So the firestorm from the Strange Fire Conference has been steadily building throughout the past few weeks and is now in full swing. When word got out that the conference was going to take place and that John MacArthur was releasing a book of the same name, Dr. Michael Brown appealed to MacArthur to embrace God’s true fire and then addressed R.C. Sproul (a speaker at the conference) before issuing a challenge to the charismatic world (which MennoKnight took as a volley at the Cessationist crowd, though I thought it was addressed more towards Charismatics). In turn, a host of videos were released by John MacArthur (found here) that, in a sense, responded to some of the concerns and questions that Brown made. Furthermore, Fred Butler responded to Brown on behalf of MacArthur and then Brown responded to Butler. Are you keeping track of all of this?
The day before the Strange Fire Conference began, Brown issued a final appeal to MacArthur, as well as a simple review of his forthcoming Strange Fire. In addition to Brown’s final appeal, Michael Patton wrote on why he thinks MacArthur may be losing his voice and provided some extremely helpful reflections on why MacArthur wasn’t being as thoughtful as he has been in the past. Then the conference began…
If you think a lot of interaction occurred before the conference began, you can be sure that a lot of interaction has been taking place as the conference continues and I’m sure it will continue going forward. Tim Challies has been liveblogging the event and, quite frankly, some of what has been reported by him has raised some serious concerns and questions by Continuationists (e.g., Adrian Warnock can’t believe some of the statements that MacArthur made; by the way, Adrian links to my top ten books list on charismatic theology! Thanks, Adrian!). Not to mention the fact that it’s interesting that Challies has seen fit to make a “clarifying” note in regards to the insane comment made by MacArthur:
“The charismatic movement offers nothing to true worship because it has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine.”
Yes, you read that correctly. According to MacArthur, the Charismatic Movement has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine. That statement alone almost makes me want to move MacArthur from the category of “agree to disagree” and move him into the category of “have you been smoking crack?” My good friend Thomas Creedy has written a very thoughtful blog, “Charismatic Clarity: Responding to ‘Strange Fire'” that I think everyone should also check out. Oh, and Scott Lencke asks some important questions about MacArthur’s methodology (he calls it an odd approach) and then provides some links to refute some of the exegetical and theological reasons behind cessationism.
So if you are still tracking with me, you’ll probably already recognize that I’m clearly in complete dismay at MacArthur’s words, the overall tone of the Strange Fire Conference, and in disagreement with many of the points that are being taught through this conference styled “exposé.” But everyone who knows me will likely be aware of the fact that I’m a Continuationist when it comes to the charismata, so that isn’t news. And you’ll likely know that I’m also critical and concerned about the absolutely unbiblical doctrines and practices that are found with the Word of Faith movement. The vast majority of Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third Wave scholars are too, with some of them writing some excellent books on the subject (cf. Gordon Fee’s The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels and D.R. McConnell’s A Different Gospel).
Now, what inspired this here blog post was that my friend Lisa Robinson wrote a blog, “Cessationism, Charismania, and Criticism.” Before commenting on Lisa’s general point, I want to thank her for positively mentioning me in her post. She wrote,
“I ran across guys like Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms, scholars, pastors and authors. I encountered Vineyard guys like Luke Geraty and others who took the Bible and discipline of theology serious. These folks are not the experience driven, ignore the Bible, anything goes step-child fringe that rightly deserves critique.”
Did everyone see that? If Lisa says I’m not part of the “step-child fringe,” it’s fact. Thank you, Lisa! Finally someone agrees with me! Ha ha! If anyone claims that I’m just another wacko charismatic, see Lisa.
Anyway, Lisa builds off of some of the ideas that Patton previously shared in relation to the fact that the Charismatic Movement is not monolithic. As many of you probably know, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Third Wave folks each have distinct theological (and practical) perspectives regarding the subject at hand. And to be somewhat historically accurate and globally aware, I should acknowledge that my professor, Dr. Allan Anderson, actually makes a strong case for there being much more than these three movements, and corresponding events, within the broader global stream of Continuationism in his excellent To the Ends of the Earth.
