How we Read the Bible: Study & Inspiration

When we read our Bibles what are we listening for?

If you hang around us Reformed types for very long, you'll soon begin to hear things like, "We need to understand this in the context of the rest of Scripture," or "We shouldn't read this story moralistically," or "Calvin has this to say about this verse..." 

If you hang around us charismatic types very long you'll soon begin to hear things like, "As I was reading this verse this morning, the Lord spoke to me about...," or "As I was praying this phrase came to mind, I found it in Scripture, where there was this prophetic word. I think what God is saying in this is...," or "This verse keeps coming back to me, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean."

And although it would be easy to caricature, we find these two tendencies in these two camps. By exaggerating them only slightly, we could name one the tendency toward scholarship and the other the tendency toward serendipity. I'm going to discuss those tendencies below.

Before I do, I want to say that I know Reformed types who, in addition to a keen sense of scholarship, are also quick to come to more than merely scholarly conclusions as they read the Bible. I also know of charismatics who are serious students of the Bible and are quite adept at understanding the literary, historical and cultural nuances that can inform the study of Scripture. And I know of average people in both these movements with a genuine appreciation of both of these styles, if you will, of reading Scripture. So I'm talking about tendencies, not anything more.

Why talk about this at all?

Before going on, I'd like to talk about why I think we should talk about how we read the Bible. It's my belief that both camps have something to learn from each other here. Which is to say, both the Reformed camp and the charismatic camps have some weak spots in how we read the Bible. By joining the strengths of each (and identifying and setting aside the weaknesses of each), both groups can find in Scripture reading, more than we realized that God wants us to have. Today, I'm writing to both groups.

Reformed Biblical Scholarship

Us Reformed types love to study the Bible. We do. We love to study it in every way we can think of: in all it's literary forms, as the unfolding of the redeeming work of God from beginning to end, as God's self-revelation, as the only final authority for this life and the next, and more. The inspired Word of God, breathed into its human authors by the Holy Spirit Himself.  

And when we read the Bible, we read it theocentrically: we see God as the central character in every story, the One always acting, if not in the lines, between the lines. We love to stand in awe and wonder at the way He keeps moving history and His people forward, and at the ways in which His people resist Him, reject Him, and follow other gods. Yet God's sovereignty and grace keep showing up as the Story unfolds. 

Because we see the Bible theocentrically, and as our only final authority, we don't want to miss anything. So we study it. And study it. And study it. We use all the tools we can find: lingustic, literary, cultural, historical, theological, and combine these (and perhaps other disciplines) in an attempt to tease out every nuance we can find.

But there's a down side. All of this study, all of this effort goes on and on, even when our personal and spiritual lives remain unaffected by what we're reading. Not that this always happens, but when it does, we don't always notice. It's been said, "No one can go down deeper, stay down longer and come up drier than [certain] theologians." (I'll not name the "certain" theologians in the quote as I heard it.) Sometimes Reformed Biblical scholarship can be like that. Hours of work teasing out the slightest nuance that doesn't make the slightest difference in the life of the scholar, nor the student.

I'm reminded of the story of the cartographers who spent their lives making the finest maps, but were aghast at the thought of leaving their desks to go to the places they so carefully documented: they were cartographers, not "explorers" (a word they spoke with a sense of disdain born of a sense of superiority).

Okay. Yes, that's a bit unfair to many, many Reformed scholars and pastors, who are geniuses at application. Who see not only the truths, but their value for us as people living today. 

And yet, there still often seems to be a disconnect between the truth of the inspiration of Scripture and the on-going work of the Holy Spirit to breathe these words into us anew. We do not expect that a primary source for understanding Scripture is the Spirit Who lives within us. We sort of think His work with Scripture is done, and if He is involved in some way with His Word today, it's in a mystical, hidden sense, that seems so utterly subjective as to not be available for study or even much serious comment.

Charismatic Serendipity

Charismatics aren't the only people who read the Bible for serendipitous experiences. (Serendipity refers to finding unplanned, pleasant surprises.) But charismatics often prefer to read the Bible this way. We like to read Scripture "until God says something to us." In contrast to the theocentric reading in Reformed circles, in charismatic circles the Bible is often seen primarily as God's Word to us. The reading is anthropocentric (people-centered). Charismatics don't just read the Bible in the sense that God wants to speak to people in general, nor even to the Church in particular,  but in the sense that when I read the Bible, I expect God to speak to me. 

In many respects, this is symptomatic of much of individualistic Evangelicalism in America. But in charismatic circles, there is a genuine expectation that every time I read the Bible God has something He wants to say to me, or perhaps through me to someone else. This expectation is directly related to how charismatics understand our relationship with God as being both dynamic and highly personal.

