The Crazy Australian

This post is the third in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction

Are there incompatibilities?

When you really listen hard, what does Phillip Jensen actually offer as incompatibilities?

As hard as I tried, I could only find two: Second Baptism, and the Authority of the Scriptures.

Baptism of the Spirit

On this issue, I’m with D. A. Carson, who says “Although I find no biblical support for a second-blessing theology. I do find support for a second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-blessing theology.” (Also on this team: Stott, Piper, Lloyd-Jones, D. L. Moody, Jonathan Edwards and so on)

Phillip Jensen asserts that there are 7 references to baptism of the Spirit in the Bible and that all refer to regeneration, so any second (third, fourth) blessing theology is fundamentally at odds with reformed views on regeneration.

Here are all 7. I’d argue, actually, that only one refers to regeneration.

Jesus says in Acts 1:5, “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” What event happened just days after Jesus said this? Pentecost, where the already regenerate disciples (see John 15:3-4) who already had the Spirit (see John 20:21-22), were filled, baptised in the Spirit. And this is something subsequent, quite apart from the work the Holy Spirit has already done in regenerating them.

The first 6 references clearly all refer to that baptism. The 7th, 1 Corinthians 12:13, is not concerned with the Baptism of the Spirit at all, but rather with regeneration. I’ve argued this elsewhere.

So the charismatic position is that the Holy Spirit is essential in regeneration (and is thus compatible with reformed theology) and also that the baptism of the Spirit is subsequent to that regenerating act. There is no incompatibility.

Authority of the Scriptures

This is a tired argument: the work of the Spirit is preaching the gospel, teaching about Jesus through the inspired Word. Any charismatic idea of prophecy being God speaking today tends to push us away from the Scriptures.

Well, that is certainly a temptation… which is why the Bible clearly instructs us to test prophecies and only hold on to what is good (1 Thes 5:19-21). Of course the work of the Spirit is preaching the gospel, teaching about Jesus through the inspired Word. No charismatic gift can replace that; nor is any necessary. And that perfect, inspired Word is precisely the means by which all prophecy is tested.

Yet God still blesses the church with prophets in grace that goes beyond what is merely necessary, whose authority is less than the Bible. And we are told not to despise them (1 Thes 5:20).

What Phillip is identifying here is not a disagreement, but rather a danger. The danger is that we might forget that Scriptures are the highest authority. Yes, it is a danger, but it is not a disagreement.

(Just like non-Charismatics face the same danger from reason and experience.
The topic of prophecy is a good example. Even though Paul talks about prophetic powers of understanding all mysteries (1 Cor 13:2) and lists it with healings, miracles, tongues, and distinguishing Spirits (1 Cor 12:9-10),  Phillip has no experience in such extraordinary prophecies. Therefore, he interprets Scripture under the authority of his experience and so redefines prophecy to mean the preaching of Christ. So we’re all prophets, we all teach about Christ. He justifies this with Revelation 19:10, arguing it equates testimony about Jesus with prophecy. It doesn’t, it merely says that prophecy is to testify to Jesus, and so John is a fool to worship the angel.)

Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?

• Part I: Introduction
  
• Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
• Part III: Incompatibilities
• Part IV: We Believe the Bible
• Part V: We Want It All

This post is the fourth in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction.

We Believe the Bible

We’re sick of ‘explaining away’ the Bible’s incredible promises to make a more ‘rational’ faith We’re sick of reading down Scripture to fit our experiences.

Oh yes, I meant that.

Want an example? Watch the video from 5:20. To illustrate the difference between reformed and charismatic theology, Kel Richards and Phillip Jensen discuss John 14:12:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”

And they say, good grief, look at the things Jesus did! He walked on water and rose the dead! And then Phillip says, “If you’re going to say that you’re going to do greater works than they, well, frankly, no-one is… the cemetaries are full.” Even the apostles did not do greater works. So it must refer to some other kind of work than miracles: preaching the gospel.

Do you see? Jesus says something, and we say “That does not fit my experience, I must be reading it wrong” rather than “That does not fit my experience. Perhaps my experience is wrong.” There are many people today who claim to be healing the sick and raising the dead. Maybe this scripture refers to their experience.

