I was recently asked to participate in a group that is creating curriculum in the area of “spiritual formation.” I have never really written much on this or spoken to the subject, but my nerve endings are a bit sensitive when the subject is introduced. In other words, I can hang with it for a bit, but when it is talked about in terms of “curriculum” or “discipleship” or forming the “whole spiritual person,” I back out.

What is “spiritual formation”? I am trying to be fair and representative of this but I know that there will be those who feel I have left something out. Nevertheless, here it goes:

“Spiritual formation describes a process or path to spiritual wholeness though a practice of specific disciplines including prayer, meditation, study, fasting, solitude, confession, and worship. The end goal is that the person would be more Christ-like.”

In the last ten years, “spiritual formation” seems to be quite a rave. I took a course called “Spiritual Formation” in seminary. Many well respected colleges and seminaries are even offering masters degrees in spiritual formation. It is nothing new, but the current strand seems to have evolved into some sort of perceived spiritual antibiotic to all sin, malnutrition, and disease. (If you don’t know what I am talking about, just Google it.)

At one time I tried to get in with the spiritual formation thing. At least, I tried to understand it. I am not going to mention any of the gurus in these circles (many of whom I have great respect for and from whom I have learned much), but I do have some things about which I don’t mind taking liberty to be overly offensive.

For me, listening to and reading books of this genre is like listening to an organ. I know, you love the organ. I don’t. I can’t stand it. It drains all the life out of me. I only have enough breath to make it though half a sentence in each song and the sentences are not long. When I read spiritual formation books, it is the same. It takes me half a day to get through a paragraph and the paragraphs are not that long. When I finish the book, I usually think to myself, “That could have been said in about one-one hundredth the space. Did I just lose a week off my life? I would have rather smoked a pack of cigarettes. It would have taken less life away.” Dramatics? No. But I am speaking for myself here.

(Calm down and keep reading.) Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

We are looking at what is God? Not who is God? or what has God done? We are looking at what his essential nature must be in order to qualify for the title.

One thing I am going to do throughout this series is something that many of you might be very uncomfortable with. You should not be, but you might. However, if you have studied the history of Christian doctrine and are, like me, standing on the shoulders of giants, you will have no problem with what I am advocating necessitating for this study. I believe that we must look to nature and philosophy in order to understand the nature of God. This means that I believe that extra-biblical information is required, yea demanded, by God himself.

My reasoning is simple. There are certain things that the Bible assumes. In other words, there is an information base that God requires before we can handle the Scriptures and biblical doctrine with integrity. These things are areas that are presupposed. For example, the Bible does not teach anyone how to read. It simply assumes such an ability. The Bible does not define its words. It assumes a knowledge base that is equipped to handle the vocabulary. Epistemologically (the justification of knowing), the Bible does not argue for the the law of non contradiction (i.e. that A cannot equal non-A at the same time and in the same relationship) or that propositions have meaning. It simply assumes that you know that. Theologically, the Bible does not make a case for God’s existence, it simply assumes that there is a sufficient base from which to make such a conclusion. There are other things as well, but these examples should suffice for you to understand and follow. (I hope!)

When it comes to making a case, such as I am going to make, about the “what” or “stuff” of God, I am going to be drawing as much from natural theology as I am from biblical theology—and for this I make no apologies. Natural theology is the theology that comes through nature or general revelation. It is a theology that is rationally based and relies much on philosophical deduction.

Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In this series of posts I am going to write about God. “Wow! That is revolutionary for a theology blog: thanks for being so specific, Michael!” Slow down, you are already wearing me out. We are going to talk about God, but I want to focus on something that I believe is the most neglected aspect of theology proper (the formal doctrine of God) in the church today. This is a serious charge, but I don’t think I am overstating it. We will see . . .

I don’t want to deal with who is God; neither do I want to deal with what God has done. Here, I am going to focus on the “what” of God. What is God? In other words, what, essentially, makes God, God. What characteristics must a being have to be called “God”? Personality? Goodness? Activity in our lives? Power? Grace? Or could God lack these things and still be God in the proper sense? What does God have to be to be God?

This might sound rather unspiritual and beyond our ability when dealing with the ineffable (that which is incapable of being expressed), yet I contend that it is essential and should be among the prolegomena (”first words”) in the study of theology proper. What I mean by this is that if you don’t get this right, all other questions about God will suffer to a great degree. This will in turn affect your view of everything, from Christ to morality, from inspiration to eschatology, and much more.