The downside, or weak side of this can be seen in the simple fact of this being so highly subjective. We humans often underestimate our capacity for self-deception. It's easy to find what we are looking for, to find the affirmation or justification we are looking for and expecting. We call it "confirmation."

I have read and been with charismatics who take this approach to such an extreme that they begin to read into the Bible what isn't there at all. One example is to interpret historical narrative as allegory. Sometimes these allegorical interpretations are still in line with Biblical Christianity, coming to the right conclusions with the faulty approach to Scripture. But to me, such an approach actually dishonors both the text and the Spirit Who inspired it to be written the way it actually is written.

I will also mention, but say little more than this: the level of Biblical illiteracy among some charismatic groups is head-shakingly appalling. The serendipitous expectation in reading Scripture moves some to a sort of Biblical laziness. Why do the "homework" of studying, when the Spirit will just tell me what He wants to say? There can even be a suspicion of serious study, when study is seen as mere "head knowledge," and what God supposedly wants is "to speak directly to our hearts."

Combining the Strengths of Both Approaches

As we begin to think about combining a theocentric approach to reading Scripture with an anthropocentric, way of approaching the reading of Scripture, and as we begin to think of combining a scholarly approach with a serendipitous one, it's my goal that we will find a mutual benefit in a cross-fertilization of theology and practices regarding Scripture.

Combining a Theocentric and Anthropocentric Reading of Scripture

First, let's acknowledge that Scripture should be seen from both a theocentric and anthropocentric perspective. It is God's self-revelation, and it is God's self-revelation to us. He tells us who He is, and He tells us in a way that invites us into a relationship. These are two poles that have tended to divide us into two camps, are really two aspects of the same reality.

The resulting practice from accepting this duality of approach is that we should find two complementary drives: to study the text and to listen personally to the text. The theocentric approach to Scripture ought to drive us to want to understand all of what God says about who He is. Both Reformed and charismatic want to know everything we can know about God. The study of Scripture as Gods self-revelation seems an obvious avenue to know God better and know Him more.

Also the idea that in Scripture God speaks to His people, should drive us to listen to not only what God has said, but what He is still saying. We should listen to Him speak not just in general, but to us personally. God wants us to not only know Him but also respond to Him in the ways He has revealed Himself. In the end, if my reading of Scripture doesn't transform me, I'm not reading it as God intended.

The two impulses are complementary, each driving the other. My study of the God of the Bible drives me (or should) to know and submit myself to Him. The Bible through which God speaks to me is worthy of careful study and attention, because it is God's Word to His people--to me.

The Inspiriation and Re-inspiriation of Scripture

Both Reformed and charismatics agree that the Scriptures were written as people were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2Peter 1:21). And we agree that All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (2Tim. 3:16). This commonality drives us in both directions (theocentric and anthropocentric) as well. But it hopefully reminds us that the origin of Scripture is the inspiration of God through the Holy Spirit. ("Inspiration" means to breathe in; God's Spirit breathed the Scriptures into people who wrote them down.)

In one sense the Scripture is a record of what God said, how He inspired His Word into people at a certain place, at a certain time, to communicate a specific message. As our esteem for God's Spirit grows, we charismatics should become more and more interested in what God's Spirit has said in the past, and we should want to know all the circumstances involved in the message and its meaning. Likewise, we in the Reformed movement should understand that God's Word in a certain time and place was intended to move people to respond (God was not simply giving them information).

In respectfully reading the inspired Word of God, we should also take into consideration the idea of re-inspiration. That is, that the same Holy Spirit who first breathed these words into the Biblical writers, now lives within us and breathes His written Word anew into us. In this way the written Word of God becomes living and active (Heb. 4:12) in us, verses merely a static object for scholarly study. As we read Scripture we can expect that God's Word is still accomplishing the purpose for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

Wrapping This Up

 There is more, much more that could be said, here. Some of this was hinted at (for example, how our differing views of how God relates to us shapes our approach to Scripture), some was not (how the Reformed movement prefers reading the Bible in community, rather than individually, and the opposite tendency among charismatics). But these basic difference will illustrate some of what we have to learn from each other. I hope it helps us sit down and start a conversation, where both sides believe we have something to contribute, and something to learn.

Is There a Second Blessing? And If So, What Is It?

What is meant by the term "Second Blessing"?

