I’m really just blown away. All of it….. but this one, “NOTHING good has come out of the charismatic movement”?? Such a deep insult. Feel like I was just punched in the stomach. The ignorance just takes my breath away. Archie Bunker dressed up in a suit & tie with smooth speech and no beer can is still Archie Bunker.

As for MD and JMac: the finger dressed up with a Christian smile is still the finger. what childish, obnoxious punk brats.

I’m sure the ranks of those who agree with Anne Rice has surely grown in number in the last few days.

“Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.”–Anne Rice

I think gunning for the hippies as being the root cause of heresy within the charismatic movement is reductionist and betrays a general ignorance of church history. MacArthur once again comes across, not with “grace to you” but with harsh condemnation and hell fire.

It is one thing to point out false doctrine, poor teaching and expose the roots thereof, but to condemn a significant movement within the church is plain nuts. Methinks the current hysteria within American politics is driving some ministers towards the extremes as well. Is this the outcome of America’s economic downturn or current cultural socio-economic shifts? Are people that insecure that they have to go beserk? We have people like Rick Joyner suggesting that only some type of military overthrow of the current government can set America back on course and now MacArthur issuing fatwas against everything Christian that ever spoke five syllables of babble.

Okay, so I’ve done a little research (yes, most of it involved reading Wikipedia articles but I did check citations.

First, Pentacostals arw charismatic and first showed up in 1906 with the Azuza Street revival. At that point, people who experienced “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” broke away from the denominations they were in and formed separate churches such as Assemblied of God and Church of God. They did not, however, teach any form of what is now called the prosperity gospel.

Second, while prosperity gospel of some sort existed in the early 1900s it wasn’t until the 1940s and 1950s that we see it as a specific espoused belief while Oral Roberts teaching it starting in 1947. Charismatic leaders bought into this gospel but it was not originally apart of Pentacostal or Charismatic beliefs.

Third, a rector in the high church side of the Anglican Church in Van Nuys, CA in 1960 is one of the first to profess a

Here is a charismatic perspective on sociological cults within the church:

http://voiceofreform.blogspot.com/2013/10/idolatry-of-men-and-ministries-is-your.html

The author argues that much of the abuses within the church come from idolatry of men and ministries and have demonic power behind them as a result. Do we as Christians shrug our shoulders and walk away from idol worship?

I liked what Wade Burleson said in his blog. He is a wise man.

I was wondering how MacArthur’s recent conference syncs with his inviting C.J. Mahaney to his Shepherding conference a few years back? In this video Mahaney also mentions that he spoke at MacArthur’s church the previous year. Maybe the revelations that have come to light in the last year of Mahaney’s blackmail and cover-up of sexual abuse in his church were the impetus for the Strange Fire conference? It does seem that MacArthur has attempted to distanced himself from Mahaney in the past year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9Cb1QYC-M

[Mbewe] is often referred to as “the African Spurgeon”

Isn’t that the kind of accolade that’s usually bestowed on someone posthumously? I instinctively get nervous when people get nicknames like that when they’re alive.

Storms went on to state that John Piper and Mike Bickle (continuationists who are widely divergent) are two of his closest friends.

Okay, MacArthur is out of line condemning all charismatics, but Storms really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Mike Bickle is the head of IHOP (International House of Prayer) and is associated with the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). The NAR is the movement covered in the film Jesus Camp and is basically charismatic Reconstructionism with demons. Put in Bickle’s name in the search bar at Talk2Action to see what I mean. So I wouldn’t be holding up Bickle as an example of a poor innocent charismatic to whom MacArthur’s criticism doesn’t apply. He’s way, way closer to resembling his remarks.

I’m also starting to wonder about Piper because, wasn’t he hooked up with Louie Giglio?!?! Who, I’m pretty sure I pointed out here when TWW covered him, is also connected to the NAR somehow. Why does Piper keep coming up with so many NAR names?

Here’s something really bizarro that went down at Bickle’s church in Kansas City:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/twists-in-bethany-deaton-murder-case-put-spotlight-on-charismatic-sect.html?_r=0

@ Deb:

Was it the Resolved conference where Piper and Mahaney preached on the “Scream of the Damned”? I had not linked that conference with McArthur. Was not paying attention I suppose I was too shocked to learn that Jesus “damned” Himself.

@ Hester:

Some old friends of mine literally had to do an “intervention” after their daughter went off to IHOP (instead of college!) and got sucked in. They did get her home and it took a while to debrief her.

I promise that this is the last thing i am going to say at least until much later today. I will not monopolize this topic. But like they say on TV–that’s not all.

When anybody makes a career out of “the Bible says” it is wise to look at their total preaching and total life and see if they accept all that the Bible says and conform their thinking and practice accordingly or whether they are picking and choosing to make themselves look good in their own eyes. Pick out some difficult issues of today, and take a look. Do they have the biblical attitude toward female ministry opportunities or are they way off in one direction or the other? What do they say about the choice of lifelong celibacy? What is the importance to them of how much money they have or control and where does it rank in their value system? Do they seem to say that people better listen to them because they are “elder,” but nobody better expect them to wash anybody’s feet either actually or symbolically? Do they admit that there are some things in scripture that can be legitimately argued either way if one limits oneself to scripture alone, and therefore are they intellectually humble in these areas? Do they pounce on their “enemies” with intent to destroy or do they limit themselves to specific issues with intent to restore? Is it all about them or do they hold others in high regard–is there nobody they deem worthy of their atta-boy?

And if not, why listen to them??

I am so sick of this mess. Had Himself not said that His church would prevail, I would doubt that it would.

Carry on. I have to go get my radiation treatment anyhow. One thing about that, though. It always helps me prioritize a lot of useless junk out of my thinking. When I stretch out half naked under a linear accelerator, knowing full well what high energy radiation is doing to my body, it becomes really easy to see through a lot of the ( deleted) that tends to cloud my thinking/feeling and that is really great. IMO that one of the things that the Holy Spirit does in one’s life is precisely that–clear out the brain–so thanks be to God for that. We can avail ourselves of the energy produced by the excitation of electrons, and we can avail ourselves of the person of the Spirit, but we cannot make safe little household pets out of either power.

@ dee:

What do you mean by ‘both’ conferences? Do you have sound or quotes from “Act Like Men?”

@ Wade Burleson:

Thanks for your reply Wade. I personally think Driscoll is too obsessed with sex and authoritarianism to be considered doctrinally sound, but I understand what you mean. Keep up the good work!

Nancy, Praying for you. You are so right about prioritizing and clearing out the brain.

@ Deb:
Oops. Yes, you are right. I got them confused. So sorry about that.

MacArthur’s engaging in one of the dirtiest debate tricks – charge your opponents with all sorts of things that aren’t true but make them look bad. That way, your opponents have to spend most of their time trying to convince people of what the truth is rather than being able to debate the issues on their merits.

I’m not much of a charismatic guy and not quite certain what to make of the speaking in tongues part, much as it seems Paul wasn’t quite certain about it in 1 Corinthians 14, but Paul didn’t condemn it – unlike MacArthur. Moreover, there’s no biblical basis at all for MacArthur’s claim that whatever ‘charismatic’ gifts existed in the early church disappeared with the death of the Apostles – that claim seems to be pulled out of thin air.

For me, as long as a church’s main focus is on love of God and love of neighbor you’ve got to allow for differences because no church (or individual) has a monopoly on getting all the details of Christianity right.

@ JeffT:

JeffT –

Unless “all” the gifts are debunked, MacArthur shouldn’t have a problem with any “one” of them. I’m wondering “who” decided these gifts were done away with? Does he attribute this to God, or maybe one or more of the reformers, or the church fathers? It seems he believes that certain parts of scripture don’t apply any longer. What does that say? He often claims that people pick and choose what they want to believe, yet he doesn’t see that he is doing the same.

I am saddened with what MacArthur has done. He has lumped everyone who believes in the gifts into one big pile. I have some news for him, just as there are many who abuse in the Charismatic camps, there are those who abuse in his own (Reformed) camp, even in his own church. If he thought his own house was in order before he decided to slam others, he might want to re-examine or, actually, inviting critique might be better.

“Truth by its very nature is divisive.”—and in one sentence, MacArthur hands Christendom a weapon that we can now use any time any of the Calvinistas try to silence their opponents with the “divisive” accusation >:} By the way, don’t you love how disagreeing is “divisive” except when your own camp does it??

“One hundred million of them are Roman Catholic”—wait, what? What is he even saying here? How is being Roman Catholic proof that they participate in behaviors that people cast as the extreme lunatic fringe?

Also, is MacArthur saying that the movement is made up of non-Christians (which seems ASTOUNDINGLY difficult to believe) or is he saying that people who believe in the Charismatic movement think they are Christians but aren’t actually following Christ (which seems ASTOUNDINGLY arrogant)?

And does he have any knowledge of history at all? He says his book can stand up to the toughest scrutiny, yet even in this little blurb he’s stating that the Charismatic movement wasn’t around before the 60s? If his whole book is that ridiculous, then I know some reviewers who would LUV to have a field day with it.

