Deep chuch: looking behind the charismatic curtain?
14 Jun 2007
Ian is Senior Pastor of Guildford Baptist Church and a contributer to the book, Remembering our future, he writes…
The relationship of theology to personal biography is a close one, no doubt. All of us are in reaction to something: in my case, a particular kind of charismatic experience which, in my opinion, consistently flouted the norms of orthodoxy. I am not talking about charismatic experience per se. What kind of Christianity would we be talking about without the charismatic?
Indeed, I have been fortunate to pastor churches that have had a healthy regard for life in the Spirit (by which I mean more than having an overhead projector). What I am talking about is a brand of Christian leadership, so called, that regards it as a virtue to pit the Spirit against the Word; or, more crudely, the Spirit against the cross. I have had to put up with that false dichotomy for as long as I have been a Christian, and unless one has inhabited this rarefied atmosphere of charismania, as I have, it is difficult to understand the frustration that people like me have felt. Part of the anger is to do with the way the term charismatic has been hijacked over the years by a particular expression of the charismatic: namely only that which is loud and demonstrative. But the main part of the anger concerns the way this dichotomy between the Spirit and the cross plays in to the hands of the Gnostics.
The point of my essay in Remembering Our Future is to say that once you detach from the notion of mediation through the Word and the sacraments, for the sake of freedom in the Spirit, you end up with something akin to Gnosticism. In essence our religion ends up being more to do with personal light than about divine revelation. Not only is this emphasis on inner light weak in terms of the dogmatic core of the gospel, it is also exhausting, because of course by focusing so much on personal experience in worship you never really know if you have done enough to access the holy. Without the Word and the sacraments, the primary movement of worship ceases to be towards us, in the grace of Christ; but inwards in what can often times amount to nothing more than existential anxiety.
Christianity is personal, to be sure. Here is where it gets really tricky. I could not imagine being in a setting of worship that did not impact me at the personal level; furthermore, believe it or not, I am one of those who loves to sing. But as a pastor I know that many of my congregation arrive on a Sunday in various states of disrepair, and to serve up, week after week, a diet of unreflective, unmediated, ahistorical worship is not only uncaring, it is also un-Christian.
The personal biographies of those in the early charismatic movement led them to reject traditionalism in the name of freedom. It was a valid stance. There is nothing worse than dead orthodoxy. My own biography at the extreme end of the charismatic movement has led me to wonder, however, whether the rejection of traditionalism has also developed, in some circles at least, into a rejection of the Christian tradition itself.
What do you think? What is your experience? How do you react when you read this?
Tagged: charismatic
18 comments
Trackback
Pingback by Deep chuch: looking behind the charismatic curtain? at Jason Clark
7.43 am on 14 Jun 2007
[...] a copy of a new post from the Deep Church blog, Ian is Senior Pastor of Guildford Baptist Church and a contributer to the book, Remembering our [...]
Comment by Marc
9.12 am on 14 Jun 2007
This an complex area when we are look at rejecting traditionalism that can lead to the loss of Christian tradition.
When we speak about tradition in the Christian world we are in one sense really not speaking about what we do every week we are speaking about Apostolic Tradition.
This is the oral tradition of the apostles that was handed down from the disciples, through the early church fathers to the present day, the Catholic and Orthodox Church place as much importance on these traditions as they do on the bible.
Whilst this this may seem a little odd it is actually quite in keeping with jewish tradition. The Jewish faith foundation is based on a belief that God gave Moses an oral explanation of the Torah along with the written text, these are now essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim and seeing as many Christians saw the arrival of the messiah as a fulfilment of the Jewish prophecies it made sense for a continuation of this.
This was initially rejected by the Reformation in favour of sola scriptura which in my opinion isn’t supported by scripture but having been raised an anglican I understand both sides of the debate.
But we also have ‘tradition’ that is the yearly tradiion that the people seem to want to escape. The dropping of the church calendar has been I believe a mistake, but I can understand that it was seen as boring with pointless rituals (again down to a lack of explanation) but it can be reclaimed and reinterpreted to one of the best teaching tools available for the whole body of Christ.
and of course we have the weeklly ‘tradition’ that everyone again wants to escape and that’s not possible, if you do the same thing for the number of weeks…it becomes a tradition…
In my opinion the rejection of Christian tradition has led to a rejection (in some cases) of our Christian heritage and even a denial of our Christian history and a fact tat we are part of the wider Body of Christ which in the end I have found rather upsetting.