In doing a search through my digital library (I have almost 6,000 resources in my favorite Bible-study program: Logos). I find a wide variety of uses for this phrase (I get 528 results in 244 resources). Many are related to the question of the day, some are not. I find that there are three primary ways this term is used, one is in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition, another is in an elitist (super-Christian) sense, the other in a more generic sense. I'll deal with these three (preferring the latter) and then offer some personal conclusions

Weslyan Understanding of the Second Blessing

In Weslyan tradition, the "second blessing" refers to instant and entire sanctification. Here's a quote:

From Wesley, Pentecostals also inherited the idea of a crisis “second blessing” subsequent to salvation. This experience he variously called “entire sanctification,” “perfect love,” “Christian perfection,” or “heart purity.” Wesley’s colleague John Fletcher was the first to call this a “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” an experience that brought spiritual power to the recipient as well as inner cleansing. 

Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901–2001 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), p.2

What exactly Wesley meant by this is subject to some debate (some argue that he still saw some growth in sanctification subsequent to this experience), but he did understand the concept of the "second blessing" as personal sanctification--primarily an inner working of the Spirit. That is to say, he understood this to mean that a person was not only justified before God, but through this experience was also entirely sanctified.

Much of the Pentecostal Holiness churches understand this concept in the same way. However, I'm not going to do a lot of historical and theological comparison here. I only want to acknowledge the presence of this use of this phrase ("second blessing") and what it means in these circles.

Such an understanding is quite foreign to the concept of sanctification articulated in the Reformed stream. Further, I find it to be quite removed from both experience (personally and with others) and the discussion of sanctification. If entire sanctification were available to the Corinthians, or the Galatians it would have made those books much, much shorter. Let's just leave it at that. (With apologies to those in the Holiness tradition that see how I have overly simplified their position. I hope I have not caricatured the concept of "the second blessing" though. If I have, please enlighten me.)

The Second Blessing as an Experience for the Elite

Okay, I tipped my hand on this one already. There are some (I won't name them because it's too vague to pin this one down to a particular person or movement), who have used the term "second blessing" to refer to an experience that is reserved only for a few, or that in some way creates a class of elite, super-Christians.

Sometimes those who teach this, teach it in the way the gnostics of the early centures of the New Testament Church taught things. It would sound a bit like this: "We have special knowledge, not everyone has. If you do X (set of behaviors) and don't do Y (set of behaviors), and believe Z (set of truths), you too can be super-Christians just like us."

Without going into more detail, let's just lay this one down as completely unBiblical and unChristian. Galatians 3:1-5 speaks directly to this foolishness.

A More Generic Use of the term "Second Blessing"

When I talk about a more generic use of this phrase, I mean something not necessarily technical. That is, it does not necessarily point to a specific set of experiences, nor require a certain set of truths. Let me give some examples.

If I say I was blessed with a son, and two years later had a second blessing of another son, I'm not using the phrase "second blessing" in some technical sense, but in a more generic, or conversational sense. That is, first there was this blessing and then a second one came, maybe a third one followed, etc.

I might also use the phrase "second blessing" to talk about milestones in my personal life. Receiving a college degree was a great blessing, but just as important was the second blessing of a seminary degree. Or I might say it this way, "Graduating from seminary I received the blessing of an M.Div, degree. Because of that degree, and the endorsement of the denomination, I was able to receive a second blessing of being ordained as a Minister of theWord in the CRC." In the second case, I'm claiming a subsequent blessing, that depends on a first.

Now, what about an infilling, or receiving of the Spirit, or an experience of the Spirit coming upon me (please see my previous post on that topic) that happens sometime after my conversion? What if these experiences happen more than once? Would this be a second blessing? A third?

Why not? I hope that we all understand that our Christian life is not a plateau we reach upon conversion. As we live the Christian life we grow and become more and more Christlike in word and deed, within and without. Anyone disagree with that? I hope not.

What is to prevent me from understanding this growth in terms of blessings? That is to say, suppose I understand my own spiritual growth in terms of  Divine gifts and blessings, not merely my own effort. If so, it seems perfectly natural for me to talk about progress in my spiritual life as blessings. If I would count them, I'd get far beyond the "second" blessing," wouldn't I?!

Now, let's suppose that from a completely subjective point of view I have an amazingly life-changing experience of God's power released in me that I see it as second only, in personal and spiritual results, to my own conversion. Would it be wrong to talk about such an experience as a second blessing? I don't think so. I think, it's just an acknowledgement of something secondary and subsequent to a previous blessing (in this case conversion). Does such a claim put me in an elite class of super-Christians? Not necessarily. Maybe, I see it as just coming up from sub-par to normal. Further, if I believe that the experience I had is available to any Believer who wants it, I'm not creating an elite class in the above sense, even if I am pointing toward an avenue of greater progress - which would be no different than pointing people to pray more, or read their Bibles more, or engage in private and corporate worship more.

Conclusions

When we use words and phrases, we should know what we mean by them. We should also understand that different people mean different things by using the same words. As we look at the phrase "second blessing" we should understand what is being said, and what they mean to communicate.