Finally, I have read the notes on MacArthur’s opening speech at the conference, and I was blown out of my chair that he dared to bring up the “blaspheming against the Holy Spirit” verse. He claims Charismatics blaspheme the Holy Spirit because they are not expressing true Spirit activity and THEREFORE must be expressing demonic activity and calling it the Spirit. Does he not realize that if he is wrong, HE is the one calling the Spirit demonic? He’s actually in MORE danger of blaspheming the Spirit, if I understand the interpretation of that verse correctly. Is anyone else as flabbergasted by this as I am?

Jason Coates wrote:

I think gunning for the hippies as being the root cause of heresy within the charismatic movement is reductionist and betrays a general ignorance of church history. MacArthur once again comes across, not with “grace to you” but with harsh condemnation and hell fire.

As well as being a throwback to the Sixties. This is so reminiscent of Christianese denunciations and anathemas when I was a kid, when Those Hippies were to blame for EVERYTHING wrong.

We have people like Rick Joyner suggesting that only some type of military overthrow of the current government can set America back on course and now MacArthur issuing fatwas against everything Christian that ever spoke five syllables of babble.

The Noble and Godly Military takes over in a coup, then turns power over to Godly Leader types like Joyner and MacArthur and America becomes a Christian Nation at the point of the bayonet. (Remember the Last Judgment scene in Left Behind? The Author Self-Inserts are given a New Heavens and New Earth (speckled with Godly Mayberries and Pleasantvilles) from the Hand of Iluvatar Himself and all they can think of is “Now we can build a Truly Christian Nation(TM)”. Trading in the Timeless Halls of Iluvatar for a neverending Ozzie & Harriet with Bible Studies Every Night.)

Future Commanders of Holy Gilead: The Live Role-Playing Game.

MacArthur’s view is no different than it was 35 years ago. We just have the Internet now.

As for any sermon with the title “The Scream of the Damned” – whether referring to our Lord or anyone else – this is simply an indication of how completely such a preacher misunderstands the Good News, and misunderstands the love of God.

Lord, have mercy.

Lord, remember your servant Nancy.

@ Nancy:
“Carry on. I have to go get my radiation treatment anyhow. One thing about that, though. It always helps me prioritize a lot of useless junk out of my thinking. When I stretch out half naked under a linear accelerator, knowing full well what high energy radiation is doing to my body, it becomes really easy to see through a lot of the ( deleted) that tends to cloud my thinking/feeling and that is really great. IMO that one of the things that the Holy Spirit does in one’s life is precisely that–clear out the brain–so thanks be to God for that. We can avail ourselves of the energy produced by the excitation of electrons, and we can avail ourselves of the person of the Spirit, but we cannot make safe little household pets out of either power.”

Bless you, Nancy. Facing what you’re facing helps put so much of this circus in it’s proper perspective.

Retha,

I think the issue becomes when the “strange fire” that motivates “the other group” is a fire from hell and one consigns ‘the other group’ as instruments of the demonic.

In the discussions I’ve seen between the egalitarian/complementarian campe there’s not been that categorization of the other side. That’s the difference.

Retha,

Here is one of the closing quotes from McArthur at the conference:

"There are others who criticized by saying, “You’re attacking brothers.” I wish I could affirm that. We’ve said this one way or another this week: this is a movement made up largely of non-Christians . . ."

Wish he would provide us with a list so we will know.

David wrote:

John McArthur is a Calvinist — which is at the very core “another gospel.’ This man believes that every person you meet is already elected by God for either heaven or hell. He believes that Jesus died only for the elect. That is a false gospel, but more importantly, another Jesus. It is therefore not surprising that other false teaching has emerged from him. Calvinists condemning the television charismatics, or visa versa, is equal to the blind leading the blind. We might as well listen to a debate between Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.

Exactly! Right on the mark David!

Hmmm…..I know this will also be a broad brush stroke, but it is an observation from experience. I grew up Assemblies of God, which is Pentecostal (not Charismatic) and Igre up having my SBC classmates tell me my beliefs were “of the devil.” So for hohis of us raised in it, this is nothing new.

I am no longer AofG, but I will always be ‘Pentecostal”. An although I am used o hearing this, it does still hurt.

My two cents….

@ Pacbox: the Episcopal priest you mentioned is Dennis Bennett. One of the other West Coast proponents of the renewal was Larry Christensen, a minister in what was then called the American Lutheran Church (which later became part of the synod I belong to).

@ Jeannette Altes:
am no longer in charismatic circles myself, but have similar feelings – though it’s certainly far from new…

@ numo: Another thing to note…

Many of the Catholic charismatics that I hung out with/roomed with back in the day were pretty much certain that the charismatic renewal was not only a result of the changes brought in via Vatican II (which were very much in progress and process in the late 60s-70s), but a natural continuation of it – a renewal and, if you will, reformation of the church from within.

Pope John XXIII, whose reforming spirit was an integral part of Vatican II, felt that the church needed to open its windows and allow a fresh breeze from the Holy Spirit to clear the air (and more).

My hunch is that hopes for direct internal reform might have died off by the mid-1980s, during John Paul II’s papacy, but that’s just a guess on my part, as it’s literally been several decades since I spent time with Catholic charismatics. otoh, it may well be that the movement continues gaining strength and credibility regardless of what the hierarchy says or does – at a grassroots level (which is what it always was – a grassroots movement).

@ dee:

Thanks, Dee. I appreciate that. I was just trying to make a point about the Holy Spirit and my descriptive terminology got out of hand. This mess that JM and others are doing is a hot issue with me. We had somebody in my extended family who would have agreed with JM on both his ideas and his behavior, and it kind of got away with me. I will try to act decently in the future. That is, I will not cuss. At all. Out loud.

@ Nancy: As for the “miracles” part, I do think you’re right about that re. Catholic charismatics; that it was/is far easier for many Catholics to appreciate and accept these ideas than it is for many Protestants – though not all.

In fact, as far as I could tell (as a teen back in the early 70s), it seemed as if the charismatic renewal actually began in liturgical circles and then spread outward, though that might not be accurate. It was, however, a common perception at the time, and was written about in magazines that were an outgrowth of the movement. The Fort Lauderdale guys (cult founders – the discipleship/shepherding movement was their baby) had a mixture of Pentecostal and what I’ll call “aberrent [sp?] Pentecostal” (Latter Rain, Joel’s Army, Manifest Sons of God) ideas, and it did NOT make for a good thing, believe me! (fwiw, again, lots of Catholic charismatics were very much on board with the Ft. Lauderdale guys, unfortunately…)

This reminds me a lot of something I heard a while ago…

There are some who think that when Jesus talks about those who ‘blaspheme against the Holy Spirit’ and then are ‘guilty of an eternal sin’ in Mark 3:29 (NIV), He is referring to an attitude of blaming the Devil for things that actually are actions of the Holy Spirit, actions performed by God.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know if that’s completely right… But I think it makes sense considering that in Mark 3:22 the teachers of the law were accusing Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebul and of driving out demons through him. Jesus then rebuked them and said what I mentioned before.

Not saying here that John MacArthur is ‘guilty of an eternal sin’ or anything like that… But, similar to what Wade Burleson said and in light to these verses, I would still be a bit weary of saying that the beliefs of a whole group of people within Christianity, a massive one at that, are of the Devil or even that they are not-Christians.

I am not a Charismatic or Pentecostal myself and I never had any of the experiences that many claim were given to them by the Holy Spirit… But I’ll say that I am much more accepting and open to the possibility of God really working in ways that I can not imagine and that I may not even experience in my life than I used to be. The general attitude in my previous denomination was to look at any miracle or action that was out of the norm pretty suspiciously and assume it was of the Devil, especially if it didn’t happen within the ‘walls’ of our church.

Nancy, you’re in my prayers as well.

@ Jeannette Altes:
Sorry for all the typos in the linked comment. I think it was still essentially coherent. The product of trying to post on my phone during a break at work….and sometimes my phone goes in strange directions with auto=correct.

Anyway…hmm…I ask for you all to maybe pray for me. My expenses are exceeding my income and my car either needs fixed or replaced (honestly not sure which would be cheaper) and I have no means to do that and no family to ask for help….and not even sure if it will start in the morning….praying for peace – direction – help. Thanks.

Jason Coates wrote:

We have people like Rick Joyner suggesting that only some type of military overthrow of the current government can set America back on course and now MacArthur issuing fatwas against everything Christian that ever spoke five syllables of babble.

Rick Joyner’s on notice from me, on his Facebook page, that the notion of a military intervention or military coup is not even hinted of in the Constitution and is, in fact, unconstitutional. I told him that three separate times. It took all I had to not cuss the guy out for suggesting something so unAmerican. If the government hadn’t been shut down at the time, I would have turned him in to the Secret Service for investigation. As it is, he bears watching.