(Stay with me . . . I will explain as we move forward. One step at a time.)

By the time this study is finished, I believe that we will have discovered that many of our understandings and concepts about God do not really qualify for the title. In other words, some people’s views of God lack essential qualifying properties for God to bear the name “God.” This is prevalent among Christian cults and other world religions.

However, I must preface these strong propositions with a confession: I don’t believe a person must have a perfect concept of God to be in a true relationship with him. This is a matter of discipleship, essential as it may be.

In short, I will be arguing for what is called “Classical Theism,” something that has been under heavy attack the last couple of decades. As usual, I will try to help you understand why those who are straying from the classical theistic tradition are doing so and why I believe they have taken a wrong turn. I will also join them in the challenge of classical theism at one point, so be ready. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Albert Einstein once said “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing . . . so is a lot.”

I have been in discussions with a gentleman who reads this blog and, occasionally, will take one of my theology courses. The main topic of discussion is the necessity of theological discourse for the average Christian. Whether it be big words, concepts, or ideas, this gentleman does not think such things are necessary for the Christian life. He prefers the simplicity of loving God and leaving the rest to the theologians. His basic argument is that such things can and often do take away from our ability to live the Christian life due to their “side-tracking” nature.

Let me paraphrase a comment he would typically make:

“Whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, a traducianist or creationist, believe in soul sleep or intermediate bliss, believe in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or memorialism, none of these ultimately makes any difference. In fact, these beliefs serve more to bring about sinful divisiveness than anything else.”

This attitude with regard to theology is not uncommon at all. In fact, it seems that it has a lot of truth to it. It would seem that simplicity in our confession and faith would ultimately bring about the most unity and acceptance as well as provide more energy for the things that really matter. Right?

Well, if you are saying that more knowledge is dangerous, I agree. Knowledge can puff up. Knowledge can provide ground for strong opinions, lack of perspective, and, ultimately, division. But if you are saying that because of the dangers of knowledge it is not worth the risk, I disagree.

Let me give you an illustration that I think provides a sufficient parallel to the current issue. Knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot. Knowledge of what? Well, anything. But most specifically, we could apply this to relationships. When we enter into a relationship with someone, we take risks. Relationships involve us becoming vulnerable. When we allow someone to get to know us, there is always the possibility of misunderstanding, rejection, and a sort of Trojan horse pregnability of our heart. The same is true concerning those with whom we enter a relationship. Knowledge about them is dangerous. Not only for them, as they expose themselves, but for us as we put our own ideals about them on the line. In other words, you may know someone from a distance who you have placed on an idealist pedestal. Once an opportunity comes for you to deepen that relationship, closing the blissful distance, you are entering into dangerous territory. Why? Because now you are opening yourself up to coming to know the real person. All masks will soon come off and then you will have to nuance this relationship based upon your more up-to-date and accurate knowledge of the person. This process is certainly reciprocal and it is risky—it is dangerous—for both parties. While new discoveries will certainly bring about joy and depth in the relationship, they can also bring about a great deal of pain and emotional distancing.

When the fear of relational knowledge becomes so great that people guard themselves against all forms of vulnerability, disorders follow: schizoid personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder (AvPD), social anxiety disorder. Here, people become closed and guarded hoping that this will leave their lives protected, safe, and secure.

While people might rationalize their timidity due to the reality of the dangers that are involved when knowledge is attained, this rationalization is misleading. The avoidance of knowledge causes us to neglect a basic need of humanity—relationships.

I fear that this is often the case when people rationalize their avoidance of theology. Theology is simply coming to understand God at a deeper level. Yes, there are risks, just the same as any relationship. There are risks of misunderstandings, changing your ideals, opening yourself up to criticism, and coming to know both the wonderful and, what might be perceived to be, the not so wonderful things about God. There is also the possibility of division and strife as you defend what you believe to be true. But is this really any different than any other relationship? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Hello all!

We are three weeks in to our Spring 2009 (2) semester. Michael thought it would be a good idea to record the session from last night to give everyone a better idea of what our online classes are like.

Listen in to this episode of Theology Unplugged as Michael teaches session 3 of Humanity and Sin where he discusses Anthropological Dualism, Philosophical Dualism, and a few other big theological words .

