Phillip,

Q. Do you see anything like the Acts 19 passage you quoted happening today in America?

Q. Where or why not?

Clay Spencer on “Experiencing Vomit.” It’s not what you think. Well…it is and it isn’t.

Jim:

By the standards of most people, I’m not even a Christian. I drink, cuss, and favor legalization of most controlled substances. I don’t use terms like “inerrant” or “infallible” to describe the BIble. I don’t object to the ordination of women as deacons, elders or pastors. I participate in BHT, which is a sure sign that I’m going to hell.

In other words, “I not AGAINST everything.” Why do we feel such a need to be against, control, manipulate and steer everyone to a complete agreement with our way? It’s what sucks about being an american Christian. Jim, I’d love to polish off a 12-pack or throw away the cap on a bottle JWBlack with you sometime. I’ll bet you’d have a hard time holding back after that!!!

Rob Bell: I’m sure a good guy, but nothing I’ve seen or heard has done anything but bore me and remind me how much I can find some EC types annoying.

I have spent some time with Rob Bell. He is a great guy and amazingly gracious. I’d rather hear him preach than just about any preacher I have heard. He’s the real-deal. Ok, now trash me, but I am a huge Rob Bell fan!

I just heard that the Rocket is going to pitch two “tune up” games in Lexington. Man would I love to see that, but school will be in session. Oh well, I saw him pitch in Fenway for the Sox. That will have to do.

Rob Bell: I’m sure a good guy, but nothing I’ve seen or heard has done anything but bore me and remind me how much I can find some EC types annoying.

I don’t know enough about Rob Bell to say anything. Forget that I commented.

I do not know what has gotten in to me.  I read three books in one week.  Not since I was in Africa and had no TV to watch have I done such a thing.  Not only did I read three books, I read cool and hip Christian books. After reading Driscoll’s Confessions I wanted to go hang out with him and pick his brain.  Miller’s T.O.A.D was great and to me is more mature and intentional than BLJ and SFGKW.  Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis was somewhat troubling.  He makes some good points and makes you think but I wonder if his edginess and trying to be so relevant is at the expense of doctrine.  Anybody have any thoughts on Velvet Elvis. I ordered three Mark Dever books to bring me back to reality.

Ok, this subject is actually enough to bring me crawling out of my cave…

My Own Personal Charismatic Experiences:

Baptized in the HS on my birthday in 1979

Since then, I have at various times:

Danced in Spirit, Sang in the Spirit, been Slain in the Spirit, Spoke in Tongues, Interpreted Tongues, Prophecied, had prophetic dreams, fasted for days at a time, did home church, home school, home business, home birth, prayed for healing, prayed for other’s healings, lived “by faith”, (no money), shouted at the devil, tried to cast out demons, “bound” the devil, did lots of “spiritual warfare”, prayed against all kinds of goofy spirits, (if you’ve done it, you’ll already know – if you haven’t, please don’t embarass me even more), commanded things, “spoke to” things and “pronounced” all kinds of silly stuff, blissed out on worship songs, engaged in profoundly extended sessions of naval gazing, “heard God”, “sought God”, “listened for God”, blah blah blah.

Been there. Done that.

I really have to hope that the video game Michael linked to is a hoax. There’s no way that game hits any kind of market. Christians killing people because they won’t convert? That’s so, I don’t know, Islamofascist.

MODERATOR: No hoax, dude. It’s the real deal.

On a completely different note, Paul, you’re invited to add your pin to the BHT Frappr Map. Your addition will help continue the dominance of the State Republic of Texas.

MOD NOTE: If you haven’t read this series, it’s a must read.

As Michael requested, here’s the first post in my autobiography. The whole thing spans several posts, so be warned.

Are we having a contest for extreme Charismatic experiences? I think I can match or beat all of Paul’s experiences. What do I win?

I can be extremely negative about the current state of Charismatic/Pentecostal churches, but I also recognize that the movement began in response to a Christianity that had mostly abolished the belief in and the possibility of the supernatural. I am gradually turning to the patristic church as a source of guidance on how to be charismatic without being loony. In the Church Fathers you find an abundance of healings, exorcisms, spiritual warfare, and heavenly ecstasy—but tempered by a wisdom that is mostly absent today.

It’s OK, Dale, I was just messing with you.

Unfortunately, I think I’m turning into my father. He thinks the jokes he makes are hilarious. No one else does.

Like father, like son. (Well, except for the K-niggits of Reformed Orthodoxy song which is probably the apex of my career in comedy.)

Matthew, I’m using BlogJet as the blogging client to post to the four different blogs that I frequent.

