This post has been revised and is now part of my full critique of Strange Fire.
Frank Viola | Beyond Evangelical
Official Blog of Author & Speaker Frank Viola. Digging below the surface and moving beyond the shallows in today's Christianity.
Strange Fire
A Most Pernicious Temptation by T.E. Hanna
Hi Frank there are definitely people who claim their revelation is above an exegetical and hermeneutical understanding of scripture. Being raised in the charismatic church and then going to the bethel school of supernatural ministry, I’ve been able to see the weird and wonderful side of charismata. However in my experience the majority of people that talk like this aren’t rejecting a more conventional view of scripture but are saying that God spoke to them personally using a verse that spoke where they were at. There are definitely some charismatics that will claim that their personal revelation is more authoritative than traditional ways of interpreting scripture but most charismatics would agree that if your personal “revelation” is contrary to a broader understanding of scripture it is wrong.
I know I’ve encountered these difficult discussions where semantics become such a barrier. The SCS discussion reminds me of one of Covey’s 7 Habits: Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Seems like it is more important to get to the heart of what someone is saying than getting tripped up over the wording. I grew up non-charasmatic, so the “God told me”, “the Spirit just said to me”, “Jesus wants me to” fill in the blank, has always made me skeptical at first reaction. Fortunately I was able to learn later to be open to the Spirit’s direct communication. However, I try to always be aware that whatever He is communicating/directing will not go against His own nature. That’s the basic test that runs through my mind whenever these discussions come up, or a person or group is trying to discern the Lord’s mind in a present situation.
I want to know Christ.
I AM The Way, The Truth and The Life… A new command I give you-Love each other…
My kindred, remember that doctrine, theology, even exegesis, are our struggling attempts to make sense of a really, really, big, really huge, like beyond enourmous, infinite Creator. The Son is THE Self-revealing of that God.
Somewhere I read something about returning to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when the Tree of Life is now ours for the taking. That is a profound picture.
Better our interpretations always be prefaced with “As I see it…” or “From where I stand…” and concluded with, “But Jesus is Lord.” Hubris is often hidden in the words, “The Bible says.”
Best advice from the longest lived Apostle: “Little Children, Love One Another.”
Frank, help me out by pointing out to dummies like me how these issues help to do those things Jesus left actual commands about: loving God with all I have/am, loving others with Jesus’ love, being sent to bring divine love to a broken world.
Great discussion. Paul or Apollos, John or Frank, you or me…shoot, I just want to love Jesus, and love you.
Years ago, I took my kids to the circus. We marvelled at the contortionist who would dislocate his joints to squish down into a tiny clear Perspex box. There he was, a complete human, peering out of a box. I was the kid at school who asked “way” too many questions. I was the kid who was being taught the account of Creation and I’m wondering what God was doing the day before. I noticed in the Old Testament that God lived in a box once (The Ark Of the Covenant) I’m only in the “Foyer ” of Franks teachings,just the beginnings, Im running up the road of Emmaus politely saying “Wait please Jesus, teach me properly” Im looking forward to walking the rest of the Mansion out.
Wassup Frankie?
Give us your best stuff on the Charismatic Folks. Throw heat towards the mound buddy.
I am also interested in the place of Tongues and what it looks like in the Gathering of the Saints. Is the “Gibberish” all the Charismatics are doing, is that legit? Maybe you already wrote something on this.
No curve balls my friend…..just keep the ball away from the fat part of the bat. š
You know the passage in 1 Corinthians where Paul discourages believers in Corinth from adopting loyalties which say “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Jesus,” or “I am of Apollos”? There was a time when I “was of John MacArthur.” But the Holy Spirit showed me that our apprehension of God cannot be put in a neat little package, and His manifestation of Himself to us is often beyond the ability to put into words. I’m now of the view that if all there is to an understanding of God and the Bible is what John MacArthur has to offer, I’m not that interested.
GregA:
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater . Read MacArthur (glean what you can), and then read Viola for even more discernment. I find Viola to be a good Polemic for most stuff that is pawned off as “Christian” these days. Be a little more interested friend.