Now, to be fair, they then go on to justify another interpretation from the Scriptures itself. They say, these greater works will be done because Jesus is going to the Father. What can we do now because Jesus went to the Father that he couldn’t do? Preach the gospel of His death and resurrection.

(Well, that’s slightly fallicious – he preached that gospel before he went to the Father. I wonder whether the reason Jesus needed to go to the Father was “for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you” (John 16:7) – the greater works are dependent on the Spirit, who would not come unless Jesus went away. Incidentally, the apostles did do some pretty amazing stuff. Is it significant that the very next verse after that one is “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”?)

But regardless of which interpretation is correct, the process is flawed. We must not interpret Scripture by our experiences. If the Scriptures say we should desire to prophesy, we will desire to prophesy.

Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?

• Part I: Introduction
  
• Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
• Part III: Incompatibilities
• Part IV: We Believe the Bible
• Part V: We Want It All

This post is the fifth and last in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction.

Conclusion
Jensen and Richards conclude their interview by discussing the difference between what God can do, and what God does do. They say He can speak however He wants, but He promises to speak through His word.

I agree whole heartedly with that.

But He also promises to speak through prophecy. “even on my male servants and female servants, in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” (Acts 2:18)

Therefore, the difference is not between what God can do and what He promises to do. The difference is between what God promises to do usually and what God promises to do occasionally.

Reformed Charismatics are sick of these promises of God being neglected. We don’t want to detract from the five solas and the TULIP. We love them. We love and expect and pray for the usual work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives as they come to Christ and grow in him. And we also love the extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit as He enables us to love one another and glorify Him.

We Want It All

What is causing young reformed Christians to flock to charismaticism? It is not that it differs theologically from so-called ‘reformed non-cessationists’. The difference is that the theology makes its way into practice. Both believe in the one all-powerful God who promises to give gifts to the church for it’s building up, but only one actively seeks and expects those gifts – so that they might better love one another and glorify Christ. We don’t want to have to choose between these, we want it all.

Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?

• Part I: Introduction
  
• Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
• Part III: Incompatibilities
• Part IV: We Believe the Bible
• Part V: We Want It All

This book is the ‘conversion story’ of Flew, a man who spent his life leading the philosophical charge against God.

Flew begins with the story of ‘the creation of an atheist’, the success of his papers and the influence of his fresh and stinging critique of theism and theology. Along the way he admits to being wrong in a number of areas – something that struck me as a very humble thing to do. The emerging picture is one of a man who is not prepared to adjust his views when they are shown to be wrong – he identifies with Socrates’ mantra of following the evidence where-ever it leads. (There’s a lesson there for all of us.) And then Flew spends the rest of the book telling of how this mantra took him to the divine.
His ‘discovery’ hinges on four key areas of science: the laws of nature, the fine-tuning of the universe (It’s almost like it knew we were coming), the existence of life, and the existence of the universe. Notably, though, Flew doesn’t rely on any God-of-the-gaps argument (‘Science doesn’t know, so it must be God’.) Instead, he finds these four areas conceptually incompatible with materialism.
For example, he doesn’t say “Science doesn’t know what caused the Big Bang, therefore God did it.” Instead, he shows that conceptually something cannot come from nothing, so you are forced to choose between God and an alternative cause. Whatever the alternative is, it cannot be dependent on a prior cause because an infinite series of dependent causes cannot produce an effect. So you end up believing in an un-caused causer. The question then becomes, why does this thing exist – why is there something rather than nothing? Flew thinks it more likely that a God would exist uncaused than that a universe would exist uncaused.

This is something I particularly enjoyed about the book – the subjects (life, fine-tuning etc) were familiar but the treatment was new. Unfortunately this also meant that the book was deeply philosophical (I’d call it ‘philosophy informed by science’), and I had a hard time keeping up. It’s a worthwhile read even if you (like me) miss the main point a lot of the time – interesting arguments, facts and parables are scattered throughout – but sadly only someone well-read in philosophy would really get the full force of the book, I think.
But if you’re up for a challenge, I recommend it.
One unexpected highlight is Appendix B – a dialogue (to use the term loosely) between Flew and leading New-Testament scholar Bishop N. T. Wright. In it, Wright makes the case for “The Self Revelation of God in Human History”, focussing on Jesus’ deity and resurrection. The case presented, a summary of his very long book “The Resurrection of the Son of God”, was completely new to me, and very powerful. Flew agrees, saying “Bishop Wright presents by far the best case for accepting Christian belief that I have ever seen.” Now I’m keen to read that book!

