts” and exuberant worship DOES often lend itself to things that may get out of control…. So I think it’s not only the more rationally-oriented, but also leaders that are particularly concerned about keeping control who take the cessationist view.
Another observation: The fact that at least some tolerance for things “charismatic” can exist within a leader/thinker who is highly rational, even philosophical, is evidenced by one of Jonathan Edwards’ works, the one on “Religious Affections” (don’t recall the exact title at the moment, but I read parts of it years ago). There were phenomena in his region (perhaps his own congregation… I don’t recall) which were surprisingly charismatic, his wife being one of the participants as I recall.
Brian,
I think some clarification is in order regarding your definition #5, Pentecostal. You describe the “initial evidence” doctrine as stating that one cannot know one has the Holy Spirit (is an authentic Christian) without speaking in tongues. While that may be what the United Pentecostal Church and other Oneness groups mean by initial evidence, the Assemblies of God (in which I grew up and whose seminary I am attending) holds that all believers receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at conversion, and that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second and subsequent work of God in the believer’s life that brings empowerment for service (Acts 1:8) and is evidenced by speaking in a language one has not studied. We refer to this as the “initial physical evidence” of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
I just wanted to make sure to clarify the definitions, since it appears both Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostal groups use similar language here, but with greatly differing meaning.
@Brian R.
That is a helpful clarification/reminder. I remember Brian Fulthorp explained it to me once this way, but my auto-pilot explanation surfaced here. Is this the unanimous position of the AOG or one competing understanding (in other words, do some old-school IE folk reside in the AOG)?
Brian,
I’ll just copy/paste from the Sixteen Fundamental Truths (online at http://agchurches.org/Sitefiles/Default/RSS/AG.org%20TOP/Beliefs/SFT_2011.pdf), which is the doctrinal statement all A/G ministers must agree to.
7. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit
All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the
Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus
Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian church. With it comes the
enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work
of the ministry (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31). This experience is distinct from
and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9).
With the baptism in the Holy Spirit come such experiences as an overflowing fullness of the
Spirit (John 7:37-39; Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43; Hebrews 12:28), an
intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active love
for Christ, for His Word, and for the lost (Mark 16:20).
8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking
with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4). The speaking in tongues
in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:4-10,28), but
different in purpose and use.
This doctrinal statement was developed in response to the “New Issue” of Jesus-only baptism whcih caused a division in the A/G in 1916, with the Oneness group leaving the Assemblies and the Trinitarians remaining.
That’s interesting. I went to a UPCI approved college from 2001-2005 and I want to suggest that it was taught that until recently the AOG maintained the IE doctrine, but that “compromise” was evident now. Obviously, I don’t affiliate with the UPCI, at all, but I wonder if their propaganda lodged so deeply into my brain that even if I had double checked on this my auto-response was to associate IE with the UPCI and AOG.
Pragmatically speaking IPE seems to allow the AOG to maintain a sense of ecumenism/catholicity that the UPCI cannot afford if it is going to maintain its strict view of IE (that said, it isn’t like the UPCI has been interested in ecumenism of any sort, ever).
Leaders from the A/G were involved in the founding of the NAE in 1943, and J. Roswell Flower, who was a leader in the A/G from its inception in Hot Springs, AR in 1914, was elected to be one of the 9 members of the first NAE executive board (from Gary McGee’s “People of the Spirit” book on A/G history, which also includes a great amount of information on early Pentecostal and pre-Pentecostal history leading up to the 1914 A/G organizing meeting). I don’t think the NAE would have invited A/G leadership to the organizing meetings had we held to the exclusivist position of the UPCI. We have always been ecumenical with other classically evangelical groups.
@Brian R.
For the AOG (in general) would there be openness to other “physical” signs (e.g., Wesley’s warming of the heart, or prophecy, etc.) of the Spirit’s presence/infilling or is glossolalia the only one?
Brian,
I believe there are some ministers, especially the younger generation, who would say that it may be possible for someone to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and receive the power for service, but possibly have a delayed experience of tongues (initial physical evidence, but not necessarily immediate), and there may be a few who are open to the possibility of prophecy being an evidence (although the Acts passages that mention prophecy say “the spoke with tongues and prophesied” thus still making tongues part of the mix).
It’s actually a pretty hot issue between the older, traditional Pentecostal A/G ministers and the newer guys coming up.
For some writings by A/G theologians, check out writings by Stanley Horton, Robert Menzies, William Menzies, Frank Macchia, and Roger Strondstad.