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]