I accidentally uploaded to BHT what was supposed to go to an Idaho political blog.

mea culpa

Wait, does this mean that ‘c.t.’ is pentecostal? Read the KJV seven times and speak in tongues?

Paul: No fair! You asked what we thought about it, and I, for one, actually told you! All you did was describe what the cartoon was and added that it is “interesting.” Come on! ;)

Because of that, you are now required to answer another question: Do you see anything like the Acts 19 passage you quoted happening today in America? Where or why not?

:)

P.S. I’m not sure if anybody told you, but I can be a trouble-maker.

This is absolutely one of the most depressing, disturbing, surreal things I’ve ever heard of: The Purpose Driven Life Takers. (HT to a lurker)

My response to the Justin Taylor blog piece: yawn. (No offense to you, Michael)

Of the many critiques that I just don’t get regarding the emerging conversation, this one is getting old:

Taylor lists a couple of different lists of “Four Things that EM is Concered With” One of the lists, taken from Wikipedia, the first list includes: 1) Authenticity, 2) Missional Living, 3) Narrative Theology, 4) Christlikeness and the second list taken from Emergent includes: 1) Commitment to God in the way of Jesus, 2) The church in all its forms, 3) Committed to God’s world and 4) Committed to one another. Notice that in all of these affirmations is the implicit charge that the “other people” don’t do these things.

I may not understand postmodernism to the level of a trained philosopher, but one of the ideas I’ve heard expressed over and over is that pomo’s don’t necessarily deny other philosophies. Rather, they feel free to borrow liberally from them as they see fit. So, in the context of ministering to postmodern culture, if one of the sets of four points above is true, this DOES NOT have to imply that said ministers, or pomos, believe that other churches, denominations, theologies, ad nauseum, deny that these are expressed elsewhere. Instead, ministers to pomos are attempting to provide a specific application of the above ideas. Is this really so hard to grasp?

I’d like to get involved in this discussion on worship music over at Thinklings, but I don’t want to have to think about the kissy-kissy Jesus anymore.

Tim Challies calls your attention to a discounted price on Phillip Schaff’s 8 Volume ‘History of the Christian Church’ set.

Ex-BHT-Patron Tom Hinkle does the same, with a slightly different take.

I guess I am easily amused.

Justin Taylor on the Emerging Church.

There, I did it.  And it wasn’t even very difficult.  I am now a free wordpress guy.

I’d like to give Alex the “Humility In The Face Of the Onslaught of CredoBaptist Persecution Award.” Well deserved. (jn)

Meanwhile, look who turned up over at Paul’s comment threads:

c.t. said…

You’re quoting Scripture, with innocent, genuine belief, on the Boar’s Head Tavern. You’re going to last exactly one and a half weeks…

Jim: Yeah. But it just so happens that my interpretation coincides with the right interpretation.

Alex: That’s just your interpretation.

Our church (PC-USA) currently has four ordained ministers. I know three of them well; the other has just been called, and has not actually joined the staff yet. I do not believe that any of our ministers could be said to accept cessation, in the sense that it is commonly used. At least one of the ministers would acknowledge “charismatic” tendencies, and I’ve never heard anything from either of the other two that was remotely critical of the practice of sign gifts as a rule. I have heard each of them express skepticism about specific claims of a manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit, but their objections were contextually based, not theological.

In the past, we have had an interim Adult Ministries pastor who practiced a private prayer language, and claimed to have received the Baptism of the Spirit at an occasion distinct from his conversion. (Despite our disagreement over this, he remains one of my best friends.

We are part of the Confessing Church movement within the PC-USA, and have ties to Presbyterians for Renewal and Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International. We host the Alpha Course, and have a team of people trained by Elijah House Ministries. We have elders who are involved with Ed Silvoso’s Harvest Evangelism, and others who have been influenced by Frances Frangipane.

I am not on staff, and hold no position in the church other than “occasional adult Sunday School teacher.” My wife is a deacon. I lead an eclectic band of men who meet early on Saturday mornings at a local restaurant

I am not a cessassionist. Although I have not personally experienced a single event that I would consider “Spirit Baptism,” I have had occasions during which I have experienced a particularly heightened awareness of the presence of the Spirit. I do not practice sign gifts – I’m still practicing “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, long-suffering,” etc. at this point.

By the standards of most people, I’m not even a Christian. I drink, cuss, and favor legalization of most controlled substances. I don’t use terms like “inerrant” or “infallible” to describe the BIble. I don’t object to the ordination of women as deacons, elders or pastors. I participate in BHT, which is a sure sign that I’m going to hell.

I’m looking for Pentecost activities for soli deo. Here’s a very good page.

I have all kinds of comments on this story, but I am not in a good mindset today. Do your own.