I may have serious problems with some of the things the government is doing in my name (i.e. NSA spying, proxy wars with drones in Yemen, Pakistan and who knows where else). But I also know that military intervention is absolutely the wrong way to go. Anyone who has even casually studied the 20th century history of certain South American countries (or, for that matter, Franco’s Spain) is well aware of the craziness that is a military dictatorship.

(“Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.” Some of us still remember 1975.)

Numo, I thought I had made clear that the charismatic movement and Pentacostals were different but I guess not. I apologize. What I didn’t include was that Pent. were the first wave, charismatic movement the second wave, amd then there’s been a third wave which includes groups like SGM. I didn’t want to overload people with info.

As for Catholic charismatics, they have gained ground and support from the pope. I found a Catholic News Service article from April of this year about Pope Francis saying that the charismatic movement has done a lot of good especially in places like Brazil. Catholic charismatics are more populous in Latin American countries (central and south america).

As for it’s organization in the Catholic Church, group wise I’m not entirely sure who’s what. I do know in the US, charismatics are seen by Catholic fundies/traddies as Not Catholic and even demonic which is interesting since I’ve come across charismatics who are also trafitionalists. But then these Catholic fundies/traddies think anyone who isn’t miserable and sober is of the devil. To them, emotions and feelings (all except excessive guilt) are sins. And totally not Church teaching.

There are and there are not differences between Protestant and Catholic charismatics. Thank you Nancy for pointing out some. Yes, Catholics have an easier time, to put it one way, in accepting miracles and healings and such since they have always been a part of Church teaching and part of Catholic belief, hence many of the saints we venerate and lives we read about. I can’t really speak to Protestant charismatics but for Catholics when the natural and supernatural are part of your world, it probably helps in believing and accepting things as miracles.

And thanks Nick and numo for adding much more to the history of charismatics. I found it fascinating that it was mainline Protestant denoms that lead the second wave and the charismatic movement. History of it and the prosperity gospel were fascinating especially since they are largely American in origin and then exported around the world.

To reiterate what I’ve said before, Pentacostals and charismatics ARE Christian. MacArthur needs to get a clue. Considering that the AoG is currently one of the denoms that is growing, Pentacostals and charismatics must have truth and staying power.

When you get to the point of being fed up with Christianity but desiring to know Christ and His people in a simple way you may be in a good place. Check this out: http://www.eliezercall.com/the-eliezer-call.html

Good news: Mahaney has been dis-invited from the SEBTS conference.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/10/southeastern-seminary-drops-cj-mahaney-from-conference.html

How much longer until Mohler, Dever, Piper, DeYoung, and the rest of the boyz do the right thing?

It’d be hard to make a case for a charismatic movement prior to David du Plessis, wouldn’t it? Pentecostalism before his time? Oh, yes, definitely! 🙂 When first wave Pentecostalism has been around long enough to produce the textual scholar Gordon Fee it’s safe to say that it’s not just what MacArthur has been saying P/C teaching has been over the last roughly thirty years.

Agreed with those indicating this is a fundamentally Protestant debate. Catholics and Orthodox don’t have this debate because the locus of institutional/traditional authority is established. But as Steve Hays over at Triablogue recently wrote, cessationists so frontload the primacy of scripture intot heir case they forget that a 100% Protestant vetting of the minimal canon didn’t really kick in until about 1600. For that matter if sign gifts were “just” to vet the canon how does someone account for all the apocrypha generated within the same time period. The cessationist position alternately proves too much or too little.

This is not an endorsement of charismatic/Pentecostal pneumatology all across the board, obviously.

@ numo: Also, my understanding of the so-called “Third Wave” is that it’s very closely linked to the New Apostolic Reformation – which is scary!

dee wrote:

“Guess that means those of us who are not reformed (via his definition) do not know the truth, the gospel or the word of God.

Yes, Dee, that’s what it means. 🙁

@ numo:
That’s what happens when I don’t have the Wiki articles in front of me. I goofed again.

I was, apparently very incorrectly trying to make clear, which ended up with things clear as mud, that there were differences and different “waves”. Yes, SGM did come out of the movement but it also appears it be significantly in the “third wave” as well though not to the point I may have inadvertently implied before.

Like I said before, I recommended people to read the Wikipedia articles (I know they aren’t very academic but they are useful to people that want a good rundown without too much verbiage) not that you need to but I was pointed out my sources.

Hopefully this will be the end of my goofs and mistakes. If not, it’s some sort of gremlin’s fault. And my fat fingers, which aren’t all that fat but the keyboards on tablets and smartphones seen to be designed for young children’s fingers and not adults.

@ numo:
I’m sorry, I did it again with my last post. Basically, I will now defer to your wisdom and experience which you have significantly more of than I do, especially in this area. I will now shush because I can’t to seem to be able to my thoughts in my head to a computer screen apparently without a serious jumbling and lack of coherency. I apologize for any and all mistakes, misinformations

@ Pacbox: Hey, Pacbox – absolutely no worries!

I was around then… and my knowledge is by no means as comprehensive as you might think. I’ve relied a lot on the internet to try and put together the missing pieces of the puzzle that’s made up of the years I spent in charismatic/evangelical circles. A fair amount of what I know now is via the internet, because resources (both accurate and otherwise) are much more available.

thing is… I checked the Wiki article on SGM about half an hour ago, and frankly, there’s a ton of revisionism going on there.

I would not put my trust in Wiki articles on these topics. You might end up doing a lot more digging to find better info. – more accurately put together – but it’s worth the time and effort.

also, I often find that reading the wiki “talk” page (link is on upper left side of screen) very helpful when checking Wiki on controversial topics. There’s often a lot of “editing” (more or less dive bomb-style rewrites) by people who have wildly divergent views on a topic.

@ E.G.:
I don’t doubt JMac’s motives, now or twenty years ago when I came across Charismatic Chaos and found it sloppy and purely polemical without a convincing grasp of the history of Pentecostalism or of variance in continuationist pneumatology. But I will suggest that for some of these pastors the money isn’t nearly as important to them as influence. Let’s take Driscoll’s fretting about the “crisis of conference Christians”. If you read what his fear was it was that the conference Christian junkie set inflated the perceived influence movements were having. What was the problem? Mark saw faces he could actually recognize from conference to conference. That is probably not a problem now.

If someone like Driscoll can bluntly state that the worry is about the extent of real rather than self-perceived influence that might be a concern for MacArthur. Just an idea for consideration, not saying that’s for sure what’s going on all across the board.

Asking John MacArthur to stop picking on Charismatics is like asking House Republicans to embrace Obamacare.

@ Southwestern Discomfort:

You do make a valid point there. I only know the Alpha Course at second hand, but I gather that the final week (which introduces the Holy Spirit) is decidedly ritualised, formulaic and liturgical. IMHO, it would have been better to introduce the Holy Spirit as the present manifestation of God among us right from the start. For instance, by explaining what it’s like when God speaks to you, since in my experience it is usually neither spooky, intense nor weird. God is everywhere, all of our lives are of interest to him, and when he speaks to me about how to encourage a jobless person in front of me it probably wouldn’t help if I shook, sobbed uncontrollably for three weeks on end, or fell over and barked like a fish.

Equally, Alpha isn’t going to reach everybody; it’s probably somewhat middle-class. (For another world-changing series of articles on middle-class church, buy my book – er, I mean, visit my blog.) However, at least the C of E has – in the shape of the Alpha Course and of other things too – done something.

@ Nancy:
I do not disagree. But the point is that the provisions of the ACA were developed by a R-oriented think tank, endorsed in the 1990s by top Rs, including Dole, Bush I, etc., etc., b/c it was NOT European style socialized medicine, preserved the private health insurance industry, non-government hospitals, and private practice medicine, in contrast to the other alternatives. Widespread Republican opposition to the concept arose only after the idea was endorsed by Obama. That is fact.

Obamacare was proposed by, passed by and affirmed by people who will NEVER be under the mandate or have to use it. They are exempt from it.

That is Oligarchy whether it is R or D.

I have to admit that I find charismatics generally to be silly. But I also find MacArthur to be silly. So I have no side to take in this one.

@ numo:
Sorry, I think yesterday just wasn’t a good day for me.

As for Wikipefia, it’s a good jumping off point and good for bare bones info but not something I would use in an academic setting or paper. That said, the upside to Wiki is also it’s downside. As for the Wiki SGM article, I think TWW has way more info and alot more useful sources on all the shenanigans that have happened with SGM.

As for the whole charismatic thing, you have actual experience to draw from whereas I really don’t. That can make a huge difference especially in dealing with massive unfounded (okay, largely unfounded) assumptions MacArthur paints. Are there legitimate concerns about practices and some beliefs among charismatics? Yes, but dismissing a whole group of people just because you have decided without any real evidence to judge and then condemn them just makes you a childish jerk. MacArthur seems rather adept at not using the sense God gave a duck.

