I was sent a free copy of Wild Goose Chase, a gift from others. The following comments speak to why it put me a bit off...
Book: The Celts called the Holy Spirit the "Wild Goose...."
Me: If we're going to talk about how the Holy Spirit works in our lives, I think our starting point on the Holy Spirit ought to be God's Word, not a maybe-unprovable claim about what the Celts called the Holy Spirit. A Christian brother recently said to me that the phrase "Wild goose chase" still carries a negative connmotation, regardles sof how one might try and use it in a positive way. Wild goose chases are exercises in futility, just a wild running around in circles.
The Holy Spirit descended on Christ at the Jordan "like a dove." The Holy Spirit Himself never takes the form of a dove. Wind and fire are the normal manifestations that the Spirit assumed. This bird thing is way overdone. He is -not- the "Heavenly Dove." This wild goose thing is reaching the stage of becoming a cliche. And certainly we shouldn't think of God's Spirit as an erratic bird whose wild fluttering-around makes Him unpredictable.
Book: "Most Christians are bored with their faith"
Me: Most Christian writers make too many generalizations. This is akin to Christian social theory writers who say things like, "The Church in America is...", as if they really knew. Brother Batterson likely should say, "I have often been bored with my faith...", since the spirit of the book is quite auto-biographical. Maybe he knows several bored, lukewarm Christians. I do, too. But are most Christians bored with their faith? I don't believe that most Christians are bored with their faith. But this is something that nits at me whenever a writer does it. We preachers often seem to do this sort of thing, too. This just sounds similarl to the emergent-church straw men charicatures of American Christianity that I've read elsewhere.
Book: Jesus was trying to lead the rich young ruler into a fulfilling life of adventure.
Me: Rich, fulfilling life of adventure? Jesus was trying to get the rich young ruler saved. To make him a true disciple. It disturbs me when writers force Bible stories into an agenda like this. I don't think Christ's goal was to tear the rich young ruler loose from his boring existence, and get him involved in a God-given adventure.Isn't this an example of using a Scripture story to push your own idea?
Book: God doesn't usually act in logical, linear ways.
Me: o rly? Then why did He communicate with us through a book written in SENTENCES? I feel no sympathy with the sort of mysticism implied here. It isn't Scriptural. Paul the apostle said that God gave us a spirit of a sound mind, and the book of Proversb says that sound thinking is a gift from God.
Book: Whoever came up with the idea that Jesus died on the cross to keep you safe?
Me: I don't know. Who? I've never heard that, and I've been a Christian 36 years.
Book: When is the last time you asked God to make you dangerous?
Me: "Dangerous"? I don't want to be dangerous. I want to be kind, truthful, and effective. I can't imagine Jesus wanting us to be "dangerous" to anyone but the devil. I remember Him saying we should be as harmless as doves.
Book: Jesus was the most passionate man on earth. After all, His last days were called "The Passion."
Me: Learn your Latin! The word "passion" comes from a Latin word that means suffering, not "intensely emotional." Couldn't we retire the word "passion" for awhile? The English lit guy in me feels it's worn out -- like TV reporters who use the word "devastating" in every story.
Book: "It's laughable that a cupbearer should undertake such a task..."
Me: If I'm remembering my past Old Testament sermon prep right, "cupbearer" was the title for "imperial palace manager". Nehemiah wasn't just a guy who walked around carrying a cup. It's important to research the historical background to Bible words from which we draw lessons.
Are we supposed to first be Biblical, or be bold, convention-breaking, mystical xistentialists who use the Bible to validate our Existentialism? This book reminds me very much of Eldridge's Wild At Heart, which also seemed to cram the Bible into an Existential mindset. I didn't like Wild At Heart, either, because it seemed to come to God's Word with a philosophy of life already in place, and then manipulate the Bible to support that philosophy.
So...I never got into Eldridge before, and his appeal still escapes me. So maybe this book reminds me of Eldridge. It all seems really "fluffy", and not adequately grounded in carefully interpreted Scripture.
Our EFCA pastors group is going to read through this book, starting next week. It'll be my second time through it, and I'll be optimistic that I can learn from the other guys some good features that I haven't seen in it.