One repeated theme in all I have read in pro and con posts, blogs, etc. is the “excesses” that exist the the charismatic movement. They are glaring, public, harmful, and ongoing. As a longtime Christian it seems to me that someone needs to call it out. Shouldn’t the Assemblies of God or the Foursquare Church be at the forefront of this calling out? Many people have been harmed by the excesses and yet I don’t hear many insiders leading the charge against them (that could be due to ignorance on my part, or that many of those guilty of excesses are large powerful ministries). The legitimacy of any movement or organization can be demonstrated in how they deal with the fringes of their movement, unless of course these fringes are actually more central to the movement than the movement is willing to admit.
I’m not part of the Charismatic “movement,” but I can tell you from what I know that:
(1) there have been many voices of dissent and calling out errors among certain Charistmatic leaders from Charistmatics themselves. Robert Ricciardelli and L.J. Grady are just two who come to mind.
(2) Many people (non Charismatics) have pointed out that there are even more serious problems within the Reformed camp that are rarely called out by fellow Reformed brethren, but ignored.
(3) The Charismatic “movement” isn’t really a monolith anymore. It’s so diverse it’s like saying that all Methodists are the same. For instance, there’s a world of difference between Francis Frangipane and Benny Hinn.
Hear hear!
So Frank,
You just take advantage of the Strange Fire conference going viral in the blogsphere but didn’t hear any of the conference and will not (as you reply to Caleb). So your sourcing are only some comments or blogs here and there, and you blog to promote your books while criticizing the McArthur’s.
I hear some sessions on the conference (S. Lawson, C. Mbewe, Q&A) and, contrary to Krista, I believe this is a matter of Bible sufficiency rather than Charismatic truennes.
Of course there is some abuse on the Charismatic movement and human influence and manipulation, but is not this what Paul warns the chorintians? (I belongs to a pentecostal church) Does that means that we will not use SCS to appear more biblical or to unite to reformed brothers and sisters?
What is normative or just a recount of events in the NT for today’s church? I think this is one of your objectives, make a clear point on what is normative and what has been institutionally twerk by the church.
So Jose. Um … [cough] nope. I’ve not read one update or comment about the “Strange Fire” conference. My post is responding to *the book* which the publisher is sending me which is a new incarnation of a book I’m all too familiar with … “Charismatic Chaos.” The arguments aren’t new to me as I’ve been investigating them since I was 20 years old.
Understanding SCSs – which I explore in detail elsewhere – is essential to the discussion as it’s a big PART of it that’s overlooked. This post is just one section from my lengthy discussion on it.
Your last question is a complicated one and it’s answered in detail in “Reimagining Church.” http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org – a blog response cannot do justice.
With respect to judging my intentions for this post, I look forward to borrowing your mind-reading cap when you’re finished with it. (grin)
Jose, wassup Esse?
My good friend Jose Cuervo…..take it easy pal, kick back, put your feet up on the ottoman, take a sip, and tone it down. Attacking just puts folks on the defensive.
Get a grip pal. Quit running your mouth and Listen.
“You belongs” to a Pentecostal church…..hello.
I have been so blissfully unaware of this dispute. Only one thing to say. REALLY…..with the state of of country and growing spiritual void, Christians are organizing conferences to debate the status of believers who believe God can and does everything. I come from a formerly unbalanced charismatic background. Now more middle of the road. I appreciate your viewpoints. But really, we have much more important work to do than debating continuationist vs. cessationist. In the end I will let God be my judge and witness to the deep and longing desire in my heart to serve him at all cost and will not waste my time with cessation theology or that I can claim to be a true believer because I believe in the unlimited and undefined power of God. I still believe God is in the business of “creation”. And his creation work did not stop with creating our little sphere of existence, God was, continues to be, and will always be more than we can wrap our puny brains around.
Amen. I totally agree with your statement, Krista. Simple faith is what God wants. There are mysteries of God that we will never fathom. That is why He is God and we are not. In John 20:30 and John 21:25, it says that Jesus did many other miracles and many other things as well that are not recorded in the bible. It makes no sense to debate the greatness or power of God by limiting Him through the perspective of our human logic and minds. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. People just need to deal with it, there is no need to try to understand it.
