"Strange Fire" and Responsible Criticism

I published a post a couple of weeks ago about John MacArthur and his upcoming Strange Fire conference.  I expressed concern over the rhetorical and theatrical recklessness of the promotional video as well as Pastor MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos.  The way that MacArthur argues leads one to believe that he sees absolutely nothing beneficial to the "charismatic movement."  In this post I want to look at a more responsible critic of the charismatic movement to demonstrate a better way to speak and interact with this theological movement.

In 1984 J. I. Packer published Keep In Step With the Spirit.  In that book he engaged the charismatic movement critically but responsibly--and Christianly.  Packer begins by using a credal test and a moral test as drawn from 1 John.  In light of these, Packer states:

When we apply these tests to the charismatic movement, it becomes plain at once that God is in it.  For whatever threats and perhaps instances of occult and counterfeit spirituality we may think we detect round its periphery (and what movement of revival has ever lacked these things round its periphery?), its main effect everywhere is to promote robust Trinitarian faith, personal fellowship with the divine Saviour and Lord whom we meet in the New Testament, repentance, obedience, and love to fellow Christians, expressed in ministry of all sorts toward them--plus a zeal for evangelistic outreach that puts the staider sort of churchmen to shame. (p. 185)

Packer then goes on to list out 12 "positive aspects" to the charismatic movement.  Here is the list along with a few of Packer's comments.

1.  Christ Centeredness.  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.

2.  Spirit-empowered Living.

3.  Emotion Finding Expression....Granted, charismatic forms of emotional expression can easily become an exhibitionist routine, but then cool bodily stillness, with solemn fixity of face, can equally easily be the expression of a frigid, heartless formalism.  Between these two you may make your choice, but by scriptural standards there is no  doubt that a disorderly liveliness, the overflow of love and joy in God, is preferable to a tidy deadness that lacks both.  A living dog, after all, really is better than a dead lion (see Ecclesiastes 9:4).

4.  Prayerfulness....Many who pray in tongues pray much and for long periods of time; it is doubtful whether those who do not pray so much have any right to criticize what they are doing.

5.  Joyfulness.

6.  Every-heart Involvement in the Worship of God.

7.   Every-member Ministry in the Body of Christ.  

8.  Missionary Zeal.  Charismatics' concern to share Christ, their readiness to testify to their own experience of him, and their unwillingness to be discouraged when their witness is coolly received are exemplary.  No evangelical advocate of lay witness could ask for more.  The boldness of Acts 4:13 and 31 is much in evidence in charismatic circles.

9.  Small-group Ministry.

10.  Attitude Toward Church Structures.  

11. Communal Living.

12.  Generous Giving.

Packer goes on in this chapter to list out 10 "negative aspects" of the charismatic movement to balance out the ledger.  My purpose is not to detail Packer's arguments but rather to show that this Reformed critic of the charismatic movement is able to see much that is good and commendable in the charismatic movement.  This is surely a more accurate way to evaluate this large and variegated movement than MacArthur's wholesale dismissal of the entire movement under the charge of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit."

Planned Parenthood and Infanticide

I know the trendy new term is "post-birth abortion" but let's use the old term of "infanticide."  There are those people that would like to keep the discussion rarefied and abstract.  This was the case a year ago when "ethicists" wrote an essay defending infanticide--see HERE, HERE, and HERE.  Now here's a video with a representative of Planned Parenthood standing before a Florida legislature unable and unwillingly to speak with clarity about what to do with a live child which is the result of a "botched abortion."  Listen as Alisa LaPolt Snow attempts to dodge the implications of child killing.  Also notice that in the end she has to speak of "logistics" (read "convenience") to justify inactivity that would directly cause the death of a baby. Weep for the blindness and be angered at the callousness of our culture.

I first saw this video at The Weekly Standard.

This is a link to my essay Evolution and Infanticide--The Deep Connection.