Well, Lisa told me that she’d love for me to interact, so I’m interacting. When a Dallas Theological Seminary student asks you to talk about theology, you do it… mostly because if you don’t you might miss the pre-tribulational rapture… and I do not want to spend all of my time with the Tribulation Force fighting against Nicolae Carpathia (kidding!).
Lisa’s heart is similar to mine. After stating that she essentially understands why there are thoughtful Continuationists and thoughtful Cessationists, she writes,
“And this is why I was so bothered by what I saw, not only the fact that a whole conference had been based on a polemic against the Charismatic movement wholesale. But in reaction against this, Charismatics did the same thing with cessationists, building tired strawmen arguments and calling cessationism silly and devoid of the Spirit. I wish those that raise these polemics would consider this thoughtful article What Cessationism is Not. Please do check it out and realize there are good and valid reasons for cessationism.”
I share some of her concern here. For me, I want to just bring it back to what the Apostle Paul said: “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor” (Rom 12:10). In my recollection of all that MacArthur has said and done in the past, I think it’s fairly safe to say that this whole situation is nothing new. That’s primarily why I do not read MacArthur’s books, listen to his sermons, or get much involved in all the squabbles he creates or is in the middle of. Most of the time I just shake my head and say, “When it comes to Cessationists, I like Richard Gaffin a lot more.” At the same time, I want to be extremely clear to those who have been asking me my thoughts: I do not believe there is a convincing case against the Continuationist perspective on the spiritual gifts to be found in the Bible or in Church history. But that doesn’t mean we should be mean-spirited to people we disagree with. Lisa takes a different approach than I do on some issues, but I still really appreciate what she writes and consider her a friend. I think Continuationists should most certainly check out the link she mentions (“What Cessationism is Not”) too. Despite the fact that I think some of the historical “evidence” provided in that blog is questionable related to the historical precedent of the charismata in history, overall it is a thoughtful explanation of what characterizes the Cessationist position. The author, Nathan Busenitz, writes:
“I love the Holy Spirit. I would never want to do anything to discredit His work, diminish His attributes, or downplay His ministry. Nor would I ever want to miss out on anything He is doing in the church today.”
I believe him. I really do. I disagree about his conclusions, but I think he seriously loves the Spirit, the work of the Spirit, and is likely engaged in God-exalting ministry. He and I likely agree on many aspects of the Christian faith (i.e., we’re both Calvinists I’d guess). Yet we disagree on the continuation of the spiritual gifts.
So why are people who self identify as “charismatics” so upset about MacArthur’s conference theme and the talks being given? Why aren’t they angered when other Cessationists write books or give teachings on the subject? I think there are two main reasons:
(1) Misrepresentation: MacArthur has historically misrepresented mainstream Continuationists for years and has not changed his tone whatsoever. This was demonstrated repeatedly by Rich Nathan in his “A Response to Charismatic Chaos.” People, in general, do not like to be lied about.
(2) Selectivity: MacArthur has historically been extremely selective in his interaction with Charismatics. Rather than seriously engage in a scholarly way with Gordon Fee, Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms, Craig Keener, or John Piper, he chooses to brush them aside and go for the easy targets: TBN personalities. Listen, the vast majority of Charismatics that I know of would agree 100% with MacArthur’s hyperbolic statement that when Jesus returns to judge, he’s going to start at TBN. MacArthur’s methodology is no different than if I decided to host a conference and dedicated it to exposing the Baptists and spent all of my time criticizing Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church and gave the impression that all Baptists agreed with Phelps’ statements and practices.