OTOH, the Rockies’ GM is claiming that Jesus is the answer.

Tom Ascol addresses a crucial issue that I have also addressed recently at IM. Tom is correct in this: SBC churches are almost incapable of discussing theology, especially with potential leadership. I believe Calvinists haven’t always acted as they should have in this environment, but I believe the problem is far larger than Calvinist pastors not wanting to volunteer to be lightning rods. The problem is in the church, the denomination, and especially the denominational leadership and media. SBC media and leaders stopped talking about theology long, long ago, and those who have theology that drives their ministry are liable to be controversial. I think they have to pay the price, but kudos to Tom for pointing out the big picture.

Dale, Mr. Colson actually surprised me with how charitable he was to emerging churches in this article. He continually qualified his statements by saying “some emerging churches,” without painting the whole thing with a broad brush. His last paragraph isn’t bad, either, even with the (modernist?) last sentence:

The emerging church can offer a healthy corrective if it encourages us to more winsomely draw postmodern seekers to Christ wherever we find them—including coffee houses and pubs. And yes, worship styles need to be more inviting, and the strength of relationship and community experienced. But these must not deter us from making a solid apologetic defense of the knowability of truth.

I’m glad that we’ve got someone who’s been slain in the Spirit other than JS. He’s a poor example. (jn) Jesse: Post the links to your spiritual bio posts. Those were great.

If the holyspirit causes people to act like animals and drunks, cool. I don’t think he does, but I support the Reds, so what do I know. I’d like to act like Jesus, and I think anything other than that is really not very important.

BTW- I find Rod Parsley’s church to be scary. I would fall over with heart irregularities, and likely not get raised.

I am listening to three PCA guys trash the house church movement, and what they are criticizing needs criticism. But when this one PCA guy says that “women have no right to open the Word,” that just freezes me up. Interestingly, “meta-church” seems to be a model these guys relate to much more positively, i.e. accountability to an “institutional” church with regular leaders, small groups led by elders, etc.

My answer to Phillip’s question #10 is easy…I don’t mind tongue-talk at all…I’ve witnessed and participated in it many times; and I know narcissism when I see it.

Part of the challenge of my ‘church-search’ is to locate a place wherein the guidance of the Holy Spirit is not dismissed as, as my grandmother once said, ‘being too religious’. I’ve seen and experienced deep spiritual guidance and correction…but somewhere along the line it seems that we rotten-hearted humans start treating God’s Spirit as if He were a pet in our pocket…which He’s not.

I hit my personal ‘Waterloo’ during the ‘Toronto Blessing’ when the focus switched from Jesus to the Holy Spirit and His manifestions…in effect we became Unitarian in our practice…the only thing that mattered was what we or one of our leaders thought the HS was doing. The issue of ‘Annointing’, especially as it relates to leadership also became an injurious distortion…it is part of why I’m so careful of allowing myself to be ‘under’ authority.

At some level this becomes, in my experience, one part of the Body inflicting pain and guilt on another part of the Body; simply for having different experiences and focus. Michael’s words about catholicity are crucial to understanding how an inordinate focus upon the HS can cause so much division…and what a warped thing, that He who indwells us and causes us to love one another could be used as a means to elevate one of us over another. This stuff can get really, really weird…and when you are on the ‘inside’ you want nothing more than to stay on the ‘inside’ and be perceived as an ‘insider’. When you start to feel like there are ‘insiders’ and ‘non-insiders’ you are well on your way to being part of a cult.

I believe that every Fellow at BHT is filled and guided by the Holy Spirit of God and daily manifest His good gifts in their daily interactions with the others in their lives as part of the (Romans 7) struggle with carnality…with sin. There are no shortcuts to holiness, only lifelong struggle.

My experiences as follows in chronological order since I was saved:

Feeling God’s presence when I worship God.

Praying to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The result is 4-5 weeks later, I believe the Holy Spirit came upon me during a men’s bible study and I started to speak in tongues.

We had a guest Revivalist Evangelist come to our church. During and after the service, I had an eyewitness account of seeing people healed and filled with the Spirit and several individuals prophesy and spoke in tongues.

When the Brownsville Revival started on Father’s Day in 1995, members of my church and members of the Christian campus group got excited and went to Pensacola, Florida. They came back more excited about Jesus and wanted to bring what they experience down there up to Minnesota.

My church had the guest evangelistic come back a year later. After the service, I thought these Christians has gone wild. People where worshipping, prophesying, drunk in the Spirit, seeing healings, people were dancing.

Many of these individuals who went to the Brownsville Revival heard there was a revival going on in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I went with them. Got prayed for, got slain in the spirit several times, had a prophetic word spoke over me. Saw alot of the same things that my church experience in the last paragraph.