I think I’m done with this thread. While I am not a charismatic or a Pentacostal, I will not allow some fruitcake ( MacArthur) to dismiss or namecall people who may not honestly know better (if they are unaware of faulty or even dangerous practices or beluefs such as prosperity gospel) or who do not believe exactly as he does. I’m not God and neither is he and have no place judging others’ salvation or their relationship with Jesus.

Steve Scott wrote:

dee wrote:
“Guess that means those of us who are not reformed (via his definition) do not know the truth, the gospel or the word of God.

Yes, Dee, that’s what it means.

To be followed by “DIE, HERETIC!!!!!!”

@ randall slack:

Well, what do you think your physical being would do when in contact with an overwhelmingly powerful force which has no comparison?

Consider how many times the writers of the bible use the word “power” with regard to God and the Holy Spirit. Power! POWER!

Paul (who Christians such as yourself have reason to believe experienced the sudden, out-of-the-blue maelstrom of Holy Spirit & exalted Jesus Christ in all his majesty) puts a finer point on it when he describes the influence of God’s spirit as “explosive power”.

I think there is no more trite thing than all the gazillion times Christians have heard the perfunctory recitation of the saying “by the power of the Holy Spirit”. And we’ve read it so many times, too. It really has become just a saying, and we have become dull to it and dulled by it.

Do we really expect the Holy Spirit to feel like nothing when he’s actively around? As nothing as that trite recitation has become?

I hope you can see that limitations are no better than excess. And who is to decide what those words actually mean concerning something as mysterious as God and spirit?

I think of my dad, who is still and stoic as he worships, but inside is having quite the event. And then my friend, who is having a similar event but entirely on the outside, a moving picture of freedom and celebration incarnate.

This is all like driving. Everyone driving faster and free-er than oneself is an irresponsible, undisciplined maniac. Everyone driving slower than oneself is an overcareful moron. The only right way to drive is exhibited by oneself and those similar to oneself. None of these is true.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

It’s the “facing our mistakes” bit that’s really important. Without it, we end up waddling round for years in ever-decreasing circles, accomplishing nothing material but believing we have magic powers and spiritual authority because we make funny gestures and pray in a silly voice with a face like a concert pianist with haemorrhoids.

You are priceless, Nick. Though you are making a valid point, that had me in stitches.
I’m still trying to hold on to the experiences I felt were genuine, while letting go of the excess baggage. Your comment sums it up beautifully.

@ Val:
Oh, and for the record, I don’t care which way people believe – Catholics have scripture backing their views, Protestants just think it is excessive. I’m just “meh” about it all. Communion is a sacrament, in Mainline Protestant denominations, but that is not transubstantiation.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Well, speaking as someone whom you could label a charismatic (I’m not a cessationist, certainly), there is undoubtedly some silliness in charismatic circles.

And that is just it. I am not a cessationist but I am also not charismatic. But JMAC drew some very clear lines. And his lines mean he must put me in the charismatic group. I have never even put my arms up in worship. The closest I get to charismatic is clapping after music. However, the Holy Spirit moves and indwells.

What I gathered from Strange Fire, the Holy Spirit exists to make you read the bible according to JMAC’s interpretation. :o)

So…. I have no country. No tribe. (which is a good thing!)

@ Val: Lutherans don’t believe in transubstantiation, either – there is a similar belief, though. (some call it consubstantiation, but the “official” term is sacramental union. Easy to look up both terms… also “real presence.” It’s a *huge* topic and I don’t know anything close to enough to be able to discuss it here!)

either way, both Anglicans and Lutherans are far closer to RC beliefs re. the Eucharist than most other Protestants.

@ Val: Mike Bickle is (imo) a cult leader, and dangerous.

He also likes to tell people about visions of huge snakes dropping from the sky. (No joke – it was all over the Kansas City media a few years ago.)

@ elastigirl:
So, to each his (her) own? Hardly biblical. All things in moderation, correct? God can do anything He desires – He hasn’t changed. However, since He is not the God of confusion, all things must be done decently and in order, don’t you think?

Blessings…

@ numo:
Oh brother!

Then he must have gone off the rails. Back in the mid-ninties Wimber was alive, so I think that kept some of it in check. They wanted to be ‘in’ with Wimber, so there were no ‘snakes dropping out of the sky’ prophecies that I knew of. Did he mean it literally?!?

Well, I moved from that town and church and hadn’t heard of Bickel again until I read this blog, so a lot could have happened to him. But some of the controlling patterns I have heard just weren’t in the church I attended (not Bickel’s church, just a no-name church in Canada). It wasn’t till I got to the neo-Calvinist loving crowd that the cultish stuff showed up. But it may be a sign of our times rather than this or that movement. I think church leaders are being promoted more on their business acumen and slick marketing rather then a genuine ability to preach and pastor anymore. I am beginning to wonder if there are any extremely popular Christian leaders any more, there are just leaders in Christian churches now. A huge difference IMHO.

@ Val: Kansas City was FULL of craziness back in the 80s. Really, I think there were multiple *serious* problems with all of it from the get-go.

So VERY glad I’m no longer involved in a so-called “charismatic” church of any stripe, though I kind of think I’m still a charismatic at heart.

a not-so-secret “secret”: the Catholic charismatics back in the 70s had a lot of good music (and some bad); for the most part, far better than anything that’s come out of other circles, and there were no rock stage shows for “worship”; usually just minimal instrumental accompaniment. (If you could play a few chords, you could work through many of the songs, though where they excelled was in the vocal parts, which were often quite lovely – there were some talented people in those circles… trained composers, in many cases.)

@ David:
Nice try implicating Calvinism with the errors of John MacArthur. It is only by the Spirit of God that God himself can be understood, especially His complete sovereignty, to fallen man.
The fall was really serious and it frightens men to the core that they can not leverage God to save them.

@ numo:
I actually am not much of a book-buying junkie and early nineties was before most had the world-wide-web, so my internet exposure consisted of e-mails, not info. All that to say, my only experience with Wimber was hearsay and Bickel was one conference, and a book. So, would I have listened to them now (hind-sight 20/20)? Well, I did grow with God and have a pretty strong faith from my time there, but for me and my friends, it wasn’t about the celebrity pastors, it was about being in a community where people were passionate about God, not just ‘debating’ about God, but really passionate about God, that was new for me, evangelicalism always seemed so dry and cheesy, Ned Flanders-ish, in my limited experience. Some (OK quite a few) of the prophets and speakers that came through our church were a little (or a lot) whacky. But the people who we hung out with were good people, loving and excited about God. So, I can’t really judge Bickel or Wimber in the mid-nineties, since I hardly knew what they were up to. I learned to tune a lot out too, I drift in most sermons, it’s better if I read something written then try to gather it all from a sermon, so I may have missed some red-flags, but those guys weren’t huge influences on my life. Again, I didn’t go and buy their books much or listen to them on tapes (it was a long time ago).

@ elastigirl: I also think that there’s an entertainment aspect to it – look what just happened to so-and-so! – as well as a letting go of inhibitions by many. honestly, I think some of the crazy stuff is about that, as well as (for some) possibly an expression of symptoms of psychiatric problems… And again, that’s not to discount the very real things that sometimes happen, but I think we try to make them happen, whether we realize it or not. what I might call “extreme behavior” seems to be part of an attempt on our part to make it all occur.

the thing is and I KNOW you know this – God was present prior to the shouting. there’s never any reason or need to attempt to coerce him to show up. but so many churches are dead set on repeating these actions, because it seems like there’s a part of our makeup that truly believes there has to be some kind of trade on our part – I’ll do this and in return, you’ll do that.

I do not for one second believe this is a good thing, but for decades I was immersed in this stuff and questioning wasn’t exactly encouraged.

there’s one more thing I’ve seen, though only once (thankfully) that seems to fit the definition of mass hysteria, but that’s a long, strange story. let’s just say that it put me off being with certain groups of people, which was a good thing – and quite likely something that I can legitimately characterize as being “from God.” I believe he’s very practical, on the whole. 😉

numo wrote:

God was present prior to the shouting.

And:

One other thought – I think it’s easy to mistake emotion for God.

One of the things that came out of the Charismatic Renewal in the 1960’s in the UK was the rapid growth and spread of the “contemporary worship” style – now very much the tradition in many church circles here.

When it first appeared, it was a breath of fresh air from heaven – I don’t doubt that for a moment. It brought a whole dimension of God-given human experience back into corporate worship for the first time in many generations. And it brought many people fully into corporate worship for the first time, because although academic teaching and passive liturgies are to some people’s taste, to others, they aren’t very welcoming. The only trouble is, the very thing that was new and alive 50 years ago has now become denominational tradition, that people learn or are taught to reproduce. So instead of an encounter with God which – among other things – often lifts the emotions, we now attempt to lift our emotions in the belief that this is the necessary sign of God’s “Presence”. ISTM that if we’re not careful, our worship tradition is just the erection of a monument to a past move of God.

@ Nick Bulbeck: I think this is true everywhere, Nick – what was once fresh becomes the thing we do week in and week out.

It certainly is the case here, in the same way you describe.