Comment by steven hamilton
11.35 am on 14 Jun 2007
thanks for sharing ian…it’s always difficult to articulate something we have strong personal feelings about, in particular if those feelings are anger…let alone if you publish something and now write a blog post about it without going into too much detail and giving the whole context of your essay. so, without the whole context, i feel like i might be missing the point or assuming i have correctly understood the point, especially if it gets a little tricky.
for instance, i’d like a better definition of your personal usage of the term “freedom of the Spirit” over against connection and/or mediation through “Word and sacrament”. i think that those can be a loaded terms, and in your post “freedom of the Spirit” is used negatively (or perhaps people are abusing the issue), while in scripture i find lots of references to freedom of the Spirit being quite a good thing. of course, again, when you captialise “Word”, are your meaning Word=Logos=Christ Jesus, or Word=Bible? then at the end, again i could be reading this wrong, it seems that you switch metaphoric language and say “The personal biographies of those in the early charismatic movement led them to reject traditionalism in the name of freedom. It was a valid stance.” so is Word and sacrament = traditionalism? i’ll have to check the other posts thus far, but i’m not sure if anyone has nibbled away at some sort of definition of “Word and sacrament”, although i’m sure it is well-defined in the book.
now, i assume (based on and reflecting my own personal experience with charismania) that you are speaking of those who drop “prophecies” from their lips that are mostly contra the scriptural guidance and testing. this, in fact, frustrates and angers me to no end as well.
again, i’m not quite sure what to do with phrases like “loud and demonstrative” or “dogmatic core of the gospel” and “never really know if you have done enough to access the holy”.
soooo, i’ll have to go out and purchase this highly recommended book!
Comment by Ian
3.33 pm on 18 Jun 2007
Good point about freedom in the Spirit. The trouble is, the phrase is often invoked, indeed hijaked, by those who want to use freedom in the Spirit as a euphemism for a particular style of worship. I think this is regretable. I like free liturgy, but I also appreciate fixed liturgy from time to time. And it hasn’t always been apparent to me which one is more led of the Spirit.
Comment by Paul
6.49 pm on 14 Jun 2007
Thanks Ian. It feels that there is a tension between mediation and immediacy but then again is this tension not borne out in the christian life – there are times where God seems so close and times when he seems far away.
Charismatic worship which places an emphasis on experiential, emotional, immediacy of God can be a wonderful blessing but if that is always are expectation we can become burdened and crushed or try to hype ourselves to feel something.
Having have a faith that encompasses both feast and fasting, partying and mourning, searching and seeking is a real blessing and a reconnection of tired jaded charismatics who bring the hunger for the Spirit with the longing for rhythm and reconnection to the christian tradition could be a beautiful marriage once again…
Comment by Ian
3.30 pm on 18 Jun 2007
I think the tension in one sense cannot be resolved. The tension between immediacy and mediation is one that simply needs to be respected. My sense, however, is that things have swung too far in one direction. YOu are right to hope for a charismatic future that marries the Word and the Spirit.
Comment by Bryan Riley
7.55 am on 15 Jun 2007
What I’ve experienced, and I admittedly haven’t experienced much charismatic practice, has emphasized both the bible and experience. What is fantastic about it, both biblically and experientially, is that knowing God clearly is intended to be in a personal, experiential way, not in a propositional way. And, it is very nice to see others having a passionate desire to experience God.
However, in practice it seems that the bible is more talked about than understood, whereas experience is given priority. When something is mentioned in the bible, even if just once, at the hand of the Spirit, that becomes a license for that to happen in corporate worship. I do believe many approach worship in a way that demands certain loud manifestations – including, but not limited to, tongues. It seems more distracting to real worship for me, but I have to question whether that is because of my cultural background. Regardless, what I don’t understand is why such manifestations almost exclusively appear in corporate worship, when it is distracting for some, if not many, and rarely, if ever, happen in private devotional times.