Went to Central Bible College. Nothing happen except I found my wife and got married. Began to understand Pentecostal and Charismatic doctrines.

We lived in Oklahoma after we got married, went to a Pentecostal church, saw someone get saved, then I saw the same person asked to received the Holy Spirit and then the same person spoke in tongues. All with 20 feet away.

I am sure I have more experiences to tell, but I don’t remember them and I am at work.

From Chuck Colson over at Christianity Today.

Speaking of hermeneutics, Jim, I believe you have misinterpreted Mark Dever’s claim, which is not that hermeneutics simpliciter is ruining the Church, but a particular variety of hermeneutics, viz., what he calls “egalitarian.”

That said, I think Dever’s comment is, at best, a little overexcited, and at worse, flat-out and terribly wrong, in a soul-destroying, unity-destroying, Christ-destroying (as in His Body) kind of way.

He’s wrong about the paedobaptists too. They’re right, after all, and he’s the heretic on that one. After all, if he’s gonna get his panties in a twist about egalitarianism, why can’t I get my panties in a twist over paedobaptism (semi-JN the previous paragraph)?

Well now, let’s see. I’ve been a Christian for about 17 years now. And like I’ve lost count of the number of times the Rapture/Appearance of AntiChrist was supposed to happen, I’ve lost count of the number of “This is going to be the divide between the Orthodox and the Heretics”...

N. T. Wright

The New Perspective

Evangelicals and Catholics Together

The Megachurch movement

The Election of Bill Clinton

The New Age Movement

The Jesus Seminar

The Errantist Movement / “Battle for the Bible”

Et cetera. I’m sure the few codgers here older than I could easily expand the list even further. If every crisis and dispute turns into “we’ve gotta die on this hill or the Gospel is lost”, there won’t be anybody left to fight on the real hills when the real fight comes. When I hear these battlecries now, my first instinct is to put underwear on my head and shove pencils up my nose.

And BTW, isn’t it ironic that Dever graciously concedes that paedobaptists are “otherwise” faithful to Scripture? Could it not be said that credobaptism is little less novel than egalitarianism, and has caused considerable grief in and of itself at times? ;-}

Phillip,

I think the cartoon drawing is interesting. The scripture, Zech 4:6, is the key for me in understanding the cartoon. The verse and the cartoon is telling us that man in of himself, cannot do spiritual warfare (and Christianity) in his own strength. This cartoon is telling us we cannot rely on ourselves, but what is offered through the quoted Scripture is the Holy Spirit if we turn to him. If we rely on the Holy Spirit who is symbolize in the cartoon as the John Deere Tractor, we can move mountains of satanic opposition.

A good bible example of this is found in Acts 19:13-17 – Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. (One day) the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding. When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.

Phillip says: “should this be considered normative for today? To answer that, I ask another question: how effective a sign is it to unbelievers in America today?”

This is a good question. In response, I have another question. Has anyone else observed that much of what we see in America (you could possibly generalize this to developed nations) tends toward the sensational, even fake, while in places like Africa (instead of generalizing to undeveloped nations, think about places where the gospel has not been widely proclaimed) you see what many would call legitimate instances of physical healing?

Just askin’

I agree with Mark Dever: Hermeneutics is completely undermining the authority of Scripture. Any church practicing hermeneutics should cease immediately. We must stop this slide into liberalism in our lifetime, for the sake of the unborn generations to come, before it kills someone. Our entire existence and the schedule for the end times is at stake.

Please, believers everywhere, call your pastor today and urge him to take a stand against Hermeneutics. This is the most crucial thing you can do; it’s even more crucial than sending money to Focus on the Family so that they can lobby for Supreme Court nominees. It’s more important that being purpose-driven. It’s more important than emerging. We have to stop this insidious heresy before our children all leave the church and turn into devil-worshiping homosexuals. I implore you! Act now!

Paul: By the way, thank you so much for bringing this stuff up! Sometimes we get stuck on issues that are really uninteresting to me (as I’m sure some members are thinking about this stuff right now), but this one really piques my interest. I’ll stop monopolizing the conversation in the bar for a while, and part of doing so is to ask you: What do you think of that cartoon?

I’ve spent a bit of time studing this, and there is no question in my mind that the apostles spoke in tongues, as did some (but not all) of the folks on whom they laid hands. There is also no question in my mind that there was a second experience that followed belief.