A Poem in Praise of the Eternality of God

I’ve been thinking about God’s eternality and letting my mind reel in the vastness.  I’ve been thinking of the passage in 2 Peter 3.8:

           

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

Yesterday, Today, Forever

My mind is to grasp, sit up, take notice,

            to ponder and reflect upon depths beyond my depth

You, O God, keep pace by a different time piece

With time, in time, above time—just in time

You weave a dance that is layered and thick

Eternity opened its eyes and You were already awake—

            active, radiant, Father to Son in the Spirit of love

“A thousand years like one day”—so says the text and so my mind wonders…

1776 is but a few hours ago; near half a day sees Luther’s hammer begin its resounding ring

A full day—ah, we arrogantly label of Ages the Middle

            but You behold a different hourglass and so say “yesterday”

Clarity, clearness, Your memory is clean

My memory, a date or two but You…

You delightfully know every face, thought, and hair out of place

            You justly remember and remember again—all will be remembered no matter the

end

Intoxicating Eternity, a teaspoon I’m done and undone

            and yet the text says still more…

“One day is like a thousand years” and here I pause (Selah)

Words have meaning and metaphors fly,

            and so I run until weary just touching the wing.

The day, some day, a day—today?

            My mind bends and expands—an inch or two

But how? 

Will the closet of Your glory be artfully stuffed into the luggage of 24 hours?

Or maybe—am I allowed to dream?—maybe in Your eyes and by Your hands

            a millennia of activity will transpire and expire this day

Seven Billion crawl on this dust chip

            living, dreaming, hoping, dying, living…

and You stoop to behold each one

            All hairs counted and all thoughts known—billions of pieces and, yet, Your one plan

History is short—two days ago, Jesus

Today is vast—Come, Lord Jesus, perhaps tomorrow?

I am lost in Your immensity but not lost in Your love

            so I smile

Global Training Network--New Video!

I am affiliated with Global Training Network (GTN).  GTN exists to train some of the neediest pastors in some of the neediest places on the planet.  Here are a few stats:

75% of Christians on the face of the Earth live in non-Western countries--sometimes called the "Majority World"

4 out of 5 pastors have no formal Bible training

GTN is at work in over 50 countries in the Majority World equipping pastors in biblical, theological, and ministry skills.

Here is GTN's newest video to give you a flavor of this strategic and important ministry.

Global Training Network - "Church Arise" from Paul Madson on Vimeo.

The New New Testament: Another Attempt at Pushing Gnostic Christianity

Here it comes again--just in time for Easter--the latest attempt to push a "new" version of Christianity under the guise of Gnostic texts.  A New New Testament is the brain-child of Hal Taussig who is a professor at Union Theological Seminary and a pastor in the United Methodist Church.  A New New Testament (ANNT) contains the 27 canonical New Testament books as well as an additional 10 more books.  Here is the promotional video for ANNT:

With scholars like Karen King (of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife fame--see here for details) and John Dominic Crossan you know this is not going to be any where near orthodox nor historically credible.

As can be seen from the video this newer grouping of books was put together by a "council of spiritual leaders"--a full 19 of them.  Sixteen of them are self-confessed Christians and three are non-Christians, according to an interview with Taussig over at Amazon.  One can be a little skeptical that a group of 19 "spiritual leaders" should really be considered a "council."  Michael Bird has these appropriate words to say:

Okay, I’m all for encouraging the study of extra-biblical texts, esp. early Christian literature from the second and third centuries. But you CAN”T just gather a council of nineteen buddies and decide to put new books in the New Testament. It’s a great marketing ploy, but these folks don’t seem to have a grain of catholic or canonical respect.

So what is included in this new version of the New Testament?  Of course, the Gospel of Thomas is included--it's placed first in the whole package.  So for one's daily devotions one can read saying 114:

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."  Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males.  For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

And these are supposed to be the "more inclusive" texts?

There is also The Prayer of the Apostle Paul.  I went looking in my copy of The Nag Hammadi Library (edited by James M. Robinson) and found the following words by Dieter Mueller introducing The Prayer of the Apostle Paul:

The short text is of unknown provenance.  Its general gnostic affinities are clear.  Details such as the reference to the "psychic God" (A,31) may indicate Valentinian connections.  That association in turn suggests a date of origin between the second half of the second century and the end of the third century.  (p. 27)

I'm thinking that Paul didn't write this or pray this prayer.