We hope this will give you a bit of insight into what the online sessions are like and also give you an idea of what you can expect if you enroll in the upcoming Robert Bowman class “Science and the Bible”.

Send post as PDF to

 

 What is an online TTP class really like?: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Read this definition from the Theological Word of the Day and tell me if you think that there are any modern day ecclesiola movements.

Ecclesiola

(Gk, little church”)

This refers to small churches within big churches which met together for spiritual nourishment. The purpose was to revive the spiritual life and commitment of the church through a committed nuclei. The implied idea often became that this was the true church of committed believers meeting within the larger church of nominal Christians. The strong being separated from the weak so that they could, in theory, further strengthen themselves and make the weak strong. The ecclesiola were first formally developed by the pietists and popularized by Philip Jacob Spener. Many Lutherans opposed these meetings believing that the allowance of such was divisive, evidenced separatism, and amounted to spiritual pride. They also feared that such meetings, without qualified clergy, could produce heretical misinterpretations of doctrine.

Read more about this to get a better understanding. Very interesting.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

This is the final installment of my Sola Scriptura series.
The previous posts (post crash) can be found here. Or you can download entire series in rough PDF.

UPDATE: I have already deleted about 10 comments today. Please don’t just spam with quotes from the church fathers. Had the poster who did read the entire series, he would have seen that the quotes used don’t argue against sola Scriptura, properly defined. So please, if you are going to engage, read the rest of the series. I don’t have the time to recreate all the previous posts so that others can get up to speed enough to engage here! Thanks for your attention to the blog rules as well.

I have attempted to present a balanced look at the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. This is a doctrine that I hold to very strongly and believe is a sine qua non of Protestantism. What I mean by this is that this doctrine forms an essential bedrock of Reformation orthodoxy.

In the previous posts I have step by step attempted to defend this doctrine against competing models of authority held by both Catholics and (sometimes) Eastern Orthodox. But one of the most substantial claims that those who deny sola Scriptura make is that it does not find representation in the history of the church. In fact, Roman Catholics would argue that church history holds to a dual-source theory where unwritten tradition and Scripture are equal and the Magisterial authority of the Catholic church infallibly interprets both.

I agree that it would be a substantial argument if in the history of the church we cannot find the principles of sola Scriptura being held, but this is simply not the case. I offer two arguments here:

1. To require that one produce an articulated view of sola Scriptura in history is anachronistic. An anachronism is where one enforces a contemporary articulation of an idea or use of a word on an ancient audience. This is not unlike what many Christian cults do with the doctrine of the Trinity. They ask orthodox Christians to produce historical verification for the Trinity prior to 325 A.D. (the date of the Council of Nicea, when the Trinity was articulated in its near current form). They are not looking for seeds of the principle beliefs, but an actual articulation. Expecting to find the doctrine of sola Scriptura commits the same type fallacy. Both suffer from the same presumption that if something is true, we will find it in its current articulated form from the beginning. This assumption is unjustified and finds no parallel in any other discipline.

The doctrine of sola Scriptura as defined in this series was explained and articulated as such precisely because of the controversies of the 16th century. Search all you will and you will not find the phase “sola Scriptura” before the Reformation just as you won’t find the word “Trinity” commonly used before Nicea. But, in both cases, I do believe you will find the doctrine in seed form. In other words, the doctrine of sola Scriptura was undeveloped before the Reformation, but it was present in its undeveloped form. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

As many of you know, my family and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma, a year and a half ago primarily due to my mother’s illness. Previously, we lived in Frisco, Texas, where I was a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church for six years. We all loved the church. We loved the people, the commitment to the preaching of God’s word, and the reverence for certain traditions. Oh, and did I mention grace?! That is why I went there in the first place – grace! Rarely (and sadly) do you find a passionate commitment to the word of God and a attitude of grace. This situation gives forth to energy. Call it the power of God, the movement of the Holy Spirit, or whatever you will according to your tradition, but the church was alive. I wanted to be there every day. I miss it greatly.

Grace and truth. The two most important elements in my hierarchy of looking for a church.