I believe we should also be open to profoundly life-changing experiences of God's presence and power in our life that happen both at, and subsequent to conversion. We can understand these experiences in many ways, but if they are a response to God's work in our lives, they are blessings.

I also believe that we should never interpret our own experiences to mean that through them we have somehow attained a level of spiritual maturity others, who have not had the same experience, do not have. That is the height of spiritual arrogance, and has no place in the life of a Believer, regardless of whether he/she considers him/herself Spirit-filled, or not (or whatever other self-designation you prefer).

What is the Baptism in/by the Holy Spirit?

Woo-boy! Here's a dicey topic!

Charismatics (and by that I mean all who practice using charismatic gifts and "power ministry") often talk about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. What is it? Is it Biblical? Does it still happen today? Many in the Reformed tradition deny that there is such an experience for believers today, usually considering it a one time event on that very first Pentecost Sunday.

Limitations

Let me tell you what I'm not going to do first: I'm not going to lay out every way that this idea is discussed among charismatics. There are just too many variations to account for them all. Neither am I going to lay down some definitive answer to that question that everyone will like or agree with. I'm going to give my answer to that question, as one who still wrestles with it, but has come to some tentative conclusions. As I answer that question, I answer from the perspective of growing up in the Reformed tradition, and who has had an experience many within charismatic circles would call a baptism in the Holy Spirit.

My Testimony of a Powerful and Sudden Experience of the Holy Spirit

I'm going to begin in a more charismatic style, by talking about my experience first, and then theologizing about it. (We in the Reformed tradition, typically theologize first.)

In 2004 I was struggling with my calling to ministry, my relationship with God, and with clinical depression. It wasn't pretty. The root of the issue (looking back) was spiritual. I knew I needed more from God than what I had. I wasn't sure what I needed, but being theologically careful, busy with ministry, and trying to keep up with spiritual disciplines was not enough.

My wife, Marcia, in visiting some friends came home with a book  called The River is Here that talked about how the author was struggling with her call to ministry, relationship with God, etc., and found what she was looking for at the revival breaking out at Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship (TACF, now called Catch the Fire). 

I wasn't impressed. I didn't know anything about TACF except that they had something about laughing in the Spirit and they got kicked out of the Vineyard. I dismissed it as irrelevant. I didn't even read the book.

But she kept insisting, reading me quotes from the book. Finally, reminiscent of the parable of the persistent widow, I gave in and we scheduled a visit to Toronto in January of 2004 for the Pastors and leaders conference.

Without going into all the details of what and how, I'll jump to the part where my life got changed. It was day 4 or 5 of the conference, we didn't have what we wanted, but were convinced that there was something real and available to us that we wanted and needed. Later that day there was an opportunity to be prayed for by John and Carol Arnott. Yes, it was one of those things where you line up and they walk by and put a hand on your forehead. I'd been in many of those lines the last few days, and didn't have what I knew I wanted and needed. This time, however, something powerful happened. (Please don't understand me to say that what happened to me, happened because it was John Arnott. God used him for me at that time. Period.)

It's hard to describe what happened when John put his hand on my forehead that time. I barely remember his touch. I do remember laying on the floor and feeling something wonderful and powerful flowing through and surrounding all of my being (body, soul and spirit). I have no idea how long I lay there. I don't know if I could have gotten up, but I knew I didn't want to. I wanted it to go on and on and on.

When I finally did get up, I was happy for the first time in months (years?). I didn't understand what had happened but I knew it was God. As I tried to walk, I felt like I had just spent a bit too much time in a hot tub. I felt good, but my muscles seemed sluggish and my mind just a bit overwhelmed. Some might have said I was 'drunk' in the Spirit (cf. Eph.5:18). I had no term for it, nor did I care then, nor now, about what to call it.

Since then, my life and my ministry have taken a turn. Something was released in me and from me, and my spiritual life soared. My depression lifted. All of life seemed to be brighter and more hopeful. I stopped being stoical, and began to be optimistic.

Was That Experience a Baptism in the Holy Spirit?

Some charismatics would say "Of course!" Others would say, "Well, what happened afterwards, shows that it was." Some Pentecostals would ask "But, did you speak in tongues?" Some in the Reformed tradition might just say, "Isn't that just psychological manipulation?" Some of my friends said "Let's just see if it lasts. Then we'll know, if it's real or not."

Here's my answer to the question "Was my experience a Baptism in the Holy Spirit:" I'm not sure. Before you say "cop out" let me explain.

For many, the phrase "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" is a technical term meant to describe a specific sort of event. There are many ways of describing the nature of that event. So many, in fact, that it's hard for me to say to what degree my experience fits or doesn't fit with those definitions.