Showing posts with label Holy Spirit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Holy Spirit. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Problems with Pentecostalism in General, and A "Continuationist" View of Gifts In Particular
These comments reflect observations drawn from 35 years of being Christian, which included a short time as a Charismatic Christian.
1. The Pentecostal teaching of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is innately divisive. It splits the body of Christ into the Superiors and the Inferiors, and as a result promotes pride in the hearts of the people who imagine themselves the Superiors.
2. There is lots of room in the New Testament theology of divine healing for healing today, without there needing to be the specific gift of healing. Christ's prayer-promises give us hope for divine healings. The prayer-ministry of elders (James 5) give us hope for divine healings. God's sovereignty, especially in situations where the Gospel is breaking out into new territories, always gives us hope for divine healings. But healings as a sign of the divine origin of the Gospel, linked with the divine authority of the Apostles, isn't needed.
3. There's also plenty of room for the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit, without any need for the gift of prophecy. The spiritual gifts of teaching and exhortation continue, without the element of direct inspiration that makes prophecy what it is. There is simply too much lexical data to support the idea that prophetes is always an inerrant divine revelation, and not just a particularly amped-up form of exhortation. I still don't agree with Grudem on this, despite my appreciation of him in many other ways. The Spirit can providentially guide the preacher to touch on issues that are particularly vital to the moment at which they're given, without needing to call that "prophecy."
4. The gift of tongues was a sub-set of prophecy, according to Peter, who quoted Joel 2:28-30 to explain what was happening at Pentecost. So, if the gift of prophecy didn't continue, then neither did tongues, since the second is the "little sister" of the first.
5. There was no absolutely need left for the gift of prophecy once the Scripture was completed. We still have teachers. We still have exhorters. We still have people who speak knowledge (of the Word of God, not of who's being healed of a goiter in the back row), and who speak wisdom. The Bible is complete, so we have no more need for any more Bible.
This is why I'm open to testimonials of the miraculous, but cautious. My understanding of the NT theology on this subject makes me open to the God who is imminanent and answers prayer. But it also makes me cautious of the sea of false claims that so many Christians accept as true.
1. The Pentecostal teaching of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is innately divisive. It splits the body of Christ into the Superiors and the Inferiors, and as a result promotes pride in the hearts of the people who imagine themselves the Superiors.
2. There is lots of room in the New Testament theology of divine healing for healing today, without there needing to be the specific gift of healing. Christ's prayer-promises give us hope for divine healings. The prayer-ministry of elders (James 5) give us hope for divine healings. God's sovereignty, especially in situations where the Gospel is breaking out into new territories, always gives us hope for divine healings. But healings as a sign of the divine origin of the Gospel, linked with the divine authority of the Apostles, isn't needed.
3. There's also plenty of room for the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit, without any need for the gift of prophecy. The spiritual gifts of teaching and exhortation continue, without the element of direct inspiration that makes prophecy what it is. There is simply too much lexical data to support the idea that prophetes is always an inerrant divine revelation, and not just a particularly amped-up form of exhortation. I still don't agree with Grudem on this, despite my appreciation of him in many other ways. The Spirit can providentially guide the preacher to touch on issues that are particularly vital to the moment at which they're given, without needing to call that "prophecy."
4. The gift of tongues was a sub-set of prophecy, according to Peter, who quoted Joel 2:28-30 to explain what was happening at Pentecost. So, if the gift of prophecy didn't continue, then neither did tongues, since the second is the "little sister" of the first.
5. There was no absolutely need left for the gift of prophecy once the Scripture was completed. We still have teachers. We still have exhorters. We still have people who speak knowledge (of the Word of God, not of who's being healed of a goiter in the back row), and who speak wisdom. The Bible is complete, so we have no more need for any more Bible.
This is why I'm open to testimonials of the miraculous, but cautious. My understanding of the NT theology on this subject makes me open to the God who is imminanent and answers prayer. But it also makes me cautious of the sea of false claims that so many Christians accept as true.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Why The Old Cessationist Consensus Broke Down
I'd like to make a few quick comments on why the old-time cessationist consensus broke down. In the 35 years I've been a Christian, we've seen the whole scene shift from dominant cessationism to dominant continuationism, including inside the EFCA. Why did this happen? Just a few guesses...