… from an article on Moral Psychology:

“Giving up on moral realism does not mean giving up on moral values. It is one thing to care about the plight of the poor, and another to think that one’s caring is objectively correct.”

Translation: Care for the poor if you want. It makes no difference either way, though.

“A world full of people who regard their moral convictions as reflections of personal values rather than reflections of ‘the objective moral truth’ might be a happier and more peaceful place than the world we currently inhabit.”

The last 100 years has certainly borne that out, hasn’t it. Give thanks for post-modern permissiveness and the peace tyranny it has brought!

It’s clearly murder. This secular moral relativist has changed his views, and gives some very powerful arguments.

You may not consider a fetus a “human life” in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.

But it’s difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of “science” in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.

And

Recently, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare ruled that women are permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus. In the United States, a woman can have an abortion for nearly any reason she chooses. In fact, a health exemption for the mother allows abortions to be performed virtually on demand.

If you oppose selective abortions, but not abortion overall, I wonder why? How is terminating the fetus because it’s the wrong sex any worse than terminating the fetus for convenience’s sake?

Maggie was an example of someone whose perspective on faith had been poisoned by inauthentic Christians. I met her several years ago after she ventured, very tentatively, into Willow Creek Community Church, her first visit to any religious institution since childhood. Slowly she became a spiritual seeker and she wrote me this troubling letter about her earlier experiences with Christians:

The Christianity I grew up with was so confusing to me even as a child. People said one thing but did another. They appeared very spiritual in public but were abusive in private. What they said and what they did never fit. There was such a discrepancy that I came to hate Christianity, and I did not want to be associated with a church.

Can you see how cosmetic Christians had derailed her journey toward God? But she went on to explain that she had met some Christians at our church and even got involved in a small group of seekers that was led by a Christian couple. She wrote,

So when I came to Willow Creek and to my small group,

I needed gentleness. I needed to be able to ask any question.

I needed to have my questions taken seriously. I needed to be treated with respect and validated.

Most of all, I needed to see people whose actions match what they say. I am not looking for perfect, but I am looking for real. Integrity is the word that comes to mind. I need to hear real people talk about real life; and I need to know if God is—or can be—a part of real life.

Does he care about the wounds I have? Does he care that I need a place to live? Can I ever be a whole and healthy person? I have asked questions like these. And I have not been laughed at or ignored or invalidated. I have not been pushed or pressured in any way.

Then she added this:

I don’t understand the caring I’ve received. I don’t understand that the leaders don’t seem afraid of questions. They don’t say things like, “You just have to have faith” or “You need to pray more.” They don’t seem to be afraid to tell who they are. They seem genuine.

This young woman ended her letter with a beautiful poem she had written. It contains the heartfelt sentiments of a spiritual seeker toward those of us who are Christians. Read these words carefully, and as you do, imagine that this precious person is speaking directly to you. Because she is.

Do you know
do you understand
that you represent
Jesus to me?

Do you know
do you understand
that when you treat me with gentleness,
it raises the question in my mind
that maybe He is gentle, too.
Maybe He isn’t someone
who laughs when I am hurt.

Do you know
do you understand
that when you listen to my questions
and you don’t laugh,
I think, “What if Jesus is interested in me, too?”

Do you know
do you understand
that when I hear you talk about arguments
and conflict and scars from your past,
I think, “Maybe I am just a regular person
instead of a bad, no-good little girl
who deserves abuse.”

If you care,
I think maybe He cares—
and then there’s this flame of hope
that burns inside of me
and for a while
I am afraid to breathe
because it might go out.

Do you know
do you understand
that your words are His words?
Your face, His face
to someone like me?

Please, be who you say you are.
Please, God, don’t let this be another trick.
Please let this be real.
Please.