Notice, to the surprise of many, I did not list “perfect theology” as a criteria. I did not even say theology that I am always comfortable with (since there is no perfect theology). At Stonebriar, I had it all. Just about everything Chuck taught, I agreed with. If not, I loved the man so much that I would bend myself to agree with him! (At least for that Sunday.) Of course, Chuck is a pastor more than a professional theologian. But he was committed to sound theology and he is a Calvinist! (a four pointer at least). Oh the depths and riches of reformed preaching! The power, the hope, the pride that can be taken when God’s sovereignty is preached in such a way.

However, today I do not go to a Calvinistic church. In fact, I am at an Arminian church. In fact (again), I am a regular teacher at a church that is both Arminian and Egalitarian. In fact (last time), last week I had to call the pastor that I am under to ask if it was okay for me to teach on “Women in the Church,” a topic in a current series I am on. This church is called Crossings Community Church and it is part of the Church of God, Anderson (not the charismatic Church of God you may be thinking of).

Let me briefly define a few terms before we move on (I will get in trouble if I don’t. If you already know these “big” words, move on. If not, learn them! – its not that hard):

Calvinist: One who believes in the doctrines of grace most traditionally defined by the TULIP acronym. The most controversial of the doctrines are Unconditional Election: the belief that God elects some individuals to salvation and not other based upon his sovereign will; Limited Atonement: the belief that Christ’s death only paid for the sins of the elect; Irresistible Grace: the belief that when God’s saving grace is presented to the elect, it is always effective (i.e. they will not ever reject it); and Perseverance of the Saints: the belief that those who are saved (the elect) will persevere and cannot “lose” their salvation.

Arminian: One who denies all of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace except the first, Total Depravity. The Arminian will opt for a belief in “Conditional” election: the belief that God’s predestination is based on the foreseen faith of the individual; “Resistible” grace: the belief that God’s saving grace can be rejected by anyone; “Unlimited” atonement: the belief that Christ’s death paid for the sins of every individual; and the belief that a truly saved person and fall from or “lose” their salvation.

Complementarianism: Belief in essential equality, but functional hierarchy in the sexes. This hierarchy is by God’s design and is not due to the fall. Man is to be the leader in the church and home. Women are not to be in positions of authority over man in the church or home, but are honored due to their role in the same way as men.

Egalitarianism: Belief in the essential and functional equality of the sexes. All role distinctions which imply leadership belonging to the man is due to the fall, not by God’s design. Therefore, women can serve in positions of authority over man in both the church and the home. Role is assigned by individual giftedness, not gender.

So . . . Why does this Calvinistic Complementarian go to an Arminian Egalitarian church? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

My wife has this terrible habit of picking my gray hairs while I am driving. I can see her out of the corner of my eye and I know what she is doing. She is obsessed. The problem is that she only does this on the right side. The lefts side, as a result, is going much grayer than the right.

Anyway, I tell my wife that gray hair is very important to someone in ministry.

I often ask my Trinitarianism students a rather odd series of questions. These questions come during our session on Christology (the study of the person and work of Christ). I have touched on it here and there in this blog. The questions are these:

Did Christ have grey hair?

Is it possible the Christ would have benifited from corrective lenses?

And, getting to the heart of the matter,

Would Christ have died had he not been killed?

These questions are brought about by our pondering upon Christ’s identification with humanity and humanity’s identification with sin and death. Since Christ did not sin, and death is a result of sin, then wouldn’t it be natural to believe that Christ would have lived forever in his unresurrected body had He not been 1) killed or 2) relinquished His spirit from His body? Wouldn’t it seem likely (even necessary) that Christ did not have any grey hairs?

I believe the answer is slightly more complicated than it might first appear having implications that reveal our assumptions about our Christology (doctrine of Christ), Anthropology (doctrine of man), Harmartiology (doctrine of sin), Eschatology (doctrine of the end-times), and Teleology (doctrine of ultimate ends or purpose). Now that is quite a claim that needs to be defended.

Let me say this another way so that there are not any misunderstandings. Your answer to these questions, yah or nah, are not the issue and is of minimal importance, but the assumptions that often cause one to say yah or nah are very important, ultimately being a result of your entire systematic theology.

I believe that Christ would have died a natural death had He not been killed. In fact, I believe that Christ got sick, ate, drank, had headaches, used the bathroom, was sunburned from time to time, had blisters on his feet when He walked too far, cried when hurt as a child, and sprained His ankle. In fact, He might have even had some gray hairs and needed to wear corrective lenses (were there such a thing in his day!). Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Why go to church? Church stinks. People are either rude, looking down their self-righteous nose at you, or they are nice and in a hurry. I hardly ever have a significant conversation at the church service, it is just “Hi,” or “Good to see you,” or “How’s the family?” or something churchy and pithy like that.