Some of the statements that have been made during the Strange Fire conference are almost comical. I guess when you are preaching to the choir, you can get away with anything. But you know what? I think Charismatics could also take a stronger stand against some of the excesses, personality cults, and heretical teachings that are found within charismatic churches. Just like we should do when they are found in non-charismatic churches. Polemics aren’t always wrong-headed. In fact, as I recently discussed in my review of Against the Gods, polemics have their place in theological struggle. But when you are interacting with other Christians, shouldn’t love, grace, and honesty characterize your polemics? Heck, I’d even argue that those qualities should be represented in your polemical interaction with non-Christians. No one likes being lied about and it’s hard to respect someone who won’t take the time to use honest scholarly methods.
I’m sure there will be more discussion on the subject, so I’m thankful that there is some good than can come from MacArthur’s foolishness. In this case, the strange fire turns towards strained polemics, and that’s too bad. Rather than misrepresent and selectively interact, it would have been helpful if MacArthur has simply laid out his biblical, theological, and historical cards on the table as to why he is a Cessationist. He should have left all of his pejoratives aside and actually made a case for something (R.C. Sproul did a much better job of this in his talk at Strange Fire). Rather, MacArthur stood up there and waxed on about the evils of the Charismatic Movement without providing much more than the impression that he’s bitter and angry and probably lost a lot of people in his church to the charismatic one down the road. At least that’s the impression he gives.
What do you think about this whole hoopla? Anyway observations you have?
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
MacArthur, on his facebook pages, said “The charismatic movement offers nothing to true worship because it has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine.” However, I simply listed books by Fee, Keener, and Ruthven while saying many more could be added and said he must not have read these guys to make such a statement. Yet I came back later and my post was removed. That says something about whoever is running that page.
Troy, I have noticed that on all of GTY and JM sites. If you post a substantive disagreement with their group-think, they delete the comment rather than responding to it. Don’t mess up their pretty little world, and NEVER cloud the issue with a bunch of facts.
I can (almost) trump Troy’s story. Over at TeamPyro (perhaps JM’s biggest apologists and founded by a GTY employee who is speaking at Strange Fire), I once quoted a Scripture verse with no commentary whatsoever. But because it disagreed with the gist of the post, it was deleted. I (admittedly) played dumb and re-posted, “assuming” that there was a glitch on teh interwebs. The comment was deleted again AND I was banned from ever commenting on the site again.
Wow. Uh… wow.
WOW.
Selectively using Scripture… such a problem in theological discourse. Cessationists, of course, aren’t the only one’s guilty of it 🙁
But that’s crazy.
Admittedly, the verse that I quoted was Acts 17:25 and most of that chapter gives the TP crowd the dry heaves because it shows a man adapting his approach to his listeners. But when I quote it with no personal comment whatsoever ….
The fact that the deletion/banning was most likely done by someone whose Twitter handle is @BibChr (short for Biblical Christianity) just pegs the irony meter.
My guess is that it was because the comment was only a Bible verse without commentary.
Honestly, I can understand such a policy. It’s somewhat similar to a policy that prohibits simply posting a link to another site. It’s not uncommon for moderators to require a commenter to give context & explain what it is in their link (or verse) that applies. (With a long link, they’re likely to require you to summarize the point yourself.) which is one I’m familiar with from sites that moderate the comments for how much they contribute to the discussion.
Imagine a discussion in a small group setting where someone interjects with a recitation of verse, without comment. Like, “Oh yeah? Acts 17:25.” Or imagine that during a Calvinism/Arminianism discussion, a Calvinist posts a comment that simply reads “Romans 9.” Or an Arminian posts “1 Timothy 2:4.” And then acts triumphant, and says, “That verse gives that crowd the dry heaves because it so clearly shows how wrong they are.” It’s… Not helpful.
Also, I just saw the Twitpic Brendt posted and went to the post in question. I confess that I can’t make out how that verse was even on-topic. The post was a farewell to Phil Johnson on his retirement from blogging.
Tim, your “imagine” scenarios are unrepresentative of what happened. I didn’t say, “Oh yeah?” or act triumphant. And the “dry heaves” reference was only here.
As to the relevance, I do not have the stomach to re-read the entire beatification. But I did manage to get through the third paragraph (“I’ve heard that it’s a saying….”) and if you can’t see the relevance of the Scripture passage to that paragraph, I am at a loss.