@ numo:

I hope you don’t mind if I continue the dialogue a bit, staying in the more philosophical realm (as opposed to personal).
++++++++++

“God was present prior to the shouting. there’s never any reason or need to attempt to coerce him to show up.”

–yes, I agree. but at the same time, it is true that as we move in closer, he responds likewise, just as in the human-to-human (even human-to-animal pet) relationship. if it is not true, then what’s all this talk about “it’s relationship not religion”?
+++++++++++

“…entertainment aspect to it – look what just happened to so-and-so! – as well as a letting go of inhibitions by many…..not to discount the very real things that sometimes happen, but I think we try to make them happen…”

—yes, i agree & there is truth to what you say. many fine lines, for sure. as far as inhibitions go, there is some validity to letting them go. for example, doesn’t it strike you and anyone as goofy that joe schmoe and joanne schmoe can watch a sporting event and be very physically and verbally and emotionally free & demonstrative. but yet are resistant to that kind of freedom toward the God of the universe? i’m tellin’ you, even if the President of the United State walked into a room of a gathering of people, joe and joanne would likely join the others in rising to their feet, despite their ill feelings toward the Pres. A sacrifice of physical expression. But yet are resistant to the same towards the God of the Universe. (not necessarily an unwillingness to stand up, but a resistant to a sacrifice of physical expression in general, whatever that might be)

for the record, sometimes I am joanne schmoe.

another thought on “letting go of inhibitions”. perhaps another way to look at it is controls and resistance that prevent something from happening — in the way that a sneeze can have a full array of expression to no expression — it can happen if we let it, or it can simply not happen if we don’t let it. One can suppress a sneeze completely, or let it out by degrees to a completely free AHCHOOOOOOO!. My English husband rarely feels permission to let it out, out of a heightened sense of propriety, and so stifles most sneezes.

There is another somewhat similar physical/emotional response to stimuli (which shall remain nameless) which in context wants to happen, can happen if it is allowed to happen and resistance/controls are loosened. A learning process.

we are just as much spirit as we are body. Because spiritual is invisible, we tend to have resistance/controls against it firmly in place, but we can learn to loosen these controls to allow our spiritual component out as we face God (as opposed to being too distracted and preoccupied to be face to face with God). similar to the nameless thing, and similar to my husband feeling free to let out his achooo. and how good it feels to not suppress it.

Even though spiritual is invisible, it is not unfamiliar. we live with it all the day long, whether we realize it or not.

@ elastigirl: I am curious as to what you’re referring to re. “power” in the NT – translations of specific verses.

Could it be that God’s idea of “power” – and “manifestations” thereof – is NOT what we might assume? Offhand, I can’t recall any record of such “manifestations” in either the Gospels or in Acts re. healings, etc. (The lame man in the temple was certainly joyous, but there’s no mention of anything like “explosive power” in the actual laying on of hands.)

I have personally never experienced anything of that kind (“explosive power”), though there were times – when I was very young and new at all of this – that I felt a deep and almost palpable joy in prayer. It was beautiful, but it was also not something that lasted. I think that’s because it’s the exception, not the day-to-day rule.

Does this make sense to you? Again, I’d be more than happy to contact you off-list and will write to Dee about that, if you’d like.

@ elastigirl: Maybe the word I’m looking for is “spontaneity.”

The spontaneous can become ritualized behavior *very* quickly, I think.

I wish I could say I’m surprised at the conference or the direction MacArthur and his buddies take, but I’m not. It’s very in line with previous statements and actions.

On the other hand, the latest post on the Grace To You blog today sort of, kind of, just a little, tries to backpedal a bit and makes a few sort of conciliatory noises, but also claims their detractors took their words out of context (though I don’t buy that). So maybe all the fireworks got through a little bit. But I still don’t hold out much hope of any real change in their approach.

Mostly it just makes me sad. Such a lack of grace, despite the name.

@ John: OK… count me in as a skeptic about the “on the floor” stuff. Really. I just don’t buy it; there are expectations set up around it and I think most of it is response to that. (Though i would be more than happy to be shown the error of my ways!)

Per Acts, Paul fell to the ground, etc. etc. And yes, per what is said, it all did have an impact on his body, but again – there’s so much “mundane” (i.e., more normal) stuff that’s left *out* of the book. What’s described are what I believe to be exceptional things, not run of the mill, for the most part. I’m also not persuaded that what happened on Pentecost is what is usually referred to as the gift of tongues, either. (My experience with tongues has been very normal and totally non-ecstatic, and that is exactly what I was taught about it back in the early 70s, so I am confounded by the kind of ecstatic “tongues-speaking” exhibited by many.)

I honestly think that a *lot* of things from the “shouting Methodists” of the 1800s to the extraordinary occurrences at the Azusa Street revival – became institutionalized and codified very quickly. And again, I cannot recall any instances in the NT where some of the weirder, more ecstatic or frenzied things that many people believe to be the work of the Holy Spirit are anywhere described. Instead, Jesus describes him as the Spirit of truth, the counselor, the comforter, etc.

Again, I’m *not* saying that all “manifestations” are wrong or strange, but to tell you the truth… I think a lot of it comes from sets of expectations and cultural cues. Not all, but a lot,.

Now watch me go and have something extraordinary happen and come back here telling you I was wrong! 😉 (You never know…)

@ elastigirl: And hey, you are so right about nonsense/silliness in all churches, because churches are full of us humans.

Hope it doesn’t seem that I’m coming across as disrespectful of your church background and upbringing, as that’s not my intent at all! But it did strike me, back in the 70s, that the “style” of the few Pentecostal gatherings I attended was markedly different from the charismatic groups I was part of, and even *they* had their own “cultural differences.” We learn by imitation, after all, and certain traits and behaviors get passed on as the norm, whether we intend it to happen or not.

Is this the best you can do, take your lead from an unbeliever of the same sect that delivered up Christ? What are you guys thinking?

Here is the posted quote: “Gamaliel rose and spoke saying..’Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God'”

He’s a Pharisee guys, you want to look to his advice as a standard. Really is that the best you got? This is Strange Fire indeed!

And now, this:

http://theresurgence.com/2013/10/25/see-you-in-seattle-pastor-john-macarthur

@ Casey:
It’s true for all denominations really. All have famous whack-jobs here and there. I think the weakness of ‘cliques’ (or denominations or theology adherents) is the desire to be popular – as if popularity makes something genuine. So, the Gospel Coalition put up with a) Driscoll (Despite serious interpretive issues around Calvinism) b) Doug Wilson (Despite being a sexist, racist, clueless non-Christian Pharisee, I would add more, but would get censored), and Piper is out there preaching eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in the trinity – 3rd. C. Nicene creed declared that a full-on heresy, yet Piper is so enamoured with his complementarianism he is willing to throw in a major Church declared heresy and keep right on declaring he has the “truth”. Now, does that mean all Reformed, Calvinist adherents are heretics? Hardly. Using a few bad-apples to discredit a denomination is too simplistic an argument. You need to address the actual denominational statements and compare them to the Bible. You will quickly see most of Acts backs up the Charismatic movement, most of Corinthians 1 shows how messy it is, and you have Paul admonishing believers to seek prophecy and Jesus sending out the 72 to go work miracles, and declaring his new Kingdom through miracles and you start to realize our present-day sanitized, evangelical, non-expressive Christianity is the one that is askew and needs proof, not vice-versa. For the record, I’m not, nor ever have been Pentecostal. I take issue with tongues being the only manifestation of the Holy Spirit and know many Spirit filled Christians who don’t speak in tongues. However, allowing women to exercise their gifts, no matter which ones they have, even teaching, believing in prophecy and desiring to work in God’s power (even if it isn’t always there, a desire for it) is essential to church growth and long-term sustainability as far as I’m concerned.

TedS. wrote:

http://theresurgence.com/2013/10/25/see-you-in-seattle-pastor-john-macarthur

That actually persuaded me to want to watch. Maybe. I don’t know either of these men. I’ve read good and bad things about both. I have no idea what really happened in this particular situation, but this invitation seems mostly gracious. Of course, John MacArthur would be walking into a hornet’s nest, but with the public eye on them, things are less likely to implode.

The craziest thing to me, is that Driscoll says more things that make sense to me then things that make me upset. Some things he does or says make me seriously wonder If I’d ever listen to him again. But, I’ve also been deeply edified and built up in my love for Jesus as a result of truths Mark Driscoll exposed me to.

I guess it all comes down to this mystery of humanity as God’s image. We can actually learn from each other, no matter what. So, yes, we must stop elevating people as any more value or worth in God’s kingdom. And we must also recognize the value and worth everyone has to God, although some might not actually be part of God’s kingdom.

Val wrote:

I take issue with tongues being the only manifestation of the Holy Spirit and know many Spirit filled Christians who don’t speak in tongues. However, allowing women to exercise their gifts, no matter which ones they have, even teaching, believing in prophecy and desiring to work in God’s power (even if it isn’t always there, a desire for it) is essential to church growth and long-term sustainability as far as I’m concerned.