There is The Thunder: Perfect Mind which doesn't even mention Christ and may be a pre-Christian text.

There is The Gospel of Truth with its "clear affinities to the Valentinian school" and "some scholars have suggested that the Gnostic teacher [Valentinus] himself was the author" (p. 38 in The Nag Hammadi Library).  So who is Valentinus?  New Testament specialist Ben Witherington in his excellent book The Gospel Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci (IVP, 2004) gives a brief description:

Valentinus, certainly one of the most prominent names associated with Gnosticism, began as an orthodox monk in the second century A.D.  After he lost an election to be a bishop, he went in a Gnostic direction, which his contemporary Tertullian called a lapse into heresy.  His real influence in terms of Gnosticism came in the last third of the second century.  (Remember, there is no evidence that Gnosticism existed before the second half of the second century).  So there was perhaps a couple of centuries of development before Gnosticism was officially repudiated, but it is clear enough from Tertullian and Irenaeus that it was already deemed heretical by major figures in the second century.  (p. 85)

Why is it that some scholars continued to be fascinated with the Gnostic texts and alternative versions of "early" Christianity?  In a previous post last year I mentioned the work of Karen King and her interest with the Gnostic texts.  I wrote the following:

 According to King, there were alternate versions of Christianity and over time the forces of "orthodoxy" silenced other versions of Christianity.  This is nothing new for Dr. King.  She has been arguing this thesis for a number of years.  For example, in discussing the Nag Hammadi texts which contain a number of Gnostic "gospels" she has written:

These writings are of inestimable importance in drawing aside the curtain of later perspectives behind which Christian beginnings lie, and the exposing the vitality and diversity of early Christian life and reflection.  They demonstrate that reading the story of Christian origins backward through the lens of canon and creed has given an account of the formation of only one kind of Christianity, and even that only partially.  The fuller picture lets us see more clearly how the later Christianity of the New Testament and the Nicene Creed arose out of many different possibilities through experimentation, compromise, and very often conflict.  From her book The Gospel of Mary Magdala (Polebridge, 2003), p. 157 as quoted in Ben Witherington The Gospel Code (IVP, 2004), p. 118.

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington effectively answers this perspective when he responds directly to Karen King:

Did you catch the sleight of hand in this analysis?  Forget altogether the fourth and fifth century councils and the formation of the creeds.  The essential question is, What were the earliest documents (and what do they say)?  The answer is the New Testament itself.  We have no documents earlier than these, and as any good historian knows, the documents closest to the source of a movement are likely to be most revealing about its origins.

The documents written by eyewitnesses or those in contact with eyewitnesses are our primary sources, and these documents happen to be in the New Testament, plus a few other likely first-century documents, such as the Didache and 1 Clement.  There is no good evidence that Gnosticism was one of the dueling forms of Christianity in the first century A.D.  Thus the degree of diversity that King thinks existed in the earliest churches is not historically demonstrable.  There is no evidence of Gnostics or Marcionites in the first-century church.

In King's view the earliest Christians modeled wide diversity, and we are called to "emulate their struggles to make Christianity in our own day."  So the agenda is laid bare: it's our job not merely to rewrite the history of ancient Christianity but to remake modern Christianity.  This clarion call needs to be seen for what it is.  It's not simply a rejection of the canonizing process and creedal orthodoxy but also of the limits of first-century Christian diversity in favor of a much broader and more pluralistic model.  King calls us to reject our earliest historical sources, the New Testament, as the basis of defining the normative character of the Christian faith.  It plays right into our culture's belief that "the new is true."   Ben Witherington The Gospel Code (IVP, 2004), p. 118-119. 

These ancient fragments become, for some scholars and others, vehicles for contemporary agendas.

This is agenda is also seen in the words of Hal Taussig in answering questions on Amazon:

Q. What will Christians learn from A New New Testament?

A. They’ll learn that their early roots are deeper, more diverse, and more widespread than the general story of how Christianity began is told. Perhaps most importantly for Christians, they will be able to claim a set of new resources for their 21st century life. A New New Testament opens the door to a wider set of expressions, practices, stories, and teachings than they have previously known. 