It started breaking down when credible theologians began re-examining the issue. As long as continuationism was being championed by crooks like Oral Roberts, kooks like Pat Robertson, show-boaters like Jimmy Swaggart, and heretics like Kenneth Hagin, it was easy to argue against it. John MacArthur could write a book named Charismatic Chaos and fill it with the most egregious examples of Pentecostal excess and doctrinal absurdities he could find, and he certainly didn't lack for material! (He still doesn't; the crooks, kooks, show-boaters, and heretics are still out there, thick and plentiful). But over the decades, serious-minded, conservative/inerrantist theologians began re-examining the issue, particularly among Calvinists. Once you started having D.A. Carson, John Piper, Stott, Packer, and Grudem re-examining it, a respectable middle zone opened up between being a Warfield/Walvoord/MacArthur cessationist, and the kooks. This process of theological re-examination opened the door to a respectable middle ground.
The cessationist argument also began to spring some leaks, or at least wasn't always defended skillfully. The identity of the "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13 takes work to define. People other than the apostles manifested the controversial gifts (the Seventy, Stephen, Ananias II, Agabus), so that needs to be explained. If the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from Biblical inspiration -- I'm not convinced it is, but if -- then its continuation wouldn't threaten the integrity of the canon.
The new analyses challenged old paradigms. We realized that maybe we can hold to the continuation of the gift of languages on one hand and reject thAssemblies of God doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, at the same time (thus irritating two sides of the argument simultaneously!). We perhaps could believe in the spiritual gift of healing, and reject the unscriptural doctrine of universal healing in the atonement. We perhaps could believe in tongues, and yet say (correctly) that it's the miraculous ability to speak to God in a foreign language -- not meaningless gibberish.
Basically, I think the two traditional sides were lined up against each other like two Maginot lines, but various theologians over the past thirty years created a different shaped battlefield. I also think that the old groups (whether Pentecostal, Dallas, or Reformed) still haven't fully caught up with the latest scholarship in this area, though they're working on it.
(edited 9/5/09)
It started breaking down when credible theologians began re-examining the issue. As long as continuationism was being championed by crooks like Oral Roberts, kooks like Pat Robertson, show-boaters like Jimmy Swaggart, and heretics like Kenneth Hagin, it was easy to argue against it. John MacArthur could write a book named Charismatic Chaos and fill it with the most egregious examples of Pentecostal excess and doctrinal absurdities he could find, and he certainly didn't lack for material! (He still doesn't; the crooks, kooks, show-boaters, and heretics are still out there, thick and plentiful). But over the decades, serious-minded, conservative/inerrantist theologians began re-examining the issue, particularly among Calvinists. Once you started having D.A. Carson, John Piper, Stott, Packer, and Grudem re-examining it, a respectable middle zone opened up between being a Warfield/Walvoord/MacArthur cessationist, and the kooks. This process of theological re-examination opened the door to a respectable middle ground.
The cessationist argument also began to spring some leaks, or at least wasn't always defended skillfully. The identity of the "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13 takes work to define. People other than the apostles manifested the controversial gifts (the Seventy, Stephen, Ananias II, Agabus), so that needs to be explained. If the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from Biblical inspiration -- I'm not convinced it is, but if -- then its continuation wouldn't threaten the integrity of the canon.
The new analyses challenged old paradigms. We realized that maybe we can hold to the continuation of the gift of languages on one hand and reject thAssemblies of God doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, at the same time (thus irritating two sides of the argument simultaneously!). We perhaps could believe in the spiritual gift of healing, and reject the unscriptural doctrine of universal healing in the atonement. We perhaps could believe in tongues, and yet say (correctly) that it's the miraculous ability to speak to God in a foreign language -- not meaningless gibberish.
Basically, I think the two traditional sides were lined up against each other like two Maginot lines, but various theologians over the past thirty years created a different shaped battlefield. I also think that the old groups (whether Pentecostal, Dallas, or Reformed) still haven't fully caught up with the latest scholarship in this area, though they're working on it.
(edited 9/5/09)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