But addressing your first point, the policy appears to be:
1. Allow comments that contain only a verse, if said verse seems to agree with the OP (I’ve seen it happen many times before on TP)
2. Delete comments that contain only a verse, if said verse seems to contradict the OP
3. Under no circumstances should the commenter (in #2) be asked what his point was
4. In fact, go ahead and ban him for life now
And you’re going to tell me with a straight face that you “can understand such a policy”? In the words of the great philosopher (Larry the Cable Guy), “I don’t care who you are; that’s funny, right there.”
Brendt – You can stay here and comment all you want, ’cause you’re officially awesome!
In that light, I follow what you were thinking. (Before I was reading it from the angle you mentioned here–adapting one’s methods to an audience. I misunderstood your purpose in bringing that element up here–and I couldn’t see the relevance in it to the TP post.)
And with that explanation of how you were applying… Let me explain my reaction to that new insight by making an analogy to a recent situation in my life.
A good member of my church died last week. He was a deacon who served our community very well, in many ways. I would say that his absence leaves a hole in my community (as Dan Phillips said that Phil Johnson was leaving a hole in “the world of Christianoid blogdom”). When I say that, I’m not saying that God needs him to accomplish His purposes; I’m saying that God was previously using him in ways that impacted many. My congregation won’t stop in his absence, and God will continue fulfilling His purposes in other ways. The hole he leaves will be filled if God wants it to be–but his absence is a hole nonetheless.
Now death is a different context than retirement, and it’s a more emotionally charged context. So I’ll take some of that charge away with a hypothetical: Suppose this deacon had been moving away (instead of having just died), and I wrote a post honoring him with similar words. And then there was someone who found it to be a “beatification” that they couldn’t “stomach”. And they posted Acts 17:25.
Yes, I can absolutely see deleting that post. (Banning, no. Deleting it, yes.) I would see it as inappropriate in the context (even aside from it being a misunderstanding of what I had meant). I would be uncertain, but I would also perceive a possible insulting spirit in the post. In another context, I might prod the poster to expand on their point, and then I’d respond to it with the discussion of “holes” I gave a moment ago. Or even in this context, if the poster had said “You know that God doesn’t need any particular person to fulfill his purposes”, I would say “Of course,” and say that it missed the point. (If it included criticism of the departing deacon, I’m not sure what I’d do; I’d need to see the specifics.)
In a situation like you describe it, I wouldn’t agree with banning. (Though if I perceived an insult in the comment, I could see myself banning in a fit of pique. But I wouldn’t consider that wise.)
So banning, no. I don’t agree with that. Deleting that comment, in that context? Especially in light of what you’re saying now about your meaning? Sure, I see that as reasonable.
[Edit: Whoops, weird. Disqus is showing this comment first, but I posted it after the comment below it. Please read the next one first.]
On the rest of your comment:
> “And you’re going to tell me with a straight face that you “can understand such a policy”?”
It seems like you just assumed that my statement about understanding one policy (the policy as I had just described it) applied to another policy (the policy as you just described it now in your response). I don’t think that’s reasonable, or a productive rhetorical tool.
No, a policy as you just broke it down would be unreasonable. And as I said in my other comment a few minutes ago, I don’t think everything about it was reasonable. The deleting, in that context, yes.
> “Tim, your “imagine” scenarios are unrepresentative of what happened. I didn’t say, “Oh yeah?” or act triumphant. And the “dry heaves” reference was only here.”
On the single “oh yeah” example that I gave: Agreed, your comment did not include that. (Though your attitude here seems close to that.) I actually hesitated to include that in my earlier comment, for the reason you just gave.
That’s why I made sure to include the Romans 9 & 1 Tim 2:14 cases. In those examples, I was saying that the problem starts with just citing the verses–and that does parallel your comment. (A subsequent triumphant attitude compounds the hypothetical problem, but I was saying that the problem was already there. In retrospect, I should have left that out, in part because it muddied the waters. I apologize, brother. Adding it was unfair and unwise.)