Val, I truly appreciate your comments. I withdrew from ordination in the Assembly of God because speaking in tongues was so narrowly defined as THE evidence. However, I’ve never experienced the freedom among all believers that was lived out everywhere, not just in a church building. I studied at Zion Bible College (now Northpoint Bible College) and grew tremendously under women teachers. I resonate greatly with a lot of Reformed theology, but have always interpreted male/female roles differently.

@ Daisy:

I kind of equate everything you’re talking about (Benny Hinn, TBN, barking like dogs, gitter, etc.) with tabloid headlines at the grocery store cashier lines.

a very small handful of individuals goofball enough or attention-needy enough to snag a glance & satisfy the need for the sensational.

Why look at them?

Ken wrote:

I’m still continuationist if we have to have labels.

Good point. IF we have to have labels. I have no experience with the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement and am a continualist. but JMAC wants to put me in the same category as Benny Hinn.

@ elastigirl:
Because they are featured prominently on Christian TV networks

Given how Driscoll reacted to MacArthur’s initiative to meet back in 2009 (evasion and withdrawal) why would Driscoll get the idea that MacArthur would accept a public invitation when Driscoll refused private offers from MacArthur circa 2009?

Meanwhile, Mars Hill wasn’t likely to beat Sound Transit in buying the real estate that is alleged to be “the only viable option” for Mars Hill’s third shot at starting something like a seminary.

@ Val:
Val – when I referred to ‘apostles who aren’t’, I had in mind the supposed restoration of the Ephesians 5-fold ministry. The church has already been founded, it doesn’t need apostles and prophets today. This is not, however, to say the gifts of the Spirit outlined in 1 Cor and elsewhere cannot be received today, or that some aspects of the original ministries might carry on after the founding apostles died. Hope you see the difference.

You are also right that sexual scandal is not confined to big name charismatic TV evangelists, and needs to be rooted out wherever it occurs. But I can understand JM questioning the ‘anointing’ supposedly resting on those who backed Todd Bentley. If they were really filled with the Spirit, how come they were unable to discern something was so seriously wrong? Can the real power of God be manifested through such blatant unholy behaviour? (Sadly, I have on two occasions had a ‘word of knowledge’ about sexual immorality going on in a church, both times dealt with using scripture – and resulting in repentence and forgiveness. And I’m just little old me, no claims to a prophetic ministry!)

You mentioned Doug Wilson. Now I have enjoyed his blog and wit, but despite that unless you have something specific you are sure about, I think you were unwise to name him as likely to have sexual skeletons in his cupboard.

As for mysticism, I am referring to techniques to try to experience the presence of God that have no foundation in Scripture. Things like repeating words or phrases that lead to an altered state of consciousness, of trying to hear God speak by being silent. There is ‘another Jesus’ who appears to inner healers who do this. I do not deny people have experiences they think come from God, but this has its origin more in New Age. Willow Creek is into this kind of thing. You can’t get it from the NT though, and we can’t summon God to us this way.

I’m afraid Gamaliel’s advice, when it comes to false doctrine and practice, whilst sounding good in the context in which he gave it, doesn’t cut it. We are commanded by the NT writers to judge and discern, and waiting to see whether a movement simply continues to grow does not actually mean God is behind the growth or that false teaching and experience are not to be found in it. No evangelical accepts Mormonism as authentic Christianity, but it has grown and stood the test of time in a Gamaliel sense.

Pass the popcorn! #non-delusional #non-theist

@ Val. Your Oct. 25 at 2:50 and 3:11 comments were making sense to me. You gave some balance by pointing to other groups who also had serious problems–which raised equal concerns regarding spiritual health in Christian communities and the integrity of leaders.

Recognizing that JMac didn’t just condemn the prosperity gospel, but ‘took out the whole movement’ is not a very intelligent move. He does not have his facts and figures accurate and as others have verified, he continues heralding the same message that he was harping on numerous decades ago–and hasn’t changed.

Your clear cut view on the place and ministry of women in the church resonates with me. The church needs the input from women in so many places. Biblical equality is a Kingdom principle!

@ elastigirl:

Ken wrote:

Can the real power of God be manifested through such blatant unholy behaviour?

One word: Samson. Who, as far as we know, never repented of his promiscuous lifestyle, but even at the end sought the power of God only in “revenge for my two eyes”. In other words, there is certainly strong biblical evidence to suggest that God’s empowering (whether supernatural or otherwise) comes at God’s instigation, and confers responsibilities that the recipient does not always fulfil. And it’s not a sanction for the life a person lives in secret.

I don’t know a great deal about Todd Bentley, but I can tell you some things that one of those who had mentored him has said publicly. There were, in fact, several people behind the scenes who were indeed aware of problems long before he actually had an affair with his PA, and they expressed those concerns directly to him. He declined to listen, stop, slow down or take stock of what God was or was not doing. The biggest issue those people had did not come out of (nor need) any spiritual discernment; it was practical wisdom. They saw that he was not ministering alongside many others and that he was spending too much time on the road (and in the company of one person in particular).

I think it’s just as possible that Todd Bentley started out in step with the Holy Spirit as it is that Park Fiscal started out so. The former, it seems, got too carried away with the manifestations, and the latter jumped straight into leadership before learning to be a disciple. Whither, but for the grace of God, go I. A reason to be thankful that I was not conspicuously successful in my 20’s.

Driscoll invited MacArthur to his giant Resurgence 2013 conference.
The Seattle seats are all sold out (at $300 a pop).
You can still get a seat at a video location for $99.http://2013
resurgenceconference.eventbrite.com/

Anyone going?

To use Gamaliel’s words to justify not speaking against heresy in the church is one of the lamest excuses out there. It’s about as lame as the Benny Hinns out there screaming “don’t touch God’s anointed.” If it’s a valid argument, then the Apostle Paul was out of line for exposing false gospels. During the conference more detail was given concerning both of those lame excuses for not exposing heresy. I will let the discerning reader who wants only the truth to investigate. He/she will. Those who have already formed their opinions and whose minds are closed to criticism of charismania won’t. That group contains some in these comments, for sure. I’ve listened to the entire conference now, and there was MUCH truth spoken concerning a movement I was once part of for several years. The Bible itself showed me the truth. It would be a wise move to reserve judgment until one has actually done some homework in terms of listening to the conference and examining things said in light of scripture.

@ numo:
@ Dan:

I have some agreement with both of you. I agree that the misuse of the scriptures cited by Dan is rife and wrong. I also agree that condemning all charismatics is extreme, and the conference seems to do that. It is also clear that there are extremes in the charismatic movementS (emphasis on plural) that clearly need to be addressed as outside true Christian belief, as there are those in the evangelical movements who are extreme in other ways and should be addressed as outside true Christian belief. BUT, finger pointers need to be careful that they are pointing with a fine tip and not a finger too fat to fit through a door.

Dan wrote:

The Bible itself showed me the truth. It would be a wise move to reserve judgment until one has actually done some homework in terms of listening to the conference and examining things said in light of scripture.

If I had a penny for every time I heard a variation of: “The Bible itself showed me the truth.”

I also get tired when people assume that the certain few scriptures that they string together a certain way are somehow the great truths of the ages while they neglect and ignore all the other scriptures that refute their pet doctrine. Then those people scream “HERESY!” at everybody who don’t arrange and neglect scripture like they do in their preferred pattern of proof texting… (again. if I had a penny… )

MacArthur is wrong to attack people over this and set up entire conferences over things that he doesn’t know. He is not entitled to decide who is saved and who isn’t based on his pet doctrine. Setting himself up in this position makes him as guilty as the Popes of old who thought that they were the doorkeepers of heaven.
You, Dan, and MacArthur need to put THAT in your pipes and smoke it.

@ Dan:

FWIW, I think it’s this thread where I mentioned that while a lot of charismatics may not enjoy it, for some people (such as me), the first group of people who pops into mind instantly upon hearing words and phrases such as Charismatic, Pentecostal, speaking in tongues, and so on, are precisely the guys such as Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley types.

Those are among the most well known ones out there. They have daily or weekly TV shows and are in the secular news fairly regularly too.

Another thing that characterizes the movement for me are the excessives involved, such as reports on apologetics sites (and I’ve seen this on a small number of shows on TBN) of people in those churches running around during services,
barking like dogs,
rolling around on the floor,
hysterical laughter,
or claims of charismatic guests on Sid Roth’s show who talk about obese people losing pounds immediately; gold dust appearing on people during church services; angels appearing visibly (to only the guest speaker) during services, etc.

To put the cherry on top, when I have seen all these things debated on Christian forums (not here, but other sites) in the past ten years, the folks who claim to be Pentecostal/ Charis., instead of saying, “I agree with you the Benny Hinns are frauds,” etc, they will defend things such as Word of Faith, people barking like dogs, and so on.

The ones I’ve seen on other forums are more vested in defending all things Char/Pent then just owning up to the fact that some who co-opt their name do indeed do some wacky stuff.