Teaching? Yes, the sermon is great. But can’t I just listen to someone on the radio or download the podcast? Really. What is the difference?

Fellowship? Do not neglect the gathering together of believers, I know. But is that talking about a gathering together at a church building? Why can’t I just hang out with some Christian friends, going to dinner and maybe having a Bible Study at the house. What is special and unique about gathering together with them at a church building? It seems so shallow in those walls.

Taking of the Lord’s table? Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” He did not say where we are to do this. Are we limited to a church building? Do elders, pastors, and/or deacons have to distribute the elements? Why? Where do you get that? Why can’t I just do it at my house or at Starbucks?

Giving? Isn’t giving primarily said to support those who labor in teaching and for the poor? I cannot think of any other way it is described in the New Testament. Can’t I just do this on my own, giving to others who are laboring in teaching that I am benefiting from elsewhere?

I am tired of being judged by whether or not I go to church. I heard that the Catholics say that if you miss Mass without a valid excuse you have committed a mortal sin and, if not confessed, no matter how much you love Christ, you are still going to hell. I have been to Protestant churches that seem to believe the same thing (although they would not put it that way). I actually heard someone say that if I don’t go to church I am not a Christian. If that is true, I am not that type of Christian and want nothing to do with it.

I think that the modern idea of going to church is rather legalistic and can cause people to miss the point entirely. I love Christ. I have Christian friends that I love and hang out with. We are the church, but we don’t go to a church. Isn’t this enough? What am I missing?

These statements are not mine, but are typical of many people that I know. In fact, many of my closest friends think this way, they are just scared to admit it.

How would you respond?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

It was in my expository preaching course that I learned it. It was driven into my teaching psyche and intended to become a part of my basic presupposed knowledge of ministry. Without it, all your preparation would be in vain. Lacking this, your message will fail to do what God actually intended it to do.

It is the message for a new generation. It is something emergers know and they know that they know it. It is what  I hear on blogs, read in books, and a continued favorite among those who are despondently depressed and shamed when surrounded by “fundamentalists.” It is pridefully stated as if this epiphany is going to miraculously wake a sleeping Evangelical culture of John MacArthur and John Piper groupies.

What is it?

“Belief is no good without practice.” Wake up and smell the manna!

Sounds reasonable doesn’t it. Let’s put it another way.

“Belief is not the end, it is a means to an end. The end is doing not believing.”

In preaching, it goes like this:

“If you don’t have a way in which people can apply the lesson to their lives today, you have not really done anything.”

Another:

“Introduction. Body. Three points of application.”

A friend said it the other day. We visited a church led by a young seeker-friendly preacher. After the lesson he said, “Now I really liked that sermon.” “Why?,” I asked. “Because it has so much application,” he responded. “That is what I need—application.”

The idea here is that belief, in and of itself, is not the end game that God has for us. God primarily wants us to be active in our practice. Good works, being nicer to people, acting out our love, giving to the poor, self-sacrifice, not cheating on tax-returns, avoiding certain web-sites, bringing home flowers to your wife, forgiving your father, protecting the unborn, knowing when to set down the beer, taking your daughter out on a date, remembering to say “I love you” (don’t just suppose they know), and trading your Hummer for a Honda. These are all things I can do today. This is what we need. Right?

emergentos moschos skubula

(Excuse the French). Nice translation: “What a load.” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Believing in the sovereignty of God is not an option of yes, no, or maybe within the Christian context. If the Bible is our authoritative guide, one must believe that God is sovereign. It is not unlike the issue of predestination. That God predestines people to salvation is not up for debate, what is up for debate is what it means that God predestines.

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign, but they will often disagree as to what this means.

Here are the four primary options:

1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God is actively controlling everything.

Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists

2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will. God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

How hard it is to avoid the innate desire that we all have to confirm our prejudices through our studies. Our pursuit of truth, more times than not, resembles an exercise of a passionate search for evidences that fit our presupposed conclusions. In other words, we know what we know, then we seek to confirm what we know.

It is always more comfortable to be than to become.