Questions remain: why does the Bible tell us that some people gave evidence of infilling such as speaking in other tongues, but not everybody, or even most? Paul says that was done for a purpose, and as Michael mentioned, Stott make a good case that the purpose in those cases was to convince the apostles that these gentile groups were believers, a concept they had trouble understanding at first. Paul also talks about tongues and interpretation being a sign to unbelievers, and a good example of that is the initial infilling on the day of Pentecost. If that’s the purpose, that begs the question: should this be considered normative for today? To answer that, I ask another question: how effective a sign is it to unbelievers in America today? In my experience, not much. So what then would be the purpose in America today? It’s an open question. The purposes I’ve heard suggested to date don’t line up much with the purposes outlined in the Bible, it seems to me.

Why was there this second experience? Is that second experience also normative for today? Should we seek it? Why is Paul essentially silent on it (the effort of seeking a second experience, that is), when it was such a big part of the lives of the other apostles? Should a second experience lead to a third and a fourth and a fifth? Should we seek continual new experiences on par with that of the apostles? “Fresh oil from heaven” and the like? Should the gifts of the Spirit always be accompanied by the fruit of the Spirit, or what do we make of someone who claims to operate in a prophetic gift but does not practice love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control, gentleness, or faithfulness?

Let’s be practical and offensive, shall we? I’ll take it behind the cut.

PWinn wrote:

10. I would like to know the answer to this one, myself. My views are complex, but I wouldn’t count myself as someone who believes that “speaking in tongues should be prohibited in worship.

My views on the charismatic gifts are, in contrast, very simple. They are as follows: The Biblical case for cessationism is leaky. Nonetheless, please do not speak in tongues around me. It freaks me out. ;)

Michael, I’ll read the Stott book, but I may have overstated myself. In this case, I wasn’t necessarily thinking of tongues. I was just looking at the idea of the Holy Spirit being given as an act separate from conversion post-Pentecost.

I love quizzes! Let me see:

1. There are four bartenders, and I know where Michael, Kurt, and I attend, so if this isn’t a trick question, it must be Jim.

2. One, I think: Kynn. It could be argued that he quit, and did so with a vengeance.

3. crickets

4. Continuationists: Me and a bunch of others.

5. Cessationists: When I asked a couple of years ago, nobody would claim the label, but I think we’ve got a couple now. See question #3.

6. Michael thinks that Charistmatic Chaos sucks and ought to be withdrawn and rewritten.

7. I must have missed Michael’s review of this book.

8. I don’t read any watchblogs any more, because they’re not wholesome.

9. A watchblogger who has read Charistmatic Chaos, obviously!

10. I would like to know the answer to this one, myself. My views are complex, but I wouldn’t count myself as someone who believes that “speaking in tongues should be prohibited in worship.”

As far as your observation goes, you’ve got friends here, and people will always disappoint, even us.

Jason: These are repetitions of Pentecost in various contexts, confirming that God was doing for Gentiles what he had done for the original 120.

Please note that the 3000 did not speak in tongues, but received the Holy Spirit when they believed. The repetitions of Pentecost were for the sake of the apostles, so they could see what was happening in terms of what had happened to them.

Read: John Stott: Baptism and Fullness- The Work of the Holy Spirit Today.

Paul: Boy, that brings back memories! I grew in the A/G, and remember reading more than a few issues of the Pentecostal Evangel.

As far as the cartoon goes, I like some things about it, and dislike other things. But to explain, I probably have to explain a bit of my “story.” More »« Less

Now I have to play devil’s advocate to myself, and anticipate a possible objection to what I said. How does one deal with the instances in Acts where believers, after the act of believing, had hands layed upon them and were given the Holy Spirit? Examples: Acts 8:14-17, and maybe the beginning of Acts 19. Counterexample, the end of Acts 10.

I might come to Paul’s defense on a couple of issues, but 1) no one wants to hear a guy from a Wesleyan-holiness background talk about the Baptism of the Spirit. You especially don’t want to hear it if you’re not already entirely sanctified :) and 2) I’m too chicken to get into the regular baptism debates so I’m definitely not getting into this one :)

MOD: As an Arminian, you are already pushing the limits of salvation. In fact, would God have elected you to be a Methodist? I think not.

Mark Dever: Complimentarianism/Egalitarianism is now the watershed issue on the truth of scripture and the division of evangelicalism into “faithful/compormised.”

Dear reader, you may not agree with me on this. And I don’t desire to be right in my fears. But it seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accomodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree, but this is our honest concern before God. It is no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire for power or tradition for tradition’s sake. It is our sober conclusion from observing the last 50 years.

Paedobaptism is not novel (sadly). But, on the good side, evangelicals who have taught such a doctrine have continued to be otherwise faithful to Scripture for 5 centuries now. And many times their faithfulnesses have put those of us who may have a better doctrine of baptism to shame! Egalitarianism is novel. It’s theological tendencies have not had such a long track record. And the track record they have had so far, is not encouraging.