You guys should write a blog on the proper etiquette of blog comment deletion and banning…
ha ha…
🙂
Luke, Rule #1 would be: “Be consistent. Do what you say you’re going to do.”
Rule #2 would be: “Don’t be inconsistent. Don’t do the exact opposite of what you said you were going to do.”
Rule #3 would start: “Whenever you assume …”
And that’s pretty much it.
ha ha… fair enough!
Tim, I read your comments in my email, and they arrived in proper order, so Disqus didn’t mess things up as far as how I read your comments. That said, I’ll respond to both of your comments here, both to avoid that problem in the future, and since my responses overlap anyway.
The conclusion of your other comment (“Especially in light of what you’re saying now….”) and some related statements in this comment are the crux of the matter. You are operating with hindsight and full knowledge of my thoughts, motives, views, etc. You also admitted that (having only partial knowledge) you saw no connection between the verse I quoted and the post it was on.
Short of a revelation from God (the existence of which Dan would never concede anyway, since he’s a cessationist), Dan had neither this hindsight nor even partial knowledge. Admittedly, he could have guessed at what I was thinking, based on past comments of disagreement. But it takes a big bucket of cynicism and zero grace to take any actions (let alone severe ones) based on a hunch. And yet that’s exactly what was done.
Borrowing from your example, would you jump to the conclusion that I was insulting the deacon, short of any supporting evidence? And would you act severely with no explanation sought or given (even after the fact)? Given the gracious spirit of your responses, I suspect the answers are both “no”. And yet that’s exactly what was done.
My apologies for the “straight face” comment. However, I would like to clarify/note that before you entered the conversation, I had already stated that my comment had been deleted and I had been banned, and you responded “I understand such a policy”. While my expansion of details showed that I wasn’t “bearing false witness”, it didn’t really change the basics of what happened, and so I suspected that you’d still approve of the actions. Having shown them to be not merely unreasonable, but utterly ridiculous, I amped up the rhetorical question. I assumed incorrectly about your view and thus am hoisted on my own petard.
To your credit, you’re the first person in the last couple days (of about 25-30 people) who had some disagreement with me surrounding the JM/GTY/TP topics, and then, when presented with all the information, actually had the integrity to give even an angstrom of ground and concede that I might not be totally nuts. (You did a lot more than that — I’m just illustrating that no one else was willing to show even the tiniest bit of integrity or Christian charity.) While not an excuse, I suspect that this was part of why I made the incorrect assumption about you — i.e. I figured you were just #31.
Brendt, your story wins! Banned from a “WE love the Bible more than anyone” blog for quoting the Bible ON the site (with no commentary). Classic.
Kenny, I qualified it with the “(almost)” because it (technically) wasn’t on a GTY-controlled site. My experience is highly ironic, but it’s not with an official ministry arm.
My comments, too, have regularly been deleted at Team Pyro.
so have mine Scott. So have mine. So I no longer bother even reading their blog.
Brendt,
Hmm, they usually give specific explanations & warnings before banning someone from commenting. (“We deleted a comment from X for Y.” And sometimes: “…because of our policy Z.” Often, “If you make this change, we’ll let it through.”)
Did that happen in your case? If so, what reason did they give? (Do you have the link, or remember the topic?)
If they gave one, that seems like some rather important context to give when you’re holding the situation up as unreasonable. In the spirit of grace & “not bearing false witness”.
No reason was given. I pored over the copious rules to try to discern, but no dice. So then I asked (by email) for a reason and was never given one.
So, no, there is no “bearing false witness” here.
Sadly, mine is not the most baseless banning that occurred on TeamPyro. A friend of mine was banned for NOT commenting on the TP blog: http://allreallyisvanity.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/move-along-no-irony-to-see-here/
BWW,
i find pyro to be a bombastic and arrogant site. i now stay away.
