From afar, I have loosely followed the Strange Fire conference. This conference was hosted by John MacArthur and dealt with the charismatic movement. MacArthur is increasingly concerned about the impact of charismaticism worldwide.
Tim Challies has posted summaries of each of the main sessions from this conference. And I have scanned through several of them and followed the reaction to this event online.
Why would I be concerned about this conference? I am not charismatic so wouldn’t I be praising the work of MacArthur in exposing the errors of the prosperity gospel and charismatic excesses? I would if that was what this conference was about. But MacArthur and the other speakers go beyond combating charismatic excess to dismissing all charismatics as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Adrian Warnock, a reformed charismatic pastor and blogger who I have followed for years, was understandably concerned that MacArthur was saying that even reformed charismatics are not genuine believers. In MacArthur’s final address, he dealt with seven criticisms of the conference and does not back down. He claims most of the charismatic movement is outside the body of Christ. Quoting from Challies’ summary: “this is a movement made up largely of non-Christians that lacks accountability.”
Warnock’s reaction to this is understandable:
So, there you have it, I am a part of a movement which according to MacArthur is worse than liberalism, and… has nothing good to offer the church, oh and “most” of us are not even Christians.
To be very clear, I have no problem with other Christians holding to a different posisition on the gifts of the Holy Spirit than I do. I do also recognise… there are many different possible positions. MacArthur seems to have missed all these nuances and simply wants to reject all charismatic thinking as heretical.
My primary concern is the divisive spirit and tone that permeates this conference. If you read Warnock’s post you can understand my concern. Let me be clear, however. I do not endorse the prosperity gospel, nor the over-the-top actions of self-appointed Pentecostal TV preachers and evangelists. Most of them are frauds and do serious damage to the cause of Christ, in America and especially in third world countries where they prey on the hopes of the poor. But it is one thing to join with careful charismatic brothers and denounce error, and quite another to write off an entire branch of the body of Christ and exclude them from grace because they differ with your interpretation of Scripture.
This charismatic issue, and the question of whether the miraculous gifts continue today, is important. It does have an effect on how one will do church, and I can understand how it makes it hard for cessationists to yoke up with continuationists in ministry. But just like we shouldn’t assume that all non-Baptists are not saved, neither should we assume that everyone taking a different position on this issue is necessarily possessed by a demon.
Since I have waded out into this realm of controversy, let me offer two posts for your perusal that get at the heart of the controversy. Tom Pennington provided a biblical defense of cessationism at the Strange Fire conference – see Challie’s summary of that session. Andrew Wilson provided a biblical response and defense of continuationism (that the gifts continue). For my part, I think the case by Wilson is stronger than that given by Pennington.
I am all for protecting the church from spiritual abuse in the name of “the Spirit told me you should…”. Prophecy and words of knowledge have great potential for harm. But I cannot read 1 Cor. 14 and other places in the NT and not give the charismatics some benefit of the doubt. There is something being talked about and advocated there that differs from the church practice of many cessationists today. Furthermore, I look down the corridors of history and see numerous examples of revivals accompanied by unexplained spiritual experiences. I see missionaries talking of miraculous manifestations of God’s power in dark lands. And I see the history of the saints, with exaggerated tales, but tales, nonetheless of miracles being pivotal in the advance of the Church. And then I read Acts 2’s quotation of Joel 2 as being fulfilled in the church age and I cannot but be open to the Spirit moving in miraculous ways among the church today. For more on this, I would recommend John Piper’s sermon series on this topic.
So I remain open and cautious in my stance toward the miraculous gifts. I lift Scripture up as sufficient. I don’t need experiences to bolster my faith – but experiences have bolstered my faith. We need to be careful to try the spirits and test the prophets, yes. But we cannot and should not quench the Spirit. I can do no better than to conclude with the words of Paul in 1 Thess. 5:19-21.
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
I can share some of your concern with the Strange Fire Conference, but I think we must be careful that we are not doing to MacArthur and his position, what he is being accused of doing to the Charismatic movement. Furthermore, there is plenty of Biblical support for cessationism. In addition, the charlatans have taken over charismatics and it is a shame. We see too many examples of Scripture being ignored in the charismatic circles, no structure to fellowship (1 Corinthians 14:20-40). I have been to numerous churches who encourage a dismantling of order for the sake of tongues which is clearly unbiblical.