Do you know
do you understand
that you represent
Jesus to me?

Tears pooled in my eyes as I read that poem for the first time. I felt the sting of regret over times when I know spiritual seekers have looked at my life and not seen Jesus. I grieved for the times when my callousness or smugness or indifference may have slowed someone in their spiritual journey. And I resolved once more just to be genuine—with God and with others.

I felt that Maggie’s words were so powerful that I wanted to read them to our entire congregation. So I called her one evening to get her permission.

“Maggie, I loved your poem,” I told her. “Would it be all right if I read it at the services this weekend?”

“Oh, Lee,” she said, “haven’t you heard?”

My heart sank. What had happened now? Had she encountered someone who had been like salt that stung or light that glared? Had someone’s hypocrisy chased this young woman away from God once again?

“No, Maggie,” I replied with trepidation in my voice. “I haven’t heard. Tell me what happened.”

“No, you don’t understand—it’s good news,” she said. “A few nights ago I gave my life to Jesus!”

I almost jumped out of my chair. “Maggie, that’s terrific!” I exclaimed. “That’s the best news I’ve had in a long time. Tell me—what piece of evidence convinced you that the Bible is true? What fact did you uncover that finally established for you that the Resurrection was real?” After all, those were the kind of intellectual issues that played a big role in leading me to faith.

“No, it wasn’t like that for me,” she replied. “You see, I just met a whole bunch of people who were like Jesus to me.” She paused as if to shrug. “That’s all it took,” she said.

(Lee Strobel, “God’s Outrageous Claims,” (1997) Zondervan.)

I just watched Phillip Jensen answer “Have you been baptised by the Holy Spirit”.

It’s very good. And yet…
I can’t help but think his second ‘error’ is actually the plain teaching of Scripture. Of course, you cannot be Christian without the Spirit, what we are talking about here is whether you can have the Spirit – be Christian -  without being Spirit-baptised.

I’ll explain this more below.

View full article »

Interesting case unfolding in the UK/Laos – a pregnant woman facing the death penalty for drug smuggling. I mean, it’s tragic rather than interesting, but people’s reactions are interesting:

Ronke Oseni, 21, a psychology student at Kingston University, has known Orobator for 11 years… She said: “There is no one there to visit her, no one to talk to, she doesn’t speak the language. I’m really scared for her. I can’t even imagine what she’s going through.

“The punishment does not fit the crime. They want to shoot her but what about the baby?”

Would it be unjust for the baby to die with her, supposing she is guilty?

Supporters of abortion: do you feel like this would be unjust? (Be honest – what is your gut reaction?) Why/why not?
The baby is within the legal term for an abortion – in fact, if she was back in the UK the government would pay for it. It looks like she may be a rape victim. The baby is no less innocent than any other aborted baby.

In related news, Craig Carter observes that doctors performed a heart procedure on a fetus inside the womb to save the baby’s life … yet the mother would still have been legally able to kill it for a month afterwards!

God’s taught me 2 amazing things lately.

1. I knew God was a God of joy. I have immense joy from God, who is both its source and inventor. I find much joy delighting in God. But one thing never occurred to me before. God is joyful. In fact, God is the most joyful being in existence! This blew my conception of God totally out of the water: I tended to see God as nice, kind, loving, even able to be pleased – but ultimately, cold. How cool is it that God enjoys things!

2. While driving home last night, I was listening to the local Christian radio station.  This is often a depressing experience. But I heard this song:

I wish I could have been there
To see Your first step, hear Your very first word
Tell me, did You ever fall and scrape Your knee?
Did You know Your wounds would one day heal the world?
For just one moment
I wish I could have seen You growing
Learning the ways of a carpenter’s son
Just a little boy gazing at the stars
Did You remember creating every one?
If you passed by, would I have seen a child or a King?

Would I have known?
I wish I could have been there
My only wish is to see You, face to face
Wish I could have been there
Just to see You, Jesus, face to face

And the question came into my mind, “Do I wish I could have been there?”

I was devastated by my answer. How could I claim to love Jesus, if I don’t wish I could have spent time with him? Which of my friends do I claim to love but have no desire to be with? Does this mean I love what Jesus did, what he achieved… but not Jesus himself?