As a Reformed believer, my instinct is to look to Scripture. The phrase being baptized in (or by) the Holy Spirit does occur in Acts 1:8, but it doesn't occur later. From Acts 1:8 we could easily conclude many things. PRMI, following R.A. Torry, suggest that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an initiation into power ministry. It's a good way of looking at the data. Pentecostals have traditionally said that the evidence of the baptism of the Spirit is speaking in tongues, which happened on Pentecost Sunday, but also the other times when the Spirit fell on people throughout Acts. And there are probably other ways of dealing with the Biblical texts.

But I'm not sure it's fair to the Bible to make "Baptism in the Spirit" a technical term. First, the term is not used with any sort of frequency that can help us understand it that way. Second, the more frequent term is usually "filled with the Spirit" (Acts 2:4; 5:8), or simply "received the Spirit" (Acts 8:17; 19:2), or "the Spirit came upon" (Acts 10:44; 19:6). Outside of Acts we don't find the concept of being baptized with or in or by the Holy Spirit (except 1Cor. 12:13, where it seems to simply refer to Christian water baptism).

Here's my conclusion: (using the most common Biblical way of speaking) I was filled with the Holy Spirit in a way I had never been filled before. The result was a shift in my personal spiritual life, and in my ministry. There is a definite before and after. If "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is your term for that, I'm comfortable with that. If not, that's fine too. Call it what you want. Just don't deny the reality, nor the blessing of what happened, nor deny that it was God Who did it.

My next blog post will discuss the so-called "Second Blessing." What does that really mean? Is it valid, or must we always reject it? Are we creating a spiritual 'elite' in this way?

The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit

Who Is the Holy Spirit?

As far as I know, both by reading and experience, we in the Reformed camp and we in the Charismatic camp do not have a different understanding of Who the Holy Spirit is. The Holy Spirit is a person (not a 'power' or 'projection') He is not an impersonal force, nor simply another mode of God's being. Reformed and Charismatics do not differ on the doctrine of the Trinity as it relates to any Person of the Trinity, including the Holy Spirit. (Yes, some weirdness exists in some writings within Pentecostal/Charismatic, and even some Reformed circles. However, by and large, we share a common orthodoxy in this regard.)

I trust that we would agree on this.

What Does the Holy Spirit Do?

Ah, there's the rub. We don't disagree per se, on the doctrine of the person of the Holy Spirit. But we don't agree on our understandings of how the Holy Spirit works in God's people. I trust this is also obvious, but I want to tease out the significant differences and suggest that the Charismatics are on to something the Reformed folks can receive as helpful.

Let me say that I'm deeply indebted to PRMI's Dunamis Project for clarifying this point for me and much of what I will say is taken, pretty much, right out of their book. However, the basics of this teaching is known outside of PRMI and Dunamis circles as well. Though not universal in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles, it is often acknowledged--often enough to be a teaching not unique to PRMI.

Spirit Within / Spirit Upon

A key distinction in Scripture on how the Spirit works among His People (as individuals and as the Church), is that He works within us and upon us. 

The Spirit Within: for Transformation

Briefly, when we read in Scripture about the Spirit being within us, what is emphasized is that He permanently dwells within us to transform us into the likeness of Jesus, producing the fruit of the Spirit, etc. That is to say, the Spirit is within to transform our character (e.g., Gal. 5:17-26). We also believe that all who come to faith in Christ do so because the Holy Spirit is at work within us drawing us to Christ, and that all who come to faith in Christ have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them (cf. Rom. 8:9). 

The above is not at all at odds with a Reformed understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit. Reformed theology would put it this way: The Holy Spirit is at work within us for our sanctification. Nor is this teaching absent from Charismatic circles. We would all agree on this work of the Spirit.

The problem we have in the Reformed tradition is that we have not seen the Spirit's work in any other way than this. Not that the Holy Spirit has not done more than that. We proclaim that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that the Bible is the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit, both of which go beyond a mere sanctifying influence.

The Spirit Upon: for Empowerment

When we find the preposition "upon" in relation to the Spirit we find that something other than personal transformation at work. There is something almost formulaic here: The Spirit came upon [name], and he/she [performed some mighty or miraculous deed]. The classic example is Sampson (Judges 14:6, 19; 15:14). 

Interestingly, in all these cases, the Spirit does not come upon and remain. But He seems to come upon until the task is accomplished. We aren't told what He does then (presumably He 'lifts' from the person), but later He may come upon again, as He does with Sampson. This kind of work of the Spirit is episodic.