These Churches will encourage everyone to just start speaking in tongues as once, without an interpreter. Too many of the so called “full-gospel” churches provide an atmosphere for “tongues” and ignore the Scripture. In addition, miracles are not about the glorification of God, but for the sake of man. This behavior must cease. Our Pentecostal brothers and sisters must first go to the Word of God, and not to their own pet spiritual gift ignoring all others. How many churches will chose to demand a requirement of tongues for proof of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, again this is contrary to Scripture (1 Corinthians 12:29-31).
I think we need to discuss these concerns not to attack or disparage each other, but we also have to stand for the Scripture, and proper understanding of Scripture. Please give proper study to this topic (1 Timothy 2:15) before entering into a fray doing the very thing you are accusing others of doing.
Paul,
I share many of the same concerns you do with charismaticism – which is why I don’t consider myself a charismatic. Someone on Facebook pointed out that some of the hyper-charismatics do the same thing MacArthur does and question people’s salvation who don’t speak in tongues. So the rub does go both ways.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
~Bob
There is no biblical support for cessationism, as is clear from MacArthur’s inability to show any. His argument that revelatiry gifts are “foundational” and therefore had to have ceased is fallacious. He then says, well we have to look at church history to see when tongues ceased, and he is incredibly selective, quoting I think 4 post-Nicene fathers, and ignoring the dozen or so references to tongues and prophecy throughout the 2nd and early 3rd centuries.
Citing Adrian,
So, there you have it, I am a part of a movement which according to MacArthur is worse than liberalism, and… has nothing good to offer the church, oh and “most” of us are not even Christians.
To be very clear, I have no problem with other Christians holding to a different posisition on the gifts of the Holy Spirit than I do. I do also recognise… there are many different possible positions. MacArthur seems to have missed all these nuances and simply wants to reject all charismatic thinking as heretical.
I hate pointing out the obvious, but Adrian represents the extreme fringe of the Charismatic movement in spite of his insistence that SF was hitting the fringe excesses. The group is largely made up of unbelievers who need the Gospel. There is just no arguing this point. He – and I guess by extension, you Bob – are extremely myopic to the spiritual disaster that has happened to and is happening to people in the movement through out the world. If anyone paid attention to Conrad Mbewe’s messages, the face of christianity in Africa is not Adrian Warnock’s mild continuationist perspective stuffed into a calvinistic sock, or your open but cautious designation you present here, but it is the health and wealth charismania. It has essentially replaced witch craft and shamanism that was prevalent before TBN began exporting their swill to the continent. That is because it is entirely devoid of any sound, biblical doctrine and as a result the African continent remains still in bondage to spiritual darkness.
So Adrian and his fans can decry our being mean and hateful and unnecessarily divisive all they want, but they only make themselves to look naive and blind in the grand reality of things. They are a teeny weeny voice in the cacophony of what is the modern charismatic movement.
Fred,
I can agree that reformed charismatics, NewFrontiers and the like, are a numerical minority. That doesn’t make prosperity gospel a numerical majority however.
I have attended a small Assembly of God church pastored by an extended family member of mine, several times. This church is not reformed in doctrine by any stretch. And they would love to see more of the miraculous happen, I’m sure. But the times I have attended, there was no disorder, no manifestation of miracles, just a preaching of the Word and the singing of praise to Jesus. I would think this church is more representative of the numerical majority. People who express emotion to Jesus, who are open to miracles, who love the Word and sing praises. They may be in need of more doctrinal precision, but it could be argued that me and the church I attend, are in need of more emotional realism in our worship. Whatever the case, they are brothers and sisters in Christ – most of them, I would imagine. They are not advocating a full-blown prosperity gospel, and neither do they blindly follow the TV preachers and all the glitz and glamor.
Does pentecostalism need correction? Yes. Do charismatics need to take a stand against spiritual abuse in high places, and the health and wealth, prosperity gospel evangelists who belittle Jesus by their self-promotion? Yes. But writing off all of charismaticism as Holy-Ghost-blaspheming, un-believers tickled by a demonic spirit — that is going too far and will do more harm than good.
If MacArthur is being misunderstood and misrepresented – he has the stage and can take pains to be clear that he really does not assume most of the charismatic movement are un-believers. But as Adrian Warnock pointed out, that does not seem anywhere close to what he did in the concluding session. For my part, I hope MacArthur doesn’t really believe that most charismatic churches are mostly comprised of un-believers. I hope he is being misunderstood. But nothing I have seen from Strange Fire has given me any basis for that hope.