Becoming involves humility which calls for change. Change is not really on the agenda for most of us. Yes, we may call ourselves sinners and express the need to change, but when change presents its resume, we reject it, contriving a long list of excuses. It does not matter whether it has to do with theology or an argument with your spouse, we believe we are right and we will do everything to present our case in the best possible light. It is a fearful thing to even consider that we might be wrong.

I believe that this methodology is dishonoring to God, no matter what you are trying to defend—even if it is the truth. This methodology is sin. Better: we use this methodology because we are sinners Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I have said that there is no compelling reason to say that the Bible teaches the so-called supernatural sign gifts have ceased. I have also said and demonstrated that the history of the church evidences a de facto cessation of the sign gifts. As well, I have said that, despite being open to the gifts, my personal experience is lacking with regard to any of these gifts, either through direct or indirect experience.

Because of this, I would say that the only responsible position for me to hold right now is that of a de facto cessationist. In sum, this is why I am not a charismatic.

Some have objected to my beliefs citing what they suppose to be an inconsistency.  While admitting that the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased, I am still not a  charismatic. Why is this? Isn’t the Bible, not personal or ecclesiatical experience, my ultimate guide?

The answer is yes, the Bible is my ultimate guide. It is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. If church history or “Michael history” says one thing and the Bible says another, then I (in theory) go with the Scriptures.

However…

While I did say that the Scriptures do not present any compelling evidence that the gifts have ceased, I don’t believe that they present any compelling evidence that they have continued either. In fact, I would say that the Bible does not necessarily speak to the issue any more than it does the closing of the canon. Remember, the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the canon is closed, yet I believe based on the same de facto arguments that Scripture is no longer being added to. I would argue that the Scriptures have been (for lack of a better word) “closed” due to an exhaustion of purpose. Interestingly, charismatics would make the same argument, believing that the while Scriptures never explicitly say that that the canon is closed, they believe it has nonetheless. Why do we all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed even though the Bible itself does not say that it has closed? If we were theologically honest, our answer would be very simple: Because it, as a matter of fact, closed! It is a de facto argument. The canon of Scripture is closed because God has not sent a verified Apostle or prophet who added to it in the last 2000 years. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I was discussing religion with a gentleman this evening. It was a very interesting conversation in which he recounted to me how he used to be a Christian in a Baptist church. But he left Christianity for Buddhism not too long ago. He explained that the reason why he left Christianity was because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In short, he felt that Christians were on the wrong side of this issue.

This is representative of so many in our cultural Christianity. This gentleman’s argument was simple:

Christianity is determined as valid or invalid upon the character of its adherents.

In other words, if Christians do not act a “good” way, then Christianity itself is discredited. In this man’s mind, Christians were on the wrong side of the conflict, therefore he left Christianity for something more suitable in keeping with the character that he supposed should accompany those who follow the true God.

I am going to make a statement here that I suppose is going to make many of my readers upset. This especially goes for those who are more “emerging” in their thinking. Here it goes:

Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.

Did you get that? Let me repeat.

Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I have thus far discussed what it means to be charismatic equating a charismatic with one who adheres to a continuationist view of the “supernatural sign gifts.” In other words, a charismatic is one who believes that gifts such as prophecy (speaking on behalf of God), working of miracles, healing, tongues, and, if you so define them, word of wisdom and word of knowledge are normative for the church today and that we should expect people in the church to possess and practice them.

I have said that I don’t believe that there is any compelling biblical evidence to say that the gifts have ceased in any dogmatic way. I have also said that one of the primary reasons why I am not charismatic is because I have never experienced such gifts in a way that would compel me to believe that these gifts, as they are expressed today, are legitimate. I am not saying that I know that there are not legitimate expressions of these gifts out there, I am just saying that I have not experienced such. I have to be responsible and discerning with my mind before God. Therefore, my life is experiencially wanting in this area. I have every desire to believe that God is working through people in such a way, giving these gifts, but I am charismatically dry.

I now have to turn to the evidence of history. Our faith is nothing new. It is one which finds its roots in two thousand years of a legacy of saints that have gone before us. The expressions of our faith should find analogous representation in body of Christ, both living and dead. If those who have gone before us do not share our faith, then we have a responsibility to question the legitimacy of our beliefs.