This particular example is helpful, because there are few who would argue that Sampson was know for his godly character! Sampson was empowered to do these mighty deeds by the "Spirit of the Lord," for the sake of God's people. The Spirit did not seem to be at work on his character - at least not that we can tell from reading the Scriptures! (BTW, this serves as a warning to us that empowered ministry is not God's approval of one's moral choices, and may explain the disconnect between empowered ministry and moral failure in our day.)

We find that pattern in the Old Testament, do we find it in the New? We do! We find that Jesus applies this work of the Spirit to Himself in Luke 4:18, following His baptism where the Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove. Notice that Jesus does not do any healing or other miracles before the Spirit comes upon Him at His baptism - this is probably theologically and Christologically significant! (I may develop that conclusion later.)

There are some other interesting things we find with Jesus in regard to the Holy Spirit. In Luke 5:17 we read that "...the power of the Lord was present for Him to heal the sick." What a strange thing to say, unless the power of the Lord was not always present for Him to heal the sick! 

In Acts 1:8 Jesus promises that the disciples will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon them. This happened at Pentecost. The result was not so much in character transformation as in empowered ministry. But this isn't the only time the Spirit comes upon them. Acts 4:8 looks like a subsequent filling of the Spirit, as does Acts 4:31. Although the word "fill" is used, the formula: Spirit came upon [name] and they [empowered action]. The Dunamis course teaches a distinction in Greek verbs for 'filling' here, that I won't go into in this blog post. For our puposes the formula mentioned above is sufficient to identify a filling for empowerment from a filling for transformation.

In Acts 19:1-7 we read that some "disciples" who did not receive the Holy Spirit when they believed (Acts 19:2). How is this possible? Don't we believe that it is impossible to believe apart from the Spirit, and that the Spirit indwells all believers? We do. But something else happened here: Paul put his hands on them and the Spirit came upon them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:6). The problem in the text goes away, when we realize we're talking about two different workings of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit did enter them to bring them to faith, and to guide them in their faith, but the knew nothing of the empowering work of the Spirit. (Another option is to consider that these disciples and believers, were disciples of John and believed his message. But that creates other problems in the text: why doesn't Paul teach them about Jesus, rather than merely correcting their baptismal inadequacy? This option seems to force the text to fit a preconceived idea, rather than letting the text teach us something we may not have known.)

Why the "Spirit Upon" Idea is Helpful

Once we see in Scripture the idea of these two basic ways the Spirit works ("within" for transformation; "upon" for empowerment), we begin to find a door opened to empowered ministry that we may not have noticed before. In other words, if we assume that the only thing the Spirit does is transform our character, we will believe that ministry operates primarily out of transformed character. However, if the Spirit not only dwells within us, but can also come upon us, a way of understanding ministry also opens up for us. Namely, we begin to see that we are not merely vessels of the Spirit, but also conduits through whom the Spirit works.

The "Spirit upon" idea is also helpful in that when we see that the pattern in Scripture is that the empowerment in these events is episodic (the empowerment ends when the task is accomplished), we can understand some of the statements in Scripture (like Luke 5:17; Acts 4:8, 31), that don't fit with the idea of permanent indwelling of the Spirit.

Most importantly, this understanding shifts ministry from something transformed humans do for God (a la "if it's to be, it's up to me"), to something God does through our cooperation. The shift in perspectives is Copernican in significance. If our task is to get ourselves sanctified so that we can do God's work, not much will be done, except by the most holy, and most self-deluded. However, if our task is to be both transformed and empowered, then there is nothing that God cannot do through any of us (remember Sampson!). This is not to promote triumphalism, but dependence! In the end we can't really do anything, but God can do everything. He can even do it through people like you and me.

Next I'll take up the teaching on the Baptism of/in the Holy Spirit, a topic with which there is a wide variety of understanding!

Calvinists vs Charismatics vs Calvinists

So what's the problem, anyway?

Those of us in the Reformed tradition are often called Calvinists. I don't have a problem with that, except to say it's a bit inaccurate and overly limiting. Calvin was and is a major voice in the Reformed movement, but he's never been the only one. He may have been the most articulate of the Reformation period, but he was still one voice among many. On the other hand, outside of the Reformed tradition, most folks call us Calvinists.

Okay, so that was a bit of an aside. I'm just using alliteration to make my title more interesting since Calvinist/Charismatic sounds more interesting than Reformed/Charismatic.

Calvinists vs Charismatics

What makes us Reformed-types so weary of Charismatics? I have wondered that for a long time, and have come to the conclusion that the objections are more about our "culture" than the way we do theology. 

Of course many Calvinists are theological or practical cessationists. That is they do not believe that the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in Scripture are valid for today, or if they are, we are better off ignoring them. Calvin was a cessationist, and many followed his footsteps. As an aside, as I've read Calvin, his arguments seem more based on his experience than on a well-developed theology. That is to say, he seems to have assumed that these gifts ceased, but doesn't present a full, well-reasoned, Biblical argument explaining why.