Hear hear š
the beauty of Wesley’s quadrilateral can add some balance as it calls for reason, experience AND tradition under-girded by Scripture. (not that the UM’s have gotten it figured out . . .)
but I really have a problem when a new revelation flips what the church (not institution) has been about for 2000 years. God gave us brains (reason). I suspect He wants us to use them. He’s given us deeply thinking theologians from all traditions and streams for those 2000 years. He’s given us experiences to make sure our faith is alive and active and progressing and not relegated to a mere history book. And He’s given us this Book – inspired (define?) by the Holy Spirit to light our path and to also set boundaries for that path.
Yet like Paul said, we love to play around with “myths and endless genealogies” . . .
Hey people – there are a whole lot of people who need to know that the Kingdom of God is at hand and how to enter it.
Hi Frank,
I appreciate the distinction youāve drawn here (and I have numerous times felt frustration in trying talk with someone who approaches the Bible with what you have called a āCSC styleā). Yet while I want to build bridges with such folks I wonder if attributing this orientation to style, language use, or inattention to hermeneutics is not ultimately misleading?
Specifically, my view is that what you refer to as a CSC “stlye” is not a style of interacting but an ideological orientation that comes with its own built-in (and generally unconsciously held) hermeneutic. And itās a hermeneutic that, ironically, negates the necessity of exegesis because it denies that there is really any distance between the text and the reader.
Those holding this view see no distance between the biblical text and themselves, as readers, because the Bibleās ultimate āauthorā is giving readers the “inside scoop” on its meaning. And if God is willing (and perhaps eager) to do this, then not only is there no need for interpretation but an emphasis on interpretation / exegesis actually becomes an indication of an improper relationship with God!
So instead of identifying the issue as linguistic or stylistic I would instead say that itās about the philosophical, theological, and anthropological chasm between these two people.
Putting in plainly, in my view these two people have vastly different (and conflicting) understandings of what the Bible is and how readers access it BECAUSE they have vastly different (and conflicting) understandings about a) how one knows things about human existence, knowledge, and experience b) how one knows and experiences things about God, and c) what it means to be a human being in the world.
And Iām not splitting hairs. Instead, I believe that solving an issue requires rightly identifying it. And I believe that the issue is a conflict of ideologies (and even worldviews) that results in radically different understands of the biblical text and it readers. And the real problem, in my experience, is that such ideologies have destructive effects: they alienate Christians and repel non-Christians. And given whom I have experienced (and understand) God to be, thatās the last thing Iād want.
My response to such a situation typically twofold. First, I gradually (and gently) expand the conversation to included experience, philosophy, and theology. Second, I inquire about how this orientation is sensible in light of (and makes sense of) a Christianās top priorities.
First, experientially, what happens when such readers apply their understandings to their lives? What are their experiences of God, self, world and other, and how do these experiences confirm or contradict their (apparently) unmediated understandings of the Bible? Philosophically, how do they square their seemingly full knowledge of what the Bible means with being limited, finite beings? Theologically, how do they square this same knowledge with the reality that humans (including Christians) are sinful, and that much of the old testament is devoted to the problem of false religionāthe false religion of Israel herself?
Second, I’m always curious in such situations to understand how our Christian orientations enable us to achieve our top goals better. Specifically, how does this approach help me love God entirely, and how does it help me love myself (and so my neighbour) rightly? By returning people to this top priority and having them assess their views and practices in light of it, I have found that helpful shifts can take place.
Gregg: 1) I never said SCSs was *the issue*. The post and the comments make plain it’s ONE of the issues that’s rarely discussed. 2) Your questions are answered in the chapter in “Revise Us Again.” This post is just a short excerpt from that chapter.
Thanks for answering.
And while I think it’s valuable to assess the disconnect between the two viewpoints that you mention (and I think you’ve done a good job detailing the differences in how each presents itself), the point of my reply is this: SCS is not simply not the main issue, I don’t think that SCS is an issue AT ALL.