Of course there are issues more central to the gospel than gender issues. However, there may be no way the authority of Scripture is being undermined more quickly or more thoroughly in our day than through the hermenuetics of egalitarian readings of the Bible. And when the authority of Scripture is undermined, the gospel will not long be acknowledged. Therefore, love for God, the gospel, and future generations, demands the careful presentation and pressing of the complementarian position.

Jason: You just nailed my major objection to ‘baptism in the spirit’. I’ve had to listen to folks say that until that happens, you are not truly ‘born again’, even if you have faith in Christ.

Is it not utterly contrary to the Luther’s Theology of the Cross? We don’t mature past the Gospel. Ever.

The thing that’s always bugged me about the whole “baptism in the Holy Ghost” thing is the idea that you may be a Christian, but if you haven’t entered through the post-converstion secret handshake, you don’t really have all the tools. I believe that when I called on God to have mercy on me in Jesus name, and believed in Him according to the scriptures, that was all I needed to be saved. With study comes better understanding (I hope). With time and the desire to be ever more like Christ, I continue in sanctification. I also believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in me already, and that He is working in and through me to take my wretchedness and make it something honoring to God. I don’t need a special second anointing to make that happen. To me, that sounds too much like the need to go after some kind of secret knowledge, or special spiritual empowering, which to my limited thinking seems gnostic.

Paul, this isn’t meant to pick on you. I’m just laying out my own perspective on the issue. I’m sure we will be able to go back and forth on this for a while. I’m sure we’ll disagree, but I’ll still call you brother and love you as one at the end of the day. (I really love that about this place.)

1. Which of the BHT bartenders attends a charismatic-flavored church that practices spiritual warfare approaches to counseling?

2. In the last 4.5 years, how many BHT fellows have been thrown out of the BHT by Michael?

3. Name a more theologically diverse group blog than the BHT.

4. How many BHT fellows are continuationists?

5. How many BHT fellows are cessationists?

6. What is Michael’s opinion of John Macarthur’s book, “Charismatic Chaos?”

7. What is Michael’s opinion of Rich Nathan’s book, “Empowered Evangelicals?”

8. Name three reformed watchblogs that routinely equate the charismatic movement with the occult.

9. Name a well-known reformed watchblog that regularly says all charismatics reject the authority of scripture.

10. How many BHTers believe that speaking in tongues should be prohibited in worship?

And Michael’s Wisdom for the Day: If you want a friend in the blogosphere, get a dog.

The answers are here. More »« Less

Jeff Sharlet on the National Day of Prayer:

There’s nothing conspiratorial in suggesting that by “freedom” Bush and those who believe as he does mean the gospel. Indeed, their beliefs would be shallow if they didn’t. The gospel, in their tradition, is not just true, it is the truth itself. And, as biblical literalists, they must accept Jesus’ promise in John 8:32 that “the truth will set you free” as a promise plain and simple; or, more ominously, as an imperative, a command. But to get to the state we’re in, our Christian nation beset by battles, “cultural” and actual, one must understand the mistake made by that subset of evangelicaldom that sees it as their duty to share, through the power of law, their particular prayers with the nation, and to project, through the power of arms, their concept of freedom around the world. They’ve conflated themselves and their actions with the “truth,” a rather idolatrous move. What Jesus said was not that prayer will set you free, nor war; not James Dobson, nor George W. Bush. What Jesus said was that “the truth will set you free.”

Has Debra Rienstra written Mere Christianity for our day?

First of all, let me commend Paul. I warned him that there would be criticism of Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity, and he’s brought the subjects up himself. A brave fellow.

Where do I begin? I remember being in high school, a relatively new Christian, and surrounded by friends in the Charismatic movement telling me they had something I didn’t: the “baptism” in/of/by the Holy Spirit, and the resulting joy, victory, power and deeper experience. They seemed to know what they were talking about, and I became a willing subject for about the next year, until I decided that statements saying that all Christians have the Spirit or they aren’t Christians were probably true, that the nonsense I was hearing was really nonsense and the constant drama of what God was going to do next was a way to keep me coming back. Tongues, miracles, words from God, end times everything, leadership by personality, a constant quest for “victory” and “power,” demonic diagnosis/exorcisms and on and on. It’s a primary reason the reformation looked good when I finally saw what Luther was talking about. Transactionalism out the waazoo. The constant expectation that God was about to “do something” is still my abiding impression of this movement. Reading the Gospels as a manual of what we ought to be doing in our churches now. Reading Acts as our blueprint for normal Christianity. What you think of that is probably what you think of all of it.