Yeah… doesn’t surprise me at all.
We do that all the time here at ThinkTheology.org too. If you don’t agree with us, we delete you. The problem is that we’re so diverse of writers that you virtually can’t disagree with one of us. ha ha ha ha.
😉
That isn’t surprising to me, to be honest. It’s sad, but seems to just go with the prevalent idea that if you silence your opponents, you win (in your mind). Thankfully, lots of people aren’t that gullible these days.
Of course, we do the same thing here at ThinkTheology.org… only we’re so diverse on theological subjects that you can virtually post anything and get away with it.. largely due to Able (ha ha ha).
😉
Luke, this final summary in your post was worth the whole read, and central to the whole issue, I think…
“Rather than misrepresent and selectively interact, it would have been helpful if MacArthur has simply laid out his biblical, theological, and historical cards on the table as to why he is a Cessationist. He should have left all of his pejoratives aside and actually made a case for something (R.C. Sproul did a much better job of this in his talk at Strange Fire). Rather, MacArthur stood up there and waxed on about the evils of the Charismatic Movement without providing much more than the impression that he’s bitter and angry and probably lost a lot of people in his church to the charismatic one down the road.”
MacArthur has ceased being a pastor, a Bible-teacher, or a Christian leader in this thing, and proclaims nothing helpful to the cause of Christ.
I also think he has made a few huge mistakes:
1. Lumping “Word of Faith”ers in with Pentecostal/Charismatics and making them the poster-children of those movements when most denominations repudiate the doctrines and practices of WOF and have even corrected or dismissed from fellowship pastors and whole congregations who refuse to moderate. His is the approach of “Pick the weirdo” and then saying “That’s what a normal charismatic is like.” Totally deceptive.
2. Saying “Charismatics and Pentecostals” in monolithic terms is a big no-no. There are things we have in common (e.g. our continualist convictions), but there are big differences among us (e.g. initial evidences, understandings of dynamic gift expressions, etc. etc.). His constant references to Pentecostals and Charismatics as one group that holds all things in common is so obviously wrong that I have to wonder if he’s not being intentionally deceptive because he’s mad.
3. He’s mad, and hes’ out there with a book and a conference. No good can come of this.
4. He runs the risk of doing the thing he’s accusing (no exaggeration) EVERY Charismatic and Pentecostal on planet earth of doing (by virtue of their self-identification as part of these movements. Namely, blaspheming (speaking evil of the work of) the Holy Spirit. I’m more concerned about this than anything, except…
5. When you attack the body of Jesus Christ, that is, at its heart, ἀντίχριστος (anti-Christ): An enemy of Jesus (and his church). 1/4 of all Christians on planet earth are in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches. MacArthur’s own wife was saved and discipled in a Foursquare Church (my denomination). = definition of irony.
Well – I’ll stop for now.
The redemptive, restorative, and Jesus-like think for MacArthur to have done would have been to invite a dialogue, an convocation, or some kind of gathering with leaders in these denominations and movements, and share his concerns.
The New Testament image of “taking your brother to court” (which, in that part of the world would be to attack someone vocally in the public square, such as at a conference like this one) is what MacArthur has done. It’s a grief and sinful.
Thanks for the great summary of everything (EVERYTHING!!!) that’s out there on this, and for your thoughtful exhortation.
Co-sign everything you wrote… especially since our discussion yesterday was a huge motivation in my thinking… especially the Fred Phelps issue (shoot, I should given you credit for that!!!).
We need more thoughtful writing on the subject. Thanks for contributing to that end.
Oh and fwiw, I’m not a dispy 😉
Lisa, thanks!