This isn’t about one side calling another “mean”, “hateful”, and “divisive.” It is about one side calling another “un-believers” and having “no contribution to sound doctrine and worship” and being “worse than liberalism.” Where is “striving to maintain the unity of the spirit” in that?
In Christ,
Bob
But that is just it. We were very specific with what we were and still are addressing and any one claiming we are saying anyone who is charismatic is not saved has miss heard us either intentionally or unwittingly. Please give me a context where anyone would go away thinking that SF condemned any and all charismatics, pentecostals, etc. as unsaved?
Fred,
The response of MacArthur in his concluding session to this critique: “They are attacking brothers.” His reply per Challies: “MacArthur wishes he could affirm this. From his vantage point, this is a movement made up largely of non-Christians that lacks accountability.”
Additionally, he stated: “the [charismatic] movement itself has brought nothing that enriches true worship. It has made no contribution to biblical clarity, biblical interpretation or sound doctrine.”
That coupled with the reaction from people who have heard the messages and assumed that there was no qualification and that the message was directed against the entire movement. Warnock has also pointed out that MacArthur thinks all charismatics blaspheme the Holy Spirit — even the name of the conference implies this: “Strange Fire” as in not pure at all.
I’m not the one doing the conference, if this misuderstanding abounds – and it does, then it should be GTY and MacArthur that clarify the conference really wasn’t attacking every charismatic in the pew but only the big dogs in the prosperity gospel movement. But you yourself above state that 90% of the movement is prosperity gospel – when I would argue patently that it isn’t.
He goes on, Fred, to distance himself from charismatic music styles and emotional worship. How is that not a direct assault on the average charismatic? The conference did not bill itself as only attacking a specific wing of the movement – the promotional material I saw said he is concerned with the impact of the charismatic movement. Implication – this is a conference against the charismatic movement as a whole.
Please point me to where it was stated what the conference really was about, as I have yet to hear that. I’d be glad to be proved wrong on this point, really I would.
Additionally see MacArthur’s response to this critique (#4): This issue is only true of the extreme lunatic fringe side of the movement.
Paul there is no ways that Bob is doing the same thing. John is denying that charismatics are following Jesus – an extremely difficult to claim to back up in light of what the bible says about confessing christ as lord. Bob is simply evaluating his claims and not said ANYTHING about John’s salvation!!!
And Fred trying to suggest that the majority of pentecostal africa is unsaved and is “entirely devoid of any sound, biblical doctrine”?
Bob congratulations for separating yourself from any team or agenda. It seems you will have your hands full. But I am not sure what the consequences will be for you – it seems that many of you guys sort of practise your faith from the peacefulness of your study? many of you guys seem to love reading and list theology as a “hobby”. i am unable to distibguish any typical personality type in the charismatic churches. it is the biggest potpourri of races, economic, academic and cultural backgrounds, and personlaity types.
My biblical experiences with the spirit of god have only pointed toward the word of god. the two go together, just as is described in the word. not to mention that the word is spiritual – it is the sword of the spirit and needs to actually be practised. if we handle it without this vital component – the dynamic of which is amply described by paul in what i can only assume you guys think must be a series of voodoo seances – then it becomes dry and useless, as we have seen in the ineffectiveness and dwindling numbers of the mainline churches against the 180 degree change in worldviews over the past century.
as for healing and restoration, inside and out, just as the word indicated, there is ample, balanced testimony. it is a fire which the cessationists have not been able to control, and yes, this over millenia, as bob truthfully reflects.
how much healing happens for you guys? is there healing inside the study?
the sentiment expressed in many cessationist posts often has, as fred mentions, a mean tone and suggests a kind of dryness and hardness, not to mention carnal reasoning that I can only imagine.
not sure who jesus singled out more: the crazies or the judgmental and legalistic?
apologies for writing so hurriedly, gotta go 🙂
and boys, i am sure there is alot that we can agree on. sola scriptura, jesus is the only way, being clear on sin and the need for repentance, god’s material and physical provision for those in need (come on), israel, disciplining our kids, evolution, sharia, end-times, anti-semitism, societal trends toward humanism, social justice doctrines. well maybe not on that last one: wikipedia says 50% of the mainline churches hold “liberal” views 😉
may god richly bless you and apologies for any offence that may be felt
Thanks Charles. I sit in my “study” but I try to live out my faith at work and in my areas of service in my local church. Not a mainline church either – a Baptistic church. Thanks for stopping by.