Q. What will non-Christians learn from A New New Testament?

A. Non-Christians will learn that some of the narrow-minded doctrines of orthodox Christianity and the old-fashioned ideas of the traditional New Testament are not the only way that the early Christ movements expressed themselves. 

Did you catch that?--"narrow-minded doctrines of orthodox Christianity and the old-fashioned ideas of the traditional New Testament"--hardly detached and "objective" analysis.  This is an endeavor with an agenda.

The Jesus of the canonical gospels is too much for some people.  But rather than reject Him outright they seek to re-make Jesus into something more culturally palatable.  This is done under the banner of "scholarship" but the attempt to tie the historical Jesus to a Gnostic portrait continues to be overthrown in the scholarly literature.  But how many Americans are aware of this thorough debunking of this Gnostic lunacy?  The church needs to be ready to speak the true gospel about the true Jesus as revealed in the canonical New Testament.

"Strange Fire" Conference

In this promotional video for the upcoming "Strange Fire" conference, Pastor John MacArthur warns about the "unacceptable" and "false worship" of the charismatic movement.  This is a movement that "blasphemes the Holy Spirit."  Notice the broad brush strokes that are used to implicate this group called the "charismatic movement."  Notice, also, the opening scene of the video with its bloody figurine being stoned to death!




Pastor MacArthur has not been known to be an accurate or careful critic of the charismatic movement in the past.  For example, his 1992 book Charismatic Chaos was woefully lacking in any serious engagement with responsible charismatic/Pentecostal scholarship.  Rich Nathan in his response to Charismatic Chaos notes the following points (as scattered throughout his review):

"This book, however, is particularly difficult to read for a number of reasons.  MacArthur has the unfortunate weakness of exaggerating his opponents' faults.  Not only is the bizarre and the quirky repeatedly emphasized, but MacArthur rarely acknowledges a mainstream view within the charismatic or Pentecostal movements that's balanced, Biblical, and mature.  MacArthur, moreover, rarely admits that the Pentecostal/charismatic movement--now over 400 million strong--has borne tremendous fruit for the kingdom of God.  He simply does not permit himself to acknowledge positive contributions by this enormous and varied movement."

"Throughout this entire book, MacArthur has chosen to exaggerate the weaknesses of the charismatic viewpoint by selecting examples of the worst or the weakest of charismatic proponents rather than the best."

"Perhaps the worst flaw in MacArthur's argumentative style is is tendency to label his opponents with excessively negative and perjorative adjectives."

"In other places in Charismatic Chaos, he accuses charismatics and Pentecostals of being immoral (p. 21); 'keen but clueless' (p 40); anti-intellectual (p. 40); not far removed from existentialism, humanism, paganism (p. 41); and, being 'perilously close to neo-baalism' (p. 43).  It is difficult to dialogue with somebody who is as abusive and caustic as MacArthur is in his attacks on charismatics.  He expresses surprise that charismatics become defensive when he simply 'speaks the truth in love' to them.  Perhaps if MacArthur stopped labeling and vilifying charismatics, they might find it easier to listen to him." 

Based on the video preview of the conference I fear that not much is going to be different with this upcoming critique.

NOTE: I have written a brief critique of Pastor MacArthur's handling of one issue in his Charismatic Chaos.  It is not an exhaustive critique but it does detail his logical and exegetical errors on one specific point.  See my post: Epaphroditus, Sickness, and Healing.

ADDITIONAL POSTS ON THIS TOPIC:

"Strange Fire" and Responsible Criticism

"Strange Fire" and Responsible Criticism (2)

John MacArthur on John Piper and Wayne Grudem Regarding Spiritual Gifts

"Strange Fire"--Michael Brown Responds (Twice!)

RELATED ISSUES:

Evangelical and Charismatic: Affirming Both Word and Spirit

Charismatic Calvinist

Song on Joshua and the Promised Land

I have the opportunity to preach on Joshua and the beginnings of the movement of Israel into the Promised land.  I came across this song and I liked it!