Realisation. Relief. Amazement. The reason I couldn’t answer yes was not that I didn’t love him… it was that I didn’t think of Jesus as a person. Jesus is a topic, a subject of conversation, an idea to be debated. All the joy I’ve found in Jesus has been in Jesus as a theology and a doctrine.

Jesus is a person.

Jesus is a person.

Wow.

Praise Him!

Damo, a good mate from church, has been blogging about godliness. He takes a knife to music:

Everywhere and everyday we listen to music. Do we truly listen to the lyrics?, or just keep listening because it has a good beat. We as a Christian community need to think to ourselves, is this really what I want to listen to? Too often these days music is filled with crude language, sex implications and just plain bad messages.

Good call.

I usually nod approvingly when people talk about this. Don’t those other people who listen to sex-fueled, pleasure-driven, hate-filled garbage know how dangerous it is? Of course, since I don’t like hip-hop (except, of course, Lecrae) and positively detest music-in-a-can pop music, I would never need to repent, would I?

I mean, really, what harm could a bit of Jack Johnson do? The surfy rock I like to listen to is too chilled, too mellow to cause problems. They have good attitudes towards women, they don’t swear, they (by and large) don’t do drugs… heck, they just seem to be enjoying life.

Splashing through the sand bar
Talking by the campfire
It’s the simple things in life, like when and where
We didn’t have no internet
But man I never will forget
The way the moonlight shined upon her hair
(Kid Rock – All Summer Long)

And then, one day I realised what my perspective on life has become. My ideal lifestyle is living simply by a quiet beach with good surf, spending all day surfing or chillaxing in a hammock listening to my beautiful wife play a guitar, then spending the evening sitting around an open fire with a couple of close friends, maybe a guitar or some bongo action, singing songs and telling stories, drinking wine straight from a bottle (in moderation), watching the flickering reflection in her eyes. Early to bed, up again at dawn the next day for some more waves. Not a care in the world, just a warm contentment.

And we were trying different things
We were smoking funny things
Making love out by the lake to our favorite song
Sipping whiskey out the bottle, not thinking ’bout tomorrow
Singing Sweet home Alabama all summer long
(Kid Rock – All Summer Long)

It’s not off-the-wall debauchery. It’s not hard-core crime. It’s not even rebellious. It’s just good-natured fun, right?

But I’ve been deceived. I’ve been sold a false ideal. That chilled, cruisy, contented life doesn’t exist. Around that campfire is jealousy, worry, unsatisfaction. If it is ever acheived (and I think I’ve come close, on occasion), it doesn’t last forever. But more than that, it’s unfulfilling. Would I really be satisfied to sit around a fire for my whole life? Nice as it might be, don’t I want my life to mean something?

Now nothing seems as strange as when the leaves began to change
Or how we thought those days would never end
Sometimes I’ll hear that song and I’ll start to sing along
And think man I’d love to see that girl again
(Kid Rock – All Summer Long)

At its core, this is why: we were not just created to sit around a camp fire. We were created for so much more! We were created for relationship with our Creator, and to worship Him with our whole life by loving Him, following Him, and serving Him. There are oppressed people to liberate, discouraged people to encourage, hurting people to heal, lonely people to love, and, above all, lost people to save. How much more grand an ideal is this

But if we are the Body
Why aren’t His arms reaching
Why aren’t His hands healing
Why aren’t His words teaching
And if we are the Body
Why aren’t His feet going
Why is His love not showing them there is a way
(Casting Crowns – If We Are The Body)

And now I see: music doesn’t need to be crude and rude to be dangerous. What are you listening to? Is it creating false-ideals that bring discontent to steal your joy, and distract you from your mission? Let’s look instead to the glorious freedom of serving Christ with every ounce of our being, pouring out our life for His glory, as we await His return and that highest of praises, Well done, my good and faithful servant.

I take the shadow of the cross as my abiding place
I ask no other sunshine than the sunshine of his face
Content to let the world go by, to know no gain or loss
My sinful self my only shame, my glory all the cross
(Beneath The Cross of Jesus, Elizabeth Clephane, 1872)

If you only read one article this Easter, read this one. (h/t Murray)