Nick said to Ken,

In other words, there is certainly strong biblical evidence to suggest that God’s empowering (whether supernatural or otherwise) comes at God’s instigation, and confers responsibilities that the recipient does not always fulfil.

Yes, but the NT lays down rules on this stuff.

Services are to be orderly – which one could safely assume means no barking like dogs, running around like a spinning top, hysterical, maniacal laughter, etc.

Another rule Paul put on the table in the NT-
No tongues speaking UNLESS there is someone there to interpret.

But I see Charis./Pent. guys on TBN speak in tongues frequently with nobody translating.

Saw it/heard it once when attending such a church in person (charismatic type, non denom church). Folks at that church stood around going, “Omminly sominly doo wop, doo wop, rock bop a boo,” and I had no idea what that meant. Nobody translated what they were saying.

Anyhow, I accepted a long time ago that to many people fed up with Christianity (such as some atheists and agnostics) that they tend to confuse the whole lot of Christians with the Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert types, so I never took it too personally.

I actually find it understandable. It can be frustrating talking to someone like that, but I do understand how they might feel that way – and they have a basis for feeling that way.

It is true that Robertson, Falwell et al claim to be Christian, they are very famous, so there is this perception they speak for most or all Christians everywhere.

Daisy wrote:

Yes, but the NT lays down rules on this stuff.

That’s true, but that’s precisely because they can be misused or used unwisely. Paul didn’t tell the Corinthian church that, because their meetings were disorderly and there gross sexual immorality going on among them as well, their manifestations were clearly all satanic and should be shut down.

I’ve come across many Christians from a wide variety of traditions and backgrounds who have a deep misconception about spiritual gifts and the like: that they are frightening and incomprehensible, and can only happen when the Holy Spirit somehow takes possession of fearfully sanctified and holy people who have somehow been made infallible. This is unbiblical and needs to be corrected in the same way as does an infatuation with experiences and manifestations at the expense of Christ-like character. Because for a number of those Christians, their phobia of spiritual manifestations has itself run away with them, into a full-blown agnosticism whereby they don’t believe God ever does anything practically useful. Like, for instance, help a desperate unemployed Christian find work.

I have no interest in defending all things that use the vast, almost-all-encompassing label “charismatic”. Neither have I any interest in defending all things that use the vast label “Christian”. I am not under any obligation to spend my life apologising for the crusades, medieval witch-burnings, the sectarian component of the Troubles in Northern Ireland etc just because some of them called themselves Christian and so do I. The trouble with many of the blogs etc you mention (and MacArthur’s conference is a good case in point) is that they refuse this distinction, and use the vast sweeping label in a bait-and-switch move to support unjust accusations.

@ Daisy:
We attended an Assemblies of God church for five or so years at one point. If/when I am asked about that, given that we moved away from it, the chief thing I have to say without getting into particulars, is that it was more about personal ‘experience’ than objective truth. I could debate passages of scripture all day long that, taken out of the immediate and larger biblical contexts, are used to ‘prove’ charismatic doctrine, but I am not going to do so here. It’s a fruitless endeavor who are trapped by ‘experience’ rather than the perspicuity of scripture.

Ken wrote:

I’m afraid Gamaliel’s advice, when it comes to false doctrine and practice, whilst sounding good in the context in which he gave it, doesn’t cut it. We are commanded by the NT writers to judge and discern, and waiting to see whether a movement simply continues to grow does not actually mean God is behind the growth or that false teaching and experience are not to be found in it. No evangelical accepts Mormonism as authentic Christianity, but it has grown and stood the test of time in a Gamaliel sense.

Sadly, evangelicals are increasingly accepting Mormon religion as being genuinely Christian, mostly out of ignorance concerning the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible.

@ Dan: Also, the AofG is Pentecostal, not charismatic. I know that’s probably going to come across as nit-picky on my part, but there *is* a difference.

@ TedS.: There’s a lot of history; I don’t mean to be off-putting, but you can easily look it up, plus there are members of the AofG who have been commenting on this thread who can likely explain it far better than I’m able to. (Not being Pentecostal myself.)

numo wrote:

there are members of the AofG who have been commenting on this thread who can likely explain it far better than I’m able to. (Not being Pentecostal myself.)

Having been associated for a number of years with AoG, most AoG folks I know refer to their beliefs, their church, themselves as “charismatic” and not “pentecostal,” which is associated with old-line UPC and Holiness groups. So, although there may technically be a distinction, not even members of the very group you are referring to get it. Even Charisma magazine puts them all under the same umbrella. So it is no surprise that MacArthur, or any number of “reformed” and “fundamentalist” Bible preachers might lump them all in.

And, since you want to show that there is a technical divide – there is one teaching, I believe, that the charismatics and pentecostals equally embrace: “The Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in ‘tongues.'”

Please correct me if I am wrong.
🙂

@ TedS.: I try to steer clear of Charisma magazine and others like it… but their categorizations don’t mean that their editorial opinion is definitive. 🙂

Dan wrote:

Maybe you’ve heard many say that the Bible itself exposes heresy simply because it does.

You must not have understood me.

The gospel is simple. (Not easy. Jesus dying on the cross was not easy, but the message is simple)

But when men (and women) put their hands on the message, often times they add to it, making it far more complicated than it is. They either add from their own opinion of how things should be (a la Driscoll), what tradition has taught them that is should be (most Catholics and old time denominations), or because they adhere to a favorite teacher (who may be pretty good on most things, but no one has a corner on all the truth), or they adhere to a pet doctrine to the neglect of other doctrines that balance it out, or they are having a violent reaction to excesses they have seen or even experienced.

HUG understood me correctly when he said, “Especially when “The Bible Itself shows” two different people two completely-contradictory ‘The Truth’s.”

MacArthur has strung together a set of scriptures that support his position while ignoring others that kick the legs out from under his position Those scriptures exist. He just pretends that they don’t. Then he declares that those who don’t support his narrow view or ‘the truth’, that they probably aren’t even saved. And those that support what he opposes (who have just as much Scriptural support as he does, they are just stringing together a different set of important scriptures) he calls them out on ‘heresy’. He calls them out on issues that have far more to do with his violent reaction against the excesses of a certain movement than anything resembling heresy.

The Bible is very clear on a few things. Not so much on so many others. Men would do well to keep the main things the main things and to be more gracious towards others on things that are not so clear.

In other words, men should stop throwing around the word heresy when dealing with issues that the Bible isn’t nearly as ‘clear’ on as they try to make It be.

@ TedS.: I’ve looked at their website a couple of times and got pretty freaked out by it!

and thanks for the contemporary perspective – its really not surprising to see that ideas and definitions have changed.

@ TedS.:
@ numo:

The theory of tongues as necessary first evidence for baptism in the Holy Spirit dates back – as far as I am aware – to the early 1900’s. In fact, the formulation of that doctrine was pretty much a deliberate act and marked the point at which the pentecostal movement lithified into a denomination, complete with “distinctives” (or one of them, at least) and man-made walls to separate it formally from other denominations. Sad, though of course hardly unique.

I’ve been part of a church that taught this, but never accepted it myself because it lacks any biblical authority. Any “law” that – as a minimum first step – is not simply stated in the Biblescriptures is no law at all and should never be taught as such.

elastigirl wrote:

religion loves rules and control

elastigirl wrote:

@ Nick Bulbeck:

I sometimes wonder if cessationalism at heart reflects a desire to retain control of church services. The ‘gifts’, if available today, would arouse the fear that the Holy Spirit might interrupt the way we have always done things! Let all things be done decently and in order has been turned around to say don’t let anything happen that we are not in charge of as set out in the order of service.

After reading some of these posts, I wonder, did any of the posters actually listen to or read the sermons that were preached?

@ Nick Bulbeck:
🙂 🙂 🙂

@ Victorious:

Well, indeed – an advantage in presenting the Biblescriptures as God is that a book can’t talk, so although in theory everybody can read it these days, if you’re a gifted enough communicator you can get people believing that the Biblescriptures always agree with you just the same as a gifted showman can persuade an audience that he has The Anointing™.

Daisy wrote:

MP calls for ban on tattooed preacher who ‘cures’ cancer by kicking people in the face
A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down is now A Kick to the Face will cure what ails you
Would Bentley claim it’s his foot that heals the cancer, the kick itself, or the Holy Spirit? *ponder ponder ponder*

No, it’s his pet angel Emma.
“ANGELS! ANGELS! ANGELS! SHEEKA-BOOM-BAH! BAM!!!”

@ numo:

From what I’ve seen over the years, people who are trapped by experience and people who are trapped by the perspicuity of scripture are actually both caught in the same trap. That is, they’ve got hold of one particular form of Christian experience that happens to come naturally to them, and made them out to be the be-all and end-all.