Rather it is a symptom of a much larger problem: an ideological problem. So unless your book is saying something rather different than you’re saying here, I’m not sure why you are pointing me there–I disagree with your assessment.
If we aim at the wrong target (or see the target incorrectly) then we’ll be hard pressed to achieve our goals. And when it comes to the ultimate goal of the church being a unified community that embodies the Bible in a way that is both hospitable to other Christians and alluring (rather than repelling) to non-Christians, I’ll put in a good bit of effort to achieve that.
I’ll even write a lengthy (and critical) response to a prominent Christian author like you, seeking a dialogue that, really, is not too far from what describe in your post.
In the book, I give examples of how semantics *is* a problem. I’ve had multiple conversations where it was, and then when terms are defined, the response is: “oh, okay, we really don’t agree.” I also talk about Debra Tannen’s work on how conversational styles is in fact an issue in disagreements. I simply apply them to theological matters, but the principles are the same. What you’re pointing out is also true. And I do give some air-play to what you’re speaking about as well. Thx. for the comment.
Great post, Frank. I hope that you find your original response as it would be a fascinating read. My neighbors (wonderful friends) attend an Assemblies of God church, and we often find ourselves dancing around the Charismatic SCS. During my high school years, my mother shuttled us between a “high church” Episcopal on Sundays, and a Charismatic Episcopal church on Friday nights, so I am at least aware of the SCS.
One thing that tended to turn me off about many in the Charismatic movement was the reliance on feeling as a spiritual indicator. When people felt emotionally down, they would find a Charismatic service somewhere to provide a spiritual lift. Pardon the analogy, but it was like an addict getting his spiritual fix.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting on this.
Though I’ve not yet read _Revise Us Again_, I am working through some of Watchman Nee’s writing and am really coming to a *new* understanding of the differences between body, soul and spirit (the talk you recently posted on this helped immensely). An understanding of this is setting me free; this is so critical and yet so not preached today.
Strange Fire got me second guessing some of the things that have recently been so healing and hopeful. Thank you for responding to the message of this conference!
I’m really thankful for the truth and balance you bring to the Body of Christ. I’ve been in a Pentecostal church from the time I became born again. I’ve seen the excesses, but have also seen the gifts of the Spirit function in beautiful ways. I appreciate many of John MacArthur’s teachings but, in my opinion, believe he is way off on his stance on the gifts of the Spirit. Your book, Revise Us Again, was a very good instructional tool that helped me adjust some things in my thinking and practice.
Just found out that Phil Johnson will be meeting with Michael Brown, good first step. I intend on making this a prayer focus.
Not unlike the Corinthian Church, today’s church needs direction and correction……. via God’s Holy Spirit.
I find that advocates of either style have missed the true interpretation and meaning. Being too fixated on the book, rather than the giver of the book will always lead to division in the body of Christ.
This issue about the so-called “Charismatic Movement” recycled again by MacArthur raises question of a much more global nature than where some people get extreme with their doctrine or experience. Since that category applies to everyone, not just “those people over there.” the subject becomes “how do Christians treat one another when they have differing interpretations of scripture from their life experiences.” The world can read all of the comments (for/against) that have exploded over this event and could label the whole thing “Strange Infighting People,” not “Strange Fire.” All this charge/rebuttal flailing in the air sounds like speaking in a foreign language to an unbeliever, so he says “You are all crazy”(1 Cor. 14:23) as he proves in his mind once again that humanism is just as good or better than Christianity. That impression is not based on God’s love, but on people behaving more like natural humans than like Christ. Thus, polarized Christians can criticize one another over a so-called “charismatic” problem until they, themselves, become more “Corinthian” in behavior than the church in Corinth. Paul didn’t condemn the Corinthian church to hell; Paul said “And now I will show you the more excellent way.” If someone else has a problem in their doctrine, God help me to live in love so much that they see the difference and ask me about it. Then, in love, I will speak the truth. And they will do the same for me. And the body of Christ will build itself up in love instead of biting and devouring itself. If I cannot show the more excellent way, my mouth needs to stay shut. Pray that John MacArthur does not use his public pulpit to destroy what he, himself, has worked for over his life. God help us.