What eventually came to bother me the most was the division of all things Christian into two camps: people “with” the Spirit and the rest of us spirit-resistant, plain, left in the dark, yet to be enlightened types. I still deal with this at OBI. Constantly. Staff, students and locals. Charismatic/Pentecostals are great assets to our ministry, but there will be a time every year- count on it- when they will introduce something that will divide us into those who have it/got it/do it/know it and those who don’t. I have a very low tolerance for this, and it’s gotten a lot lower. I realize that it is not the stance of mature Charismatics, but I’ve found that in any situation where we all work together, the Calvinists will attempt to take doctrinal superiority, the Baptists will attempt to take evangelistic superiority, and the P/Cs will attempt to take experiential superiority.

Unity and catholicity are important to me. It seems to me that ever major branch of Christianity struggles with this. I really don’t know why. Here in the mountains, you can’t walk a mile without being confronted with whether you “have the Holyghost.” (One word.) Those with the holyghost have an entire religious experience that, frankly, here in SE Ky, is entirely of the “Spirit” and virtually Christless. It’s loud, expressive, emotional, transactional, super-confident, Biblically illiterate and uninterested in the Gospel. Have a “holyghost prayer meetin’” to drive the devil out of Clay County, and they will be there. I love these folks, but I have little in common with them.

Of course there is some vague sense in which we’re all “apostles” as far as the word means “sent one” and we’re all ambassadors for Christ.  And indeed, the apostles were fallible, as demonstrated by Peter’s Gentile debacle.  But there is some unique first-century apostolic status found in Scripture, elsewise Paul wouldn’t keep invoking his apostolic status, and there wouldn’t be statements like, “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” 

WELCOME PAUL!!! Looks like you’re off to a rip-roaring start. I’m not charismatic or reformed. It’s a lonely place to be! :)

I won’t speak for Paul, but in the P/C circles I used to be in, praying in the Spirit/Holy Ghost means praying in tongues.  In the Bible, when you see “pray in the Spirit” substitute “tongues” for “the Spirit.”  In this model, there is a lot of emphasis on “keeping your batteries charged”,”increasing your anointing,” and such.  I think there’s an improper focus on the believer’s power, anointing, etc which distracts from the Lord who is the power.

Paul defines “Holy Ghost Prayer” as “prayer done in the Holy Ghost”.

Ever hear of the joke about the two physicists and the mathematician? ;-}  Suffice to say that while all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.

To the point – isn’t any prayer a Christian says by that definition “in the Spirit” then, since all Christians have the Spirit? Or if not, what makes a prayer a “Holy Ghost Prayer” rather than not?

Kent already did a good job answering the second bit, so I’ll rest on his laurels.

Nice tweaks Paul, the extraction of ‘you will’ from Gal 5:16 to reflect the ‘will’ in Douglas’ question is telling…you may as well have answered ‘danger Will Robinson!’. The cartoon you posted touches the heart of what I’ve experienced as the hubris of charismatic praxis…the lack of understanding as to who exactly is driving the ‘dozer?

In YWAM I saw God’s omniscience deconstructed to the point that ‘God only knows what’s knowable.’ In the cartoon man was pushing at the rock…the HS was portrayed as a ‘guideable entity’ that man could hop on and pull the levers and be empowered by. Not so.

Bill – That is very interesting about the vine tending. Although, I thoroughly enjoy taking imagery in the Bible quite far. I am on the Bible as story bandwagon for sure, but I also think the details of that story are quite purposeful, especially those Jesus directly gave, such as imagery of the vine.
We have just witnessed a man’s life fall completely apart and a large factor of that consisted of his being caught up in church leadership too soon after his conversion because of his skill and zeal. As a result, he began hidding small sins, not being as sanctified as he thought he ought to be as a leader, and which 10 years later had grown into major drug, financial and sexual problems. He now has lost his job and may lose his wife.

Douglas,

Q. Is the Holy Spirit a tractor we can climb aboard, start, and use to push what we will?

A. If the Scriptures gives some warrant, then yes. Scripture examples.

Gal. 5:16 – But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.

Eph 5:18 - And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,

Jude 20 – But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit;

Michael,

Q. What is Holy Ghost Prayer?

A. A prayer done in the Holy Ghost.

Eph. 6:18 – And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

Jude 20 – But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

Michael: Your favorite Papist found an article criticizing the Christian Appalaichan Project, and adds her own observations.

Paul: Not to sound impertinent, but… 

Is the Holy Spirit a tractor we can climb aboard, start, and use to push what we will?

That’s not the impression of the Spirit I get from John 3:8…

CT has an excellent article on the history of near death experiences. Very revealing stuff.