But even for us non-cessationists, we are still wary. Why is that? I think it's because the Reformed movement was born out of a reaction to an understanding of Christianity that was primarily ritualistic and with a strong emphasis on mystical experiences (within the Roman rite, as well as via personal prayer times, visions, etc.), we in the Reformed movement have distanced ourselves from the idea that spiritual experience is authoritative in any sense. I know that this is an oversimplification, and doesn't fully take into account the pietistic parts of the Reformed tradition. However, whatever spiritual experience one might have is nearly always considered of lesser importance, and certainly lesser authority than Biblical study and interpretation.

That is to say, we really, really like objective Biblical theology, and have an innate suspicion of subjective spiritual anything.

Naturally, all this charismatic stuff is suspect because it's so experiential and subjective. With a wave of a hand and dismissive tone, we easily discount speaking in tongues, since "Who knows if it's tongues or just blibber-blabbering nonsense?" Visions or dreams we dismiss with a comment like "You can interpret them to mean anything you want." And healing? Well, anyone can be convinced that their back pain isn't quite as bad as it was a minute ago.

What's even stranger is when Reformed folks are confronted with direct evidence, like X-Rays, specific diagnoses, etc., that demonstrate miraculous healing with hard, objective facts, we are still reluctant to accept that this can happen, or if it does that it's in some way important, or could in any way suggest something normative. Why such reluctance? Honestly, I'm not sure, but it's because of either our reluctance as Westerners to believe in anything supernatural (that is our worldview is too "worldly"), or because we are so centered around our Bibles that anything outside of them doesn't really count (except for being moral). Or... (I'm just too mystified to come up with another explanation.)

Another reason we Reformed-types don't like charismatics may be because they are usually so happy. Admit it. We trust sober-judgment over enthusiasm any day. We also tend to be quite pessimistic about the world, about people and about the church. We can be very focused on depravity, and the sinful human condition, so focused that when we meet someone who isn't, we conclude that they don't take sin seriously enough. We also like suffering and are more inclined to admire a suffering saint, than a happy one. (I have no idea why--we just do).

Another thing I'll mention today, is that we are very, very skeptical of a mindset that expects everything to go as we imagine it should go. That's not all bad. The bad part is that we project onto a ministry of healing, or personal prophecy, a naive optimism about what God wants to do in these situations. In part, because of excesses in Pentecostal and charismatic circles, it's good to be wary. On the other hand, to paint all such practices with the same brush is not only unfair, it's a view based on our experience with extremes (a method of argument we reject for others, and should reject for ourselves).

A final objection, and probably the one that gets the most discussion is the objection that if we receive all the gifts mentioned in Scripture then we must accept prophecy. This is true. The objection states that accepting this gift puts God's words in the mouths of people, and creates a new source of authority. This objection is visceral, and in some circles is enough to put an end to any conversation about spiritual gifts today. The problem is that the objection fails to deal with the gift of prophecy, and makes the same mistake that some in charismatic circles make: equating the gift of prophecy with the office of prophet. All the gifts come to serve the church, not have authority in it, nor over it. (In a later blog, I'll talk about the gift of prophecy in more detail.)

[As I edit this post, I'm reminded of differences in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Pneumatology) as well. I'll take that up in a post devoted entirely to that subject.]

Charismatic vs Calvinist

If there is a visceral reaction by Calvinists to the gift of prophecy, there is also one by many charismatics (especially Pentecostals), to Calvinism. I've not done as much research on this, though I've heard the charges against Calvin and Calvinists sitting across the table with charismatics as well as in conferences. Where does this come from? I know of two primary sources of this conflict and I'll lay out what I know, assuming there's more that I don't know.

Theological differences: Arminianism vs Calvinism

Simply by historical circumstance, most Pentecostals are Arminian in their view of soteriology (doctrine of Salvation). Calvinists rejected Arminian soteriolgy overtly at the Synod of Dordt in 1618. The basic differences between historic Arminian soteriology vs Calvinistic soteriology have to do, not with the fact of predestination (see e.g. Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, 11), but with how predestination works. For Arminians, God predestined us based on knowing that we would choose Him. For Calvinists God predestined us so that we would choose Him. It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic difference in a nutshell (most other differences stem from this basic starting point).

This difference has led to charges, accusations, and sometimes vitriolic statements by both sides against the other. What has been said by both sides has been uncharitable and unfair (and will lead to the next point below). We should repent of creating caricatures of those with whom we differ for the express purpose of rejecting the movement with the caricature.