Blessings,
Bob
There is a silly picture at the top of this post, but the post is quite serious.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2013/10/john-macarthur-sends-500000000-charismatics-to-hell/
It is another response to MacArthur’s initial message from the conference. I’ve seen other responses to it that are similar. Maybe MacArthur didn’t mean to be understood this way – but his message struck a nerve.
I cannot but read a post like this and not be affected. Oh to be careful not to offend. I’m now thinking of the passage where Jesus says that anyone who would offend a little one should put a millstone about his neck and be thrown in the sea. Many of the charismatic churches and believers could be considered weak in doctrine – from MacArthur’s view. And as such, offending them would be similar to what Jesus said. I’m not sure how hopeful and corrective such a lambasting and condemnatory speech really can be.
Bob, that cartoon is blasphemous. The very idea of God being thrown in Hell by Dr. MacArthur is not silly. It’s wicked and wrong. You should know better than that.
Jay
I am in no way endorsing the cartoon. I think it takes away from the message of the one writing that post – I only share it as it shows the extent of the knee-jerk reaction from hearing the session.
Very typical ‘open and cautious’ viewpoint here. Really thinks it’s being sensitive and humble, when really it’s a pride in non-confrontational, non-convictional blase modern Christianity. Woohoo, go hipsterism!
MacArthur is very good at being opposed to things and has developed a reputation for being one of those guys who is “always right”.
I’d rather have a reputation for what I am FOR – namely, Jesus Christ.
agreed
Bob,
That’s a little disingenuous to agree to this statement, since MacArthur has constantly, and consistently demonstrated his love and proclamation of Jesus Christ. But as he has said, it will not mean you will not be “against” things. Whether we would say it his way or not, or agree with him or not, a pastor will teach his people what he believes the Bible says is right or wrong. To not “preach against” is to not preach the whole counsel of God.
Thanks Allen. I needed that.
It does seem that MacArthur has a reputation of being controversial and prominent in his being against certain positions – his being against amillennialism, his spat with Driscoll, etc. All that being said, I can see it form his perspective too. I do think we should strive to be FOR Jesus more, as Erik said. But MacArthur has certainly proven that with 40 years of faithful ministry and with teaching the word so carefully.
So I retract this. I stand by my post, and I am concerned that he is wrong on this point. But I don’t want to deride him in any way.
Thanks again.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
No one is saying that MacArthur doesn’t proclaim the gospel or that he is in anyway disingenuous in his ministry. All I am saying is that he has given the impression over the years that he is one of those guys who is “always right”. My impression of him has always been that he is more than willing to strike out at anything he does not agree with.
Of course there is merit in opposing error. Jesus opposed error.
But Jesus laid down his life for his sheep; and that is what defined his ministry.
When people look at you and all they see if “I am opposed to ___” and “____ is a heresy” and “______ is not a TRUE believer because…” then they are not seeing Christ, whether you are right or wrong.
I think too, that for those who haven’t sat through his years of teaching, or read his commentaries, or heard his radio show – all they see is the controversy. Younger believers especially, as the era of radio and tape ministry is not as prevalent now.
Perhaps, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he assumes people know the wider context of his ministry when he so forcefully runs after error.
There is something to be said for doing what is right no matter what people think of you. But there is also something to not giving offense and understanding how one’s actions will be perceived. Just because people are too quick to read between the lines and give more credence to tone than content doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about both tone and content. Speaking the truth in love at least includes speaking in such a way that the watching world will see you speak in love, at least as much as is humanly possible.
Try arguing with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or Knox or even Whitfield or Wesley! The great teachers and (dare I say prophets) all held to the principle of Sola Scriptura and believed that anything contrary to its main message (anything that affected our view of gospel or God or added or took away from them) was to be fought to the death.
If the Charismatic movement wants to know why it can never be embraced by the reformation spirit and those who claim to be its heirs, need go no further than this admission from the above article…”I am all for protecting the church from spiritual abuse in the name of “the Spirit told me you should…”. Prophecy and words of knowledge have great potential for harm”. &Quote. Are you kidding me? Prophecy and words of knowledge are harmful?- They are weapons of mass destruction!