There are many kinds of experience in the Christian life. Answered prayer, knowing God’s forgiveness (or “assurance of salvation” or whatever one likes to call it), seeing a truth from scripture for the first time or in a new way, guidance and leading, and many more, are all experiences. Moreover, they are all things we should want, and if we never have any of them then our “faith” is just a dead collection of doctrinal data. Some people seek emotional stimulation in church meetings; some others seek intellectual stimulation. And so on.

There’s a reason, surely, why the Psalms cover such a wide range of human life, and why there was more than one psalmist. I absolutely agree, though, that indulging one particular taste rarely produces mature Christians.

@ Ken: Thanks – you, too!

To be fair to our cessationist siblings, we continuationists (conceding that both labels are crude and simplistic) can also fall into a lack of variety. Our meetings can be stale and formulaic, with generic copycat “words” that may or may not be prophetic. And when any report comes out of anything happening that we haven’t seen before, we’re sometimes among the first to reject it out of hand – despite John’s assertion that Jesus did many other wonders among his disciples which, if they were all written down, would more than fill the world with books.

I wish I didn’t, but I have to agree with you that it is too easy to hear and understand the word (or the Word) without actually doing anything with it. That’s partly autobiographical too. A bit like having a doctrinal statement that says God is triune but doesn’t say that he is trustworthy (as noted in my world-changingly great * blog). There’s a fine line between “objective truth” and mere data.

I’m interested in your thoughts on this, but I guess the rule of thumb is: if I live it myself, it’s objective truth; but if I just regurgitate it over others and judge them with it, it’s mere data. The simplest example I can think of is to continue worshipping God in adversity: the objective truth that God is good sustains me through the times when I don’t feel as though he is.

* [running gag]

@ Nick Bulbeck: True dat, Nick! Though I had the kinds of “experiences” that tend to happen in Pentecostal/charismatic services in mind.

@ Nick Bulbeck: Not just manufactured “experiences,” but the expectation of them; has a lot to do with emotion, emotional manipulation (via music, visuals and pulpit-pounding), etc.

One thing I’ve noticed is that *none* of my real-life encounters with what turned out to be (as far as I can tell) the end of a couple of different physical problems was accompanied by any fanfare. In one case, I didn’t even realize that the problem (orthopedic) had ceased to exist – and that the joint in question had gone back to normal size – until several weeks after the fact. (Long story, concerns what one might call my conversion, though perhaps it was more of a conscious decision to believe on my part rather than some kind of dramatic, Jesus-came-into-my-heart moment.)

At any rate, I’ve noticed that folks from other countries (oz and Blighty, to name two) have been very much put off by the kinds of emotional manipulation (musical and otherwise) that goes on in US evangelical/charismatic churches. They might well have their own forms of same back home, but still, I get the feeling that the “marketing” aspects (*very* much including music)are disturbing to them – as if they’re being presented with a nicely-wrapped spiritual experience (well, emotional experience) with a great big shiny bow on top.

I think God is, in general, attuned to doing things differently than we think he’s going to do them (understatement of the decade – 😉 )

@ Ken:

We certainly do get derailed. You could put it this way: God gives us a resource or a gift that points to him, and we build a monument to the resource and live in it for the rest of our lives. Or, God gave Israel a bronze snake and sooner or later they were burning incense to it (the reference is quite interesting, I think – here to save you looking it up).

I don’t know how much of the traditional contemporary worship experience originates with Willow Creek. I think they’re just accomplished at doing what many other groups are trying to do anyway, and have been for decades. If anything, I’m convinced God initiated it, actually. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, believers were hungry for something and God fed them. But what came out of that – ie the full-on, intimate and even intense holistic encounters in corporate worship – started to be copied by a second generation who weren’t around during its early days. So now, rather than taking risky steps out in faith ourselves, because of our own hunger for something unique in our walk with God (which was what people were doing in the 60’s and 70’s), we just copy their methods.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

“Back in the 60′s and 70′s, believers were hungry for something and God fed them. But what came out of that – …started to be copied by a second generation who weren’t around during its early days. So now, rather than taking risky steps out in faith ourselves, because of our own hunger for something unique in our walk with God (which was what people were doing in the 60′s and 70′s), we just copy their methods.”
**************

nick–this is so true. very insightful.

@ elastigirl: Yes. What was fairly spontaneous becomes programmed, as The Only Way To Do Things. It’s artifice.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Interesting discussion! I had good friends of mine, whom you would put in the evangelical and charismatic file, go to a Howard-Browne meeting to see for themselves what it was all about. They were not predisposed to be anti, but concluded what they saw was not the working of God. In fact they spent some time praying for those glued to the floor to be released from it! The stewards were none too pleased.

It is clear from 1 Cor 14 that Paul was concerned with the effects disorderly and indeed bizarre use even the genuine gifts could have on unbelievers and outsiders. Toronto fell foul of this, and my own eyes were opened to it when someone pointed out that you had to go to a physical location to be able to get it from someone who already had it, whereas the Holy Spirit is everywhere. In short it had moved out of anything remotely biblical.

As for writing off some of the 60’s stuff, Tom Smail of Fountain Trust fame once said of the modern gifts ‘two-thirds is spurious, but one-third is a lot’. A very sensible way of looking at things, avoiding both gullibility and prejudiced dismissal. The latter is what MacArthurville is guilty of imo.

Truth will probably be the Victim here for many of you. Jesus said the Father seeks those who worship in the Spirit and the TRUTH!
I have had the experience to be apart of both issues in various churches, I am 73. One of my former pastors invited one of these false prophets to our church, he was received with honor and respect, although it was plain to all the mature believers in the church, that the man did not know scripture or what he was doing, he was a total fraud. After that more of his kind were invited, the flock was eventually split!

Bro. MacArthur has the responsibility as a Shepherd and Elder to alert, warn and instruct the flock when there is clear and open sinful actions and doctrines that diner-grate Christ and His word.

He “must” do that with biblical integrity, humility and love. My review of the conference, as objective as I am capable of, clearly displayed these qualities, he is a “man” of honor. He will pay a price for speaking out against these terrible abuses, at his age it would easier to just ride off in the sun set an ignore the plight of the Body of Christ, but a man of biblical honor would never do that.
Loyalty to Christ and His Word has a price to pay, few will pay that price.

I thank God for John MacArthur.

The Old Mountain Man

Rom. 5:8

@ Mt. Man:

MacArthur is not warning against false prophets. He is falsely warning against prophecy and, since he has for all practical purposes rejected the Holy Spirit, I’m not sure in what spirit he is worshipping, if any.

Hello again “Truth” seekers,

Prayerfully engage your mind and your heart into the word of God, so you can try the spirits to whether they are from God or Satan.

The confusion in professing Christianity is so diverse, deep and contradictory, that you must have a gold standard to discern what is true, over against the tidal wave of false teachings that is spewed out of TV, pulpits and so called revivals.

Christ is the gold standard, His revealed word and will in most matters that concern us,is readily available for those who seek Him as their Lord. He gives us His Spirit to interpret the Word, and provides the insight and eternal wisdom to unify and bring us into harmony and oneness.

The Deceiver has done a very good job at turning the Christian faith into chaos.
The Strange Fire Conference and book if listen to and read with a true and discerning heart will be greatly edify you, and much clarity in these matters can be received.

Be a Berean!

The Old Mountain Man

@ dee:

I wondered whether Mt. Man was a human or a chatterbot. Both “his” contributions thus far have been a rather disjointed string of keyword-laden sentences that haven’t related to any other contribution.

@ The Voice:
Ummmm . . . your arrogance isn’t helpful. Pabox was actually defending those who believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost as being fellow Christians.

Im glad that JMac finally said what he really feels – it exposes that he is a false teacher.
He is so “biblical” that he tosses out
1 Corithians 12 (along with 13)
just because he wants to.
My family has been persecuted from church after church ( supposed non denominationals ) because we believe the whole bible and are low key charismatics, but JMac spies are everywhere making sure that they quench the Holy Spirit in the church.
He is a modern day Pharisee who would most likely have killed christians in Jesus’
time.
You’re killing me John, and you think you serve God.
Repent! Repent! Repent! – you have removed words from the bible and put yourself above Gods word.

elastigirl wrote:

I’m really just blown away. All of it….. but this one, “NOTHING good has come out of the charismatic movement”?? Such a deep insult. Feel like I was just punched in the stomach. The ignorance just takes my breath away. Archie Bunker dressed up in a suit & tie with smooth speech and no beer can is still Archie Bunker.

As for MD and JMac: the finger dressed up with a Christian smile is still the finger. what childish, obnoxious punk brats.

I’m sure the ranks of those who agree with Anne Rice has surely grown in number in the last few days.

“Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.”–Anne Rice

I’ve only just discovered this furore (thank goodness).

Suffice to say, I think Macarthur is wrong and has let his considerable knowledge over inflate his pride and ego. I also agree with a previous poster who commented that it shouldn’t really be of any concern to a Calvinist as nothing they do or say affects God’s calling. If he hasn’t done so he also ought to read about the Hebrides Revivals, whose churches were mostly Calvinist.