Jason: “Doofuses” has to be the weirdest word I’ve ever seen actually spelled out.

I’d like to get involved in this discussion on worship music over at Thinklings, but I don’t want to have to think about the kissy-kissy Jesus anymore.

The following moment is brought to you courtesy of the insightful blog I was just reading. Excuse me. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong. I have the scriptures as my standard so I’m not wrong.

You need to add: AND MY INTERPRETATION IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

Thanks. It might come as a shock to some that everyone else in the conversation says that the scriptures are their standard as well. Of course, YOU’RE DIFFERENT because you really really mean it.

From the latest Soli Deo: “If you read the gospels, you know the disciples were a bunch of doofuses.”

It wasn’t the point of the message, but it made me smile.

Since last year I have been planning to transplant and grow some concord grapes in my garden area. While I haven’t actually gotten around to it, I have done some research on vine tending and I must say it has shed some new light on John 15, where our adult class was this last Sunday. I know that you can take analogies too far, but one thing struck me when reading this passage, in conjunction with what I now know about vine tending.

The key to producing a strong fruitful vine is forcing it to grow slowly. The vine tender ruthlessly cuts back the vine for a few years, not even letting it branch out much, let alone produce fruit until it is mature and strong.

Mature Christians are often accused of quenching the “fire” of a new convert, and I’m sure it’s true, but I wonder if that is necessarily a bad thing in all cases? I wonder how many new converts “flame out” after a short time? I think we’ve probably all seen it.

Tonight’s soli deo is online. I’m trying to do some basic “new covenant/old covenant” things at this point.

It’s funny. I am in a “stuttering” phase, probably because of job transition and wedding. It’s a lot harder for me to talk to a bunch of people in a living room than it is to preach to a chapel full of students. You’ll notice the difference I’m sure.

Paul: What is “Holy Ghost Prayer?”

This drawing was from the Pentecostal Evangel Magazine in 10/16/1948.

Not quite sure how to stretch this, but you could work in the “lost” folks of Nineveh. If I recall correctly, one of the ancient Assyrian gods was Dagan, part-fish, part-man. Jonah showing up in Nineveh, after having been swallowed by a fish (class ring swallowed by a fish) and living to tell about it, would have made an incredible impression on the fish-worshipping folks.

Let the fish slapping begin!

Sonia

Good post, Michael. I think I’m going to get out the Steve Taylor album and listen a bit tonight. I want to be a clone...

This is an interesting story, but I’m more interested in the group picture at the top of the page. Tell me that’s not Professor Sherman Klump from Eddie Murphy’s The Nutty Professor.

Experience is a good teacher, and at some point, with enough experience, you ought to be able to say something worthwhile. I’m not sure this is it, but I believe there is something helpful I’ve been able to discover after hundreds of hours of reading blogs I shouldn’t read.

The watchblogosphere endeavors to be all about Biblical discernment; all things are being measured by scripture. A closer look, however, will reveal that hardly anyone is measuring Mark Driscoll against scripture. No, he is being measured against one of Three Assured Presuppositions. More »« Less

Part of the problem may be that we load “apostolic authority” with more that it actually carried even back when the original Apostles were around. Did Peter have “apostolic authority” when he was cow-towing to those who opposed his involvement with gentiles? Did Paul exercise “apostolic authority” when he disagreed with Barnabas over John Mark? (and what happens when he later changes his mind)?

Then again, Protestants who hold to cessation typically argue that the apostolic office is no longer necessary, since they hold to a closed canon. So their pope becomes whoever edited the study bible they read.

The reality of the situation is that if there is a “mantle of authority” for apostles, not even the apostles were always aware of the times when they they had it on, and if that mantle has been transfered to scripture, there are all sorts of problems identifying exactly what that means.

That’s the trouble with the Holy Spirit. He’s an ethereal chap, at best. Always showing up at inappropriate times, in inappropriate vessels. Makes it really hard to keep a church organized around a particular leadership group.

... or, maybe, just maybe, that was the whole point.

Well said, Jim. One might argue that every believer is given an “apostolate” in the sense I mention in my post. This does not mean that we have apostolic authority but that we live and witness to Jesus and the resurrection among people who don’t know the good news. We are missionaries. We are ambassadors (2 cor. 5:20).

Not to pick on Richard, but this whole “apostolic” thing leaves me feeling like we’re playing a game that none of the people we’re trying to set apart would want to play: a title and office best reserved for that original band of duly commissioned witnesses of the resurrection strikes me as odd; why would that not apply to effectively every believer? Are we not all “duly commissioned?” Are we not all “witnesses to the resurrection?” If we aren’t, then what are we, and why are we wasting our time arguing about people from 2000 years ago?