Well said!
You have some excellent points here. I have been listening to Dr. Michael Brown handle this issue with respect, love and forth rightness. I must admit that I have learned a lot of how Christians ought to handle differences through listening to his recent radio shows. There is hope and some good examples out there which I have been so grateful for giving it is kinda rare. Frank has also been a good example of this. Always affirming where there is agreement and respectfully handling differences is a good mature loving way oh and not imputing evil motives is important too. Thankfully we do have some good examples.
“Its often more a matter of semantic than it is of substance.” That is soooo true…. communication is not that easy and we so often forget that any logic is only usefull given a definition domain.
What does SCS mean?
Spiritual Conversational Style. I have a whole chapter on the 3 major ones in “Revise Us Again.”
Wow Frank you have hit on something that I am personally exploring right now. I was saved about 8 years ago and attended a very charismatic church. Slaying of the spirit, mandated speaking in tongues, emotional appeal through music and not much doctrine. Everything was “God told me, I had a dream, etc.” I ended up leaving that church and found myself in more than a few different Mac Arthur reformed churches. I studied and explained away all my previous experiences with doctrine and became very religious. Very works righteousness. I read all of the reformers books on the charismatic religion and debated with a religious spirit that gifts had ceased. But as I have walked away from the institutional church and studied under Milt in an organic church, I see that we are all a part of Christ. We are in Him and He in us. There is freedom to see the Holy Spirits work in the body. I am now in a organic church in Oklahoma. They are a bit more charismatic than the other church but very genuine and controlled ( only word I can think of – not that I think the Holy Spirit can be controlled). My search is this: the filters and teachings I so adamantly subscribed to are there and fading. I pray to Christ that He shows me again the beauty of the HS working in His people – He is our teacher and guide, our counsellor and friend. I would love to read your response you wrote if you find it. We see dead but Christ lives in us. Thank you for addressing this subject.
Thx. I address this in some detail in “Revise Us Again.”
You’re so kind, Frank. Still, if the problem was really semantic, then seeing that MacArthur and others who agree with him are not un-intelligent, they would say “Oh now I see” and we’d be one happy family in the Body. Yet it seems clear that dispensationalists and cessationists are offended by God Himself. They are offended by any possibility of the spectacularly supernatural manifesting in our world. The reason they are offended is the age-old feeling of being left out. If that is true, why not in my life? When confronted by what the Bible tells us the Church should be and experience in its normal life, and how seldom we see that, some people through personal offense find a way to deny and re-interpret so that their own experience of God becomes normative. Others fall to their knees and cry, “God, forgive your church, and manifest your glory once again through ordinary believers as you promised to do.” I have to fight offense against God when someone else has great success in an area where I have no talent or gift. How much more serious it is when we live a life angry at God for realities others have known but we have not!
James: where did I say that *the* problem was *really* semantic? Did you not see the part where I said I critiqued “Charismatic Chaos” on the basis that it’s theologically untenable and also takes the most extreme parts of the Charismatic world to criticize? I have the same criticisms of those elements myself and so do others who are actually within the Charismatic world. As I’ve said before, SCSs is PART of the problem . . . the one that’s typically not recognized.
Frank did you have a chance to listen to the Strange Fire conference online? I listened to a little but would like go back and listen to a few more lectures. In particular I’d like to catch what R.C. Sproul has to say.
When I read Chaos I also took it as addressing the more extreme elements of the Charismatic movement.
Caleb: Nope. I’m monumentally disinterested in that conference.
My wonderful wife asked me about this when she heard the conference was coming up through some blog she read. Ironically, she is largely unfamiliar with the original “Chaos” or J. Mac’s position in general.
And in my wife’s usual style (lacking any pretense at all, her best trait!) she asks – “Isn’t this similar to blaspheming the Holy Spirit?”
Boy… what a great question. Makes us evaluate the corpus of one’s teachings compared to an “unbiblical” view of a pet doctrine and whether or not they themselves are true “teachers” of Christs and the Apostles doctrines.