There's another reason I think charismatics are attracted to Arminianism: both find human experience an essential part of the equation. It's possible (though wrong-headed), given the starting point for Calvinistic soteriology, to conceive of a Calvinistic soteriology where people are saved by God regardless of their response to Him, or withoug anyone even bringing the Gospel to them. Such  a notion has actually been conceived. It's called hyper-Calvinism. The vast majority of folks in the Reformed camp reject it as unbelievably unBiblical. Still some in the charismatic camp paint all Calvinists with the hyper-Calvinist brush. That's unfair too.

Historical Reasons for the Animosity

Historically, some Calvinists, particularly cessationist Calvinists have been the most outspoken opponents of the various charismatic movements. There are many reasons for this opposition, most of it having to do with a commitment to cessationism (discussed briefly above). But I believe it's also because of our "cultural" commitment to a objective, dispassionate faith (also discussed above). Calvinists have frequently warned about the dangers of these movements, and are more likely to attribute anything supernatural to the devil than to God (which, given our theology of God's sovereignty seems strange).

In response, the mistrust and rejection has simply become mutual. It's understandable to mistrust people who say you're in league with the devil. I get that. But these folks don't speak for all of us Reformed-types. How about hearing from someone in that tradition who has both respect and admiration for what you have brought (or returned) to the Church.

In future posts I hope to develop further the intersection between the Reformed tradition and the charismatic understanding of what is available to believers today. I'm convinced we need each other. I look forward to exploring this intersection of perspectives.

[EDITED 07-06-14]

Why Reformed Charismatic?

So why a blog on being both Reformed and Charismatic? 

I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church. I'm now a pastor in that denomination. In 2004, I had a deep experience of God's presence and power that changed the way I live the Christian life. I became a charismatic.

In this blog I hope to explore where these two movements intersect and how it can be mutually beneficial for Reformed folks and Charismatic folks to listen to and learn from each other. I personally believe that the Reformed movement has much to offer charismatics, and that charismatics have much to offer us.

What is a Charismatic?

In using the word "charismatic" I'm not identifying with the charismatic movement of the 60's and 70's. Nor am I trying to distance myself from Pentecostalism, nor the so-called Third Wave, nor other subsequent movements like Toronto Airport (now Catch the Fire), Bethel Church (in Redding, CA), or anything else that is going on. Nor would I simply embrace all that is going on in these movements.


In calling myself a charismatic, I'm simply trying to say that I'm not a cessationist neither theologically nor in practice. To put it positively, I believe that all the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the Bible (including healing, prophecy, tongues, etc.), as well as all the types of experiences and practices of the early church (miracles, signs & wonders, dreams & visions, etc.) are available to Christians today, and that we should expect them to be a part of our life and ministry.

What does it mean to be Reformed?

Actually, that's a trick question. If you put 10 Reformed theologians in a room and ask each of them what it means to be Reformed, you're likely to get 10 answers! As I answer that question, I hope to get at the heart of Reformed theology and the Reformed movement, without teasing out all the nuances that distinguish us from other theological and ecclesiastical traditions and movements.

The Bible

The heart of what it means to be Reformed is that we are primarily Biblical Christians. That is to say, we are a people of the Book. We will argue about what the Book actually says, or means, but we will not discard it, deem it irrelevant, or out of date. We also understand the Bible as the authoritative Word of God for all things pertaining to salvation.

Sovereignty of God

That God is sovereign is at the heart of how Reformed believers do theology. God does what God wants. He is in charge of His plan. Nothing can stop Him from carrying out His purposes. Related to this is the mysterious and ineffable part of theology: God is not accountable to us for what He does; He doesn't owe us an explanation. The Reformed explanation for predestination (as found in Scripture), is interpreted and presented primarily through the lens of God's sovereignty.

All of life belongs to God

We do not separate sacred and secular vocations, nor sacred and secular tasks. All of life belongs to God, every calling is (or at least should be) a sacred calling. There is no part of life that should not be subjected to God. This impacts everything from worship, to taking out the trash, social justice to ecology, politics to entertainment. This is the final point I'll make on what it means to be theologically Reformed, though there is much more that could be said.

The Historic Reformed Movement

The Reformed movement traces it's historical origins to the period of the Reformation. Though the Reformed movement is most closely associated with John Calvin, there are a host of other important figures that contributed to what Reformed believers have inherited: John Knox, Guido de Brès, Ulrich Zwingli, and many many others not only as the movement began, but also as it developed.

As is the case with many historic traditions, practices, attitudes and a "culture" are inherited by one generation from the previous. Some of these inherited things are good, others not so much, as movements tend to do one of two things: 1) improve toward greater excellence; 2) devolve to accommodate sinful tendencies in people. As one who grew up in this movement, I can say with some level of authority, that both have happened in this historical movement.