Current watching this:
Phillip Jensen and Kel Richards - Reformed charismatics? from Audio Advice on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Search This Blog
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
►
2010
(121)
-
►
February
(59)
- Natural Church Development
- The bounce-the-ball-before-serving prayer
- Get non-Christians to play music at church?
- Looking forward to PTOB on Hebrews
- 71 contacts made so far
- We made 26 new contacts yesterday
- Well done good and faithful servant
- Blog poll: have your say
- City on a Hill is looking to spread out
- Another series on Ruth
- Toby Michael Lynch
- Guy Sebastian was recording in New York last year
- Ministry Challenge 2009 sermons now online
- Nikki's going in for a Caesar tomorrow
- This week with the uni mission we have
- Split staff meeting manila folder into three
- Moving March 2nd
- New FOCUS Hobart website
- From French missio prayer letter
- Driscoll at Advance, Melbourne
- NewDirections Community Church
- Phillip on city ministry vs country ministry
- Other things I appreciate but am happy to enjoy th...
- Nathan reckons bad coffee is a sin
- Bible College makes you a better preacher
- Normal Christian life: just surviving
- Engage Church, Brisbane launches today
- Hauerwas on Matthew's gospel
- GTD + Evangelism = Lionel Windsor
- Justin updates us on new York St service
- Keller on big issues for Western Church
- This blog is on the move...
- Keller + Nooma = Prodigal God DVD
- Free booklet on singleness and loneliness
- Superstition versus sovereignty
- Predicting success in school teachers
- Uni Fellowship of Christians O Week Fund Drive Clo...
- Staring down the barrel of O Week
-
►
February
(59)
23 comments:
What did you think Mikey? Was the scepticism justified?
Great to have a big discussion like this, but frustrating that the really relevant issue only got covered in the last 2-5 mins (can you be reformed and charismatic?).
A negative thought: Phillip's definition of charismatic was something like 'someone who over-emphasises the miraculous gifts'.
The problem is that what makes 'Reformed Charismatics' adopt this title is because they are seeking not to overemphasise, they are not saying these gifts are necessary.
So is Phillip saying they are not really charismatics then? Or is he saying in practice they will inevitably over-emphasise the miraculous.. and so are not reformed? (2B continued)
A positive thought: You might rephrase Phillip's criticism by saying 'why have you chosen to adopt/keep the charismatic label?'. It's a good point. I personally wouldn't want to use a label that has been so abused. I'd want to say that any belief in the miraculous flows happily out of reformed theology.
So the only reasons you'd want to use the label 'charismatic' are:
1. Historical - you've come out of that movement.
2. Political - you want to encourage rapport with charismatics by emphasising points of agreement.
3. (Un)Theological - you wrongly think that only charismatics believe in miraculous gifts.
What did you think, Mark?
Do you have any suggestions about naming, Mikey? Otherwise, I'm stickin' with Reformed Charismatic.
I honestly think it's a pretty good name. I'm reformed in soteriology but I believe that all the charismata mentioned in the New Testament are still available today. Hence Reformed Charismatic. Not too complicated, right?
Laura - I like 'Reformed'.
Three things I’d like to clarify in my mind Mikey:
1) A clear definition of what it means to be a “reformed charismatic” from within the camp. The most coherent definition I’ve found so far is from Light & Heat:
“a Christian with the desire to fully and Biblically live out the phrase ‘worship in Spirit and Truth’, and to chase what both of those mean to their Biblical ends in all areas. That means teaching the Biblical truths that may be unsettling or unpopular to modern ears, especially in some charismatic circles, & practicing gifts in a way that lines up with Biblical guidelines – being ‘charismatic’ Christians in a way that is fully God-centered.”
“The basic thrust is this: strong Biblical teaching with a focus on the Gospel and God’s sovereignty, accompanied by passionate God-centered worship and the functioning of the spiritual gifts strictly according to the Biblical guidelines.”
- Would any reformed evangelicals have any particularly strong objections to these definitions?
- Are these definitions representative of all those within the reformed charismatic camp?
2) A developed rationale of what “charismatic” adds to the label of “reformed” (as you ask above). What is gained by using a modifying tag that to many undercuts the very notion of “reformed” theology? Has the term “New Calvinism” been embraced as an alternative, i.e. as an attempt to be aligned with the “theologian of the Holy Spirit”, but yet distanced from the narrow Calvinism that followed in his wake?
3) A decisive list of those who consciously sit under this label. C.J. Mahaney, Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler I can see, anachronistically Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones maybe, but would John Piper and D.A. Carson use this label of themselves? (see the list at Light & Heat )
Laura:
A Reformed Non-Cessationist?
If you are talking about wholehearted worship, or joy in God, then using the word charismatic is inappropriate, in that the Reformed movement can be marked by these things (not that all Reformed peeps are).
Word meaning is defined ultimately by usage rather than history and etymology -- so I reckon Kel and Phillip have got caught up on definitions and failed to say anything much that actually relates to 'Reformed Charismatics' themselves. But it's certainly worth questioning the helpfulness of the label...
Arthur
A Reformed Non-Cessationist?Yuck! The English major in me just rises up in dismay! It's almost a double-negative. I'm a non-non-believer-in-the-continuation-of-miraculous-gifts? Eep. ;)
Besides which, there are plenty of folks who are NOT cessationist, but that's not particularly descriptive of what they actually ARE.
Regarding what "Reformed Charismatic" actually IS, I think Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms give great definitions, Grudem in his Systematic Theology and Storms in his essay in, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?Mikey, you said: I personally wouldn't want to use a label that has been so abused. You mean like "Christian"?
Is there an element to this discussion that I'm not getting because I'm American? I'm getting a sense from y'all that the term charismatic is pretty repugnant to a lot of folks there and I just don't see the same kind of visceral reaction here, even amongst cessationists.