From my studies, I do not find the practice of the supernatural sign gifts being in any way normative before the twentieth century. In other words, it does not seem that the historic church was charismatic in the way I have described above. In fact, I would describe them as de facto cessationists. What I mean by this is that they were cessationists out of necessity, not out of theological compulsion. They, like me, had simply not experienced the supernatural sign gifts. Again, this is not the same thing as saying that they had not experienced the miraculous or God’s hand of intervention (beliefs that all Christians share), but that they did not believe that individuals possessed the supernatural sign gifts. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Having discussed some of the strengths of the continuationist/charismatic position, I would now like to explain why, at this point in my life, I am not a charismatic. I am going to put these in order, but I want to stress the tentativeness of my conclusion. In this, I am not necessarily offering what I believe to be strong arguments against continuationism, but only those arguments that are subjectively persuasive to me. I hope that these arguments genuinely express my position without the normal combative tone communicating “This is what I think everyone should be!”

1. I have never had a genuine charismatic experience.

Considering the relative weakness of any biblical defense against a strong cessationist position, I am very open, biblically and theologically, to continuationism. I used to have an emotional bias against all things charismatic, but I have not had such in years. In fact, I have come to respect and be intrigued with the position due to the scholarship and balance that I find in many contemporary charismatic leaders. However, I have never witnessed anything that I believe to be persuasive evidence that the supernatural sign gifts are normative or even active in the church today. This does not mean that I have not witnessed what I believe to be are miracles (I have seen one or two) or God’s intervention and guidance, but I have never witnessed anything that would lead me to believe that someone has, as their gift to the body of Christ, any of the particular gifts—workers of miracles, healings, prophecy, or the like—that I mentioned in my first installment in this series.

Of course I have heard people give prophecies. During my undergraduate, a little over ten years ago, we had a “prophet” come to our school (it was a third wave school) and lay their hands on everyone during the chapel service giving them personal words of prophecy. But it was hard to tell the difference in this and a session of palm reading. The words were so general, a sort of “catch-all”, that they could have been applied to anyone. “You have been through much pain lately . . . God knows.” “You are confused about a decision you are up against . . . God says, ‘go with your heart.’” “Be kind to her.”  Yes, people were listening with tears running down their face, but I could not adjust my skepticism and allow for such a breach of conscious. I though—and still think today—anyone can do this.

If a person is a prophet, they much show some type of undeniable sign. Would God really expect less for the surrendering of my mind? I would say and still will say to anyone who says that they are a prophet or have the gift of prophecy, “Why should I listen to you? What evidence do you bring that you are from the Lord?” Look at the examples of those who carried the Lord’s message in the past. Look at Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul. The dead were raised, lame walked, and shadows healed. I have never witnessed anyone who spoke on behalf of the Lord—the definition of prophecy—and accompanied such with these type of miracles. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In the last post I breifly described what it means to be Charismatic in the theological sense of the word. In essence, it does not necessarily have to do with a belief in God’s intervention in history or his willingness or power to perform modern day miracles, but, properly speaking, it has to do with a particular belief often called “continuationism.” As apposed to “cessationism” the “continuationist” believes that the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings (among others) are still active gifts of the Spirit given to people today. The church, according to continuationists should seek, expect, and promote the use of such gifts. All Charismatics are continuationists and all continuationists, properly speaking, are charismatics (even if you must use a small “c”).

Now I want to give a short defense of the Charismatic/continuationist position. Please understand these represent what I personally believe to be the strongest arguments, biblically, theologically, and practically, for the position, but this does not represent an exhaustive list of the arguments.

1. Acts chapter 2 seems to suggest that the gifts of the Spirit (particularly prophecy) would be normative for the church.

Notice especially 14-21 where Peter is explaining to the many Jews gathered to see why these people were speaking in tongues.

“Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”

Peter is obviously arguing that the events that they are witnessing are evidence of the “last days” prophesied by Joel. Peter believes that the powers being displayed are evidence that the “last days” had begun. Including in these last days events are great miracles. But most importantly, Peter believes that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit during these days results in specific events: “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” These last days events do not indicate a certain duration or cessation. In fact, it would seem that they will last until the “day of the Lord.” Therefore, it would seem that Peter believes that the giving of such gifts is a perpetual norm of the last days. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I used to walk through Christian book stores and choose my books based on whether or not the author was a charismatic. I would pick up a commentary and turn immediately to 1 Cor. 12 (the section on spiritual gifts). If the author believed that the spiritual gifts were for today, I would put it back on the shelf in disbelief that the store would carry such misleading material. If they did not believe that the gifts were for today—if the author was a “cessationist”—I would consider purchasing the book.