Once you let the door squeeze open to allow for the possibility for the return of these gifts (which were necessary for an emerging church with the accompanying signs to confirm it Mark 10:20), then you have admitted that Scripture is not sufficient by itself. Cut the dribble about “its not on a par with Scripture” or “isn’t as authoritative” or is to be ‘tested’ by Scripture -because the vast majority of what is being claimed as being “said” by the Lord isn’t in the Scriptures and can’t be tested. So who can argue against what someone claims is “the Lord told me”? Indeed the very reason there is so much abuse in this system is because no one in it dares to, in case they are speaking against what the Lord has said.
This is nothing short of extra Biblical revelation that by definition must be authoritative because the “LORD has said” but by by extension must be gross error for the canon is closed. The early church can teach us a lesson or two here because it suffered not this heresy to take root when it first reared its head as Montanism.
Surely a tree is known by its fruit, and as others have mentioned on here, look at the disaster that is Africa and might I add, South America. One only has to look at the seed, which was Azusa St, that sprouted this weed, to know that it should have been plucked out by its very roots.
When charismatics are seen to give more emphasis on the ‘fruits’ of the Spirit as the sign of spiritual life and maturity rather than the so called ‘sign gifts’ which Jesus says (Matt 7:21-23) are NO proof of spirituality at all, then there may be cause to have hope for the movement.
As it stands I will take my place with Luther and Calvin …”who had to defend the absolute authority of the Bible against the fanatics, who boasted of immediacy of revelation by the Spirit. Today, the miraculous, the unusual, the pragmatically “helpful” govern the approach of many to the Word so that what they find is only the confirmation of their experiences. The slogan, “The man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument,” is highly dangerous and anti-Christian. A miracle, a “changed life,” may be used as the final “proof” which closes all argument and brings down charges of resisting the Spirit upon those who wish to exercise reserve. But if a position is not in accordance with the Bible, it is wrong-irrespective of experience. Luther insisted that that which does not agree with Scripture is to be rejected “even if it snows miracles every day.” – John Robbins.
Allen Mickel was generous in describing Erik D’s comment or Bob’s response to it as disingenuous.
John MacArthur has made over forty years of his sermons available for free on the GTY.org website. In addition to the streamable/downloadable audio files, the vast majority of sermons also have full transcripts available. For my own use, I have a bookmark to a google search page with “site:www.gty.org/resources/sermons” prepopulated to quickly search any and every verse/doctrine/topic that MacArthur has preached on.
John MacArthur would not be a faithful teacher of God’s Word if he didn’t call out the false teaching that is found here, there and everywhere – even in the YRR ranks.
Eric D showed himself to be quite uninformed of the entire work of MacArthur.
SDG
After I finished seminary in 1989, I pretty much tapered off on MacArthur, because I came to realize that he never engages the best representatives of any given movement. He didn’t substantially engage Dr. Charles Ryrie on Lordship Salvation, he attacked Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkins instead, both extremists who were easily refuted. He attacked the seeker church movement by mischaracterizing Bill Hybels. He doesn’t engage Drs. Wayne Grudem or D.A. Carson on spiritual gifts — both respected conservative theologians and Calvinists like himself — he goes after heretical kooks like Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn, or he goes after lightweights like Jack Deere and then claims the kooks and lightweights represent everyone. His book on the emergent church/postmodernism was similarly flawed, vs. D.A. Carson who carefully looked at the writings of just one emergent-church leader.
The hinge of his entire view is that all forms of revelation — dreams, visions, angelic appearances, divine guidance — they all = Scripture. But they didn’t all = Scripture *even when Scripture was being written*, so his fundamental principle is untrue.
Are you serious? Did you even read the Gospel According to Jesus? It pretty much dealt with Ryrie’s view on Lordship throughout. Besides, how is Ryrie substantially different from Hodges? And I take it, probably like Bob here, you haven’t even bothered to watch any of the sessions, because both Carson and Grudem were both dealt with substantially as well, particularly by Nathan’s two breakout sessions. Geesh.
I believe that if we do not accurately understand all of particular functions that the offices of apostle and New Testament prophet fulfill in their part of building up the body of Christ, we will then be vulnerable to misjudging whether or not there is a continuing need for someone to fulfill these functions today.
In other words if I misunderstand all that an officer is responsible for I will also be prone to misunderstand when these responsibilities have been fulfilled.