I know you aren’t a dispy… I just couldn’t resist 😉
Luke, I responded to Thomas Creedy’s blog with a note on the theological/worldview assumptions that under-girds MacArthur’s view on Charismatics. It is partly the Modern influence on the Old Princeton theologians (revivals and miracles were despised by the OP and Mercersburg theologians), but especially Warfield’s influence. Warfield’s *Counterfeit Miracles* concluded that, since miracles died with the Apostles, then any modern miracle must be a counterfeit work of the Devil. He wrote this to counter Roman Catholic claims on miracles associated with Mary (the BVM), but it was taken and applied to Pentecostals early in the 20th century in what was a rancorous fight to throw out the flaming heretics (continuationists). This means that MacArthur links the Reformed (one, only true) faith with cessationism so that to hold that gifts are for today is the same as throwing away the Reformed faith.
Boom goes the dynamite! Dr. James up in here!!!!!
great blog Luke! thanks for all the references. My question regarding MacArthur is actually what so embittered him. I’ve seen a number of pastors his age wage personal wars and vendettas against entire movements – or even races, and it is usually motivated by something other than a desire for God or for the truth. I mean, even Paul – or Jesus – didn’t consider erring humans as their enemies; one said his honest desire was that they would be saved and the other prayed that they would be forgiven for their ignorance. Anyone that sets up a whole conference, book,etc, AGAINST something/someone, has some issue that is less than healthy, and definitely less than Christ-like.
Thanks, Mike. I appreciate your kind words and your helpful questions.
I’ve heard it suggested that maybe MacArthur is going on the prowl because he’s lost a lot of people over the years to charismatic churches. That would certainly make some sense of this, I guess. But at the end of the day, I don’t know.
I’m alarmed at the misrepresentation and selectivity and I’m also a little turned off by the arrogance expressed by MacArthur, but those are things that have kind of always rubbed me the wrong way. I’m sure some people find him just “compelling” or “confident.” So be it. I’m just talking about how he comes across to me and a lot of other people.
You raise a good question… what do you think?
I have a bit of the same impression, that he’s loosing or has lost plenty of folks to the church down the street. The kind of people I grew up around had the same kind of idea – of fear and bitterness against the church down the street that’s a “little different” – but they would never dare organize a national conference against them. From a certain point of view, S. Cali is a competitive environment for churches, so I would not be surprised.
I think it is interesting to compare John MacArthur’s perspective with other more responsible critics of the charismatic movement. For example, Reformed stalwart J. I. Packer interacted with the charismatic movement in 1984 in his book “Keep In Step With the Spirit” and in 1989 in a Christianity Today article. He is obviously a cessationist but he is able to point to a number of positive aspects of the charismatic movement. Here a few choice comments:
“Faith in, devotion to, and personal fellowship with the living Christ of Scripture are at the movement’s heart. Charismatic books and songs show that whatever my be true of this or that individual, the mainstream of the renewal is robustly Trinitarian, and the stress on the Holy Spirit’s ministry does not displace the Lord Jesus from his rightful place as the Head of the body, Lord and Saviour of each human limb in it, and the constant focus of affection and adoration in the worship of his and our Father. On the contrary, the Spirit’s floodlight ministry in relation to the Lord Jesus is well understood, vigorously affirmed, and by all accounts richly enjoyed wherever the renewal takes hold.”
“But even if the charismatic movement has no more to give to the church than it has given already, it is surely strange that it should ever be dismissed as not “from God”–that is, as manifesting throughout something other than God’s grace, so that every element of it should be explained as merely human or actually demonic. Yet that verdict has on occasion been voiced.”
“The charismatic renewal has brought millions of Christians, including many clergy, to a deeper, more exuberant faith in Christ than they had before. It has quickened thousands of congregations, invigorating their worship, making love and fellowship blossom among them, increasing their expectancy and enterprise, and giving stimulus to their evangelism. Charismatic insistence on openness to God has transformed countless lives that previously were not open to him. Is this from God? The question answers itself.”
I post more from Packer here: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2013/04/strange-fire-and-responsible-criticism-2.html
Once a man commits the unforgivable sin (attributing to Satan what is the
work of the Spirit), since it’s unforgivable, his heart is always
tainted, no?
Jmac will build a wall to keep the pent’s out!! what a terrible idea. make evangelical great again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!