@Laura - maybe there is a difference in experience between US and Oz, good point.
The advantage of non-cessationist Reformed is that it is clumsy. Because I'd say that the significance of belief in continuance/non-continuance of miraculous gifts is pretty unimportant... because miraculous gifts are pretty unimportant.
That's the hangup, I reckon, if the reason for wanting to add 'charismatic' as a label is theological, it's troubling, because the theological distinctive is minor.
If the reason is cultural/stylistic (we raise our hands when we pray, we engage emotionally in our public gatherings), then it is a bit sloppy.
Perhaps Charismatic-ish is a good label? :-)
Or Driscoll's term, "charismatic with seatbelts"?
it is available on phillipjensen.com
thanks
"charismatic with seatbelts"?
How about"Calvinists with extra grunt"?!
did you notice the video has been taken down
I post this over with murray....
Hi there
I hope you don't mind me joining the conversation.
it seems to me that there is two axis that we move along in one of two directions.
reformed and arminian are the two ends of one line.
cessationist and continuationist are on the other.
different people are moving in different directions, and as Storms suggests, sometimes converging.
for example
driscoll has moved from a more arminian to a more calvinistic/reformed position regarding his soteriology whilst at the same time becoming a little more cautious yet still continuationist in regards to how the miraculous works today. (the seat belt is tighter than when I started listening to him 5 years ago)
sam storms is moving the other direction from a cessationist to a cautious continuationist position ( as did Wayne Grudem from within a reformed soteriology), which he argues for in his book.
some 16 years ago I began as an arminian continuationist in the fellowship now known as day spring - but by God's grace I would say I have now come to a better and more biblical soteriology (I am a reformed) and a much more cautious postiion re continuationism - particularly in relation to a doctrine of Revelation.
I would caution against those who for example supernaturalise gifts like prophesy beyond what scriptures warrants. Grudem is incredibly helpful in this regard in distinuishing the functional and authoritive difference between apostolic teaching and the gift of prophecy (its also helpful for explaining how it is that women can prophecy but not teach)
but what I am still for is an expression of evangelicalism that is both intellectually serious, biblically faithful and experimentally powerfully.
My take is that often those who want to adopt the reformed charismatic label are looking for a badge that expresses their pious wishes for a more powerfully experimental evangelicalism more than the theology it represents.
I would also argue that "charismatic" is a largely confusing category because in our australian context it has strong linkage with arminian theology and the excesses of enthusiastic movements that loose their moorings too quickly from scripture and particularly an unhelpful and potentially destructive doctrine of revelation.
Peter I think you are right that Driscoll goes further re revelation and warfare, though he may be heading in a different direction to the third wave (which is less cautious) so it is an unhelpful category.
another grave concern I have is in the area of demonology.
it would seem that repentance by itself, and sin appropirately confessed, is not enough for the believer who has given the accuser footholds and handholds to influence them. the implication of this can be devastating for their assurance and the doctrine of sanctification, which defintely would take you away from solid reformed theology. the more 'charismatic' you are here, the less claim you really have for being reformed at all.
I prefer to say I am reformed and a cautious continuationist.
I wonder why they pulled it down. Dan Brown would know...
Thanks for your comments, Shane. I agree with you heaps.
the other thing I was oging to say was thAT YOU CAN'T SEPARATE the work of God in salvation from the work of the Holy spirit. so at some point a reformed pneumatology is oging to come into conflict wiht a charismatic pneumatology. I have suggested a wierd demonlogy hurts your sanctification and assurance for one.
the question that PDJ raises for me is this - is the idea of being reformed charismatic just an indication that charismatics have hijacked understandings of the work of the Holy Spirit and charicatured reformed types as not having an understanding of the spirit? so if you are reformed - it is somehow deficient , hence the need to be charismatic and reformed... I reckon that would get Calvin chucking a huge tanty!
yup. I'm with Mikey re
"I personally wouldn't want to use a label that has been so abused."
I wouldn't/don't want to (esp. in Oz)
"I'd want to say that any belief in the miraculous flows happily out of reformed theology."
I do.
"So the only reasons you'd want to use the label 'charismatic' are:
1. Historical - you've come out of that movement."
If anything, I (rarely) say that I'm from a Charismatic background. I generally don't find it relevant or helpful to the spread of the gospel or God's glory.
"@Laura - maybe there is a difference in experience between US and Oz, good point."
Yes, vastly. In the US the word doesn't have a negative connotation. Full stop.
Of course, in the US there are great numbers (the majority?) of Charismatics and Pentecostals who aren't health and wealth. In Oz, I've yet to see it. Maybe that's where the distaste comes in?
I'm a bit late to this conversation, I know, but I've blogged my thoughts on this video here:
http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/reformedcharismatics/
Just a couple of things. I get what they mean about the fruit of the Spirit making someone more like Christ but I totally disagree with the notion the gifts are un-important. Where in scripture does God through any writers of the New Testament Scriptures call he gifts un-important? He doesn't. Even in 1Corinthians 12-14 which is the big text on Spiritual gifts, the Corinthian church, even though they struggled with pride and were thus using the gifts for the wrong reasons, Paul, inspired of the Spirit never tells them not to exercise the gifts if God has given them to them. His definition of Charismatic is quite un-informed and quite un helpful in my opinion.
Hey Timmy, thanks for commenting.
It's not that Phillip is saying gifts are UNimportant, but RELATIVELY unimportant. I think a careful examination of 1Corinthians 12-14 would bear that out. It'd be worth listening to Phillip's full sermons on those chapters from phillipjensen.com
As for calling Phillip uninformed, you could call him many things, but uninformed is definitely not one of them. That would be to be guilty of your own accusation :-)
Post a Comment