Such was the time when I believed that all those who believed that all charismatics were practicing a different Christianity, at best, or demon possessed, at worst.

I am not a charismatic, and I have my reasons, but I do not feel the same way today as I used to. Let me first define the terms and set up the field of play.

The word “charismatic” can be used in many ways. It is taken from the word “charisma.” Websters Dictionary defines it as “a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader).” Many would say that Barack Obama has charisma in such a way. Charisma is taken from the Greek charisma which means “gift.” Its root, charis, means “grace.”

In Christianity, “charismatic” refers to those who believe that certain “spiritual gifts” such as tongues, prophecy, and gifts of healings, are normative for the church. In the Scriptures, we are told that God gives certain gifts to everyone in the body of Christ. Representative gift lists are mentioned in 1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12, 1 Pet. 4, and Eph. 4. Some of these gifts seem to be natural extensions of the recipients personality (leadership, teaching, encouragement) while others distinguish themselves by their extra-ordinary nature. A charismatic is one who believes that God still gifts people in the church with the extra-ordinary or supernatural gifts and that these gifts are normative in the body of Christ for the extension of God’s message, glory, and grace.

Charismatic is not a denomination, but a trans-denominational theological stance or tradition which can find representation in any denomination or tradition, including Evangelicalism. In fact, I think that the charismatic position (or some variation thereof) is the fastest growing tradition within Evangelicalism.  Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

A few days ago, I had the opportunity to attend Zane Hodges funeral, which was a little strange considering that I did not know him. But I have been so impressed with the indelible impression that he made on so many, including people that I do know who have known him, that at the least I wanted to glean from the final farewells a legacy that I most certainly would have appreciated and desired to know personally. I guess this was the next best thing to being there, benefitting from the words of wisdom that he seemed to share with so many.

To be sure, there were many remarks given from people who had known this beloved man and whose comments were replete with praise of a life well lived. One comment in particular really stuck with me. One of the speakers indicated that Zane Hodges had helped him to know Christ better. I continued to reflect on this as I ducked out right before the eulogy as work responsibilities beckoned. I kept thinking of this throughout the day. It was clear to me that Mr. Hodges was a consummate exegete of the Scripture and took to challenge theological positions that contradicted the grace by which believers in Christ are reconciled to God. I heard that he was a passionate teacher of the greek language. But what I heard most of all was a man who desired for others to know Christ better.

As I contemplated these things, it struck me that this is indeed the ultimate task of theology, to know Christ better. Yes, engaging in the study of God is faith seeking understanding that will of course lead to exhaustive investigations of historical developments, hermeneutics, and doctrinal positioning. I think it is indeed serious business to understand God on His terms and I am personally committed to a lifelong in-depth learning of His character and attributes, His ultimate revelation in Christ and the reconciliation of His creation. History has indeed demonstrated that many have sought to misrepresent or distort this revelation and the salvific process defined for us in Scripture. Deviations do need to be addressed. But we can get so enmeshed in the process of debate that we begin to leave Christ out. I confess that in my pursuits to defend truths as I have understood them, I have been guilty of such. But then I recognize that at these times our wrangling over doctrinal truths can amount to an intellectual match with pretty arguments but no real basis for meaningful Christian dialogue.

Christ is the centrality of the faith and if our dialogue doesn’t have a heartfelt knowledge of Christ as the ultimate goal, the game is meaningless. I think Paul was getting to this ultimate task in his commendation to the church at Colossae regarding the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ,

We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ (Col 1:28)

All the words, debates, arguments should point to Him, should help people to know Him and to know Him better. Perhaps if we find that our theological investigations and debates become more about winning arguments then pointing to Christ and presenting men complete in Him, then maybe those investigations should be superseded by silent moments of introspection.

I did not know Zane Hodges, but it did seem from the myriad comments that I have heard about him, that this was something he understood well. The comments suggested that he was a man who pointed people to Christ and His corresponding grace. And for this seminary student engaged in the process of doing theology, I feel somewhat robbed for not having made his acquaintance but refreshed at the legacy that he left that seemed to help so many to know Christ and to know Him better.

The next time we are engaged in a theological debate, let’s think about what we are really arguing about.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!