Comment by Chris E
2.50 pm on 17 Jun 2007
Hiya Bryan –
My experience is that of both mid-church anglicanism and charismaticism. Additionally, back in the days when I was most ‘in’ the charismatic movement I was also helping out conducting alternative communion services in high-anglican churches, which gave me a rather odd and interesting perspective on things.
You are right in what you say in the first paragraph – in so many ways, charismatic churches are just a lot more passionate (and often more demonstratively loving and fellowshipping) than the average.
As to what you say in the second paragraph, most Charismatic churches could do with a huge dose of 1 Cor 12. As to the rest; I do think that devotional times (and the entire aspect of spiritual formation) are problematic to many charismatics, though I would say that in fairness a lot of them *do* experience their public outpourings in private contexts too.
Finally, as a Christian with roots in the global south I’d say this: We *have* to learn to articulate a better vision of biblical charismaticism that is focused on Jesus Christ. If we do not we risk a massive split that will in many ways be more permanent than the Reformation. Typically the sorts of Christianity that are rising up in the Global South tend towards the extreme end of charismatic, the syncretic, the demonstrative, and (in the case of Catholicism) towards adoration of the Saints/Pope.
The balance of intellectual blessing, seminaries, teaching et lies with the ‘western church’. If we as ‘western christians’ do not articulate a balanced view of Christianity in a way which is not paternalistic and reactionary then the ‘global south’ will go it’s own way.
Comment by Bryan Riley
7.54 am on 18 Jun 2007
Paternalistic and reactionary are great ways to describe how many conduct themselves within the realm of religious practice. I’ve often described much of today’s western world legalism as being borne in fear, not love, and with that, standing alone, I eschew it. I unfortunately participate in it sometimes, but I am learning more and more to put aside things of fear and put on things of love.
Comment by Andy Goodliff
4.14 pm on 15 Jun 2007
My reaction is to ask what do we mean by charismatic? Is what we generally called the charismatic – lively singing of pop-style songs – all that deserves this title? I think we need a broader understanding of what mean by charismatic, that is, Spirit-led. (I would suggest much that passes for “charismatic worship” is more human-led). I think Jonny Baker would say that alternative worship is charismatic, but of course they rarely if at all sing at Grace. Lots of these words ‘charismatic’, ‘evangelical’ have developed very narrow meanings, and I think part of the deep church conversation is to develop a deeper and broader understanding of what them mean, and provide a richer, deeper, and broader diet of worship.
Comment by Andy Goodliff
4.15 pm on 15 Jun 2007
Oops, just re-read Ian’s post and see he’s already said what I’ve said below, that will teach me to skim read so fast!
Comment by Andy Goodliff
4.16 pm on 15 Jun 2007
oops, I’ve just re-read Ian’s post and see he’s said most of what I’ve just commented above. That will teach me to skim read quite so fast!
Comment by Rick Cruse (Zoo Muse)
1.15 pm on 22 Jun 2007
Your post underscores the reality that many problems/issues in the church have sprung from an “either/or” delineation in our thinking, practice and hermenteutic. Under the Spirit’s guidance, mediated through the written word and aided by a healthy community, we might be better served to come at these matters with a “both/and” perspective. i wonder if many heresies (and “bent” church experiences) result from the “either/or” approach, lived out over a long time. I also think we can spot many “either/or” practitioners as they often tend to take themselves far too seriously.
Comment by Ian stackhouse
2.04 pm on 22 Jun 2007
I think your observation Rick is an interesting one. I guess there are things that fall into the either/or category. For instance, Jesus is either the second person of the deity or he isn’t (although even here the doctrine of the image of God means that deity and humanity are not mutually exclusive categories). But concerning the area under discussion, namely the charismatic, I think you are right to suggest that the either/or approach is the root of the problem. My difficulty is that I am greedy. For as long as I can remember, I have wanted the church to be Reformed, Pentecostal, Sacramental, Apostolic and Missionary, all at the same time.
Comment by ilona
3.25 am on 2 Jul 2007
Dichotomies,dichotomies, why is it all about dichotomies?
over @ Jason Clark I read this from your post:
“In essence our religion ends up being more to do with personal light than about divine revelation.”
For a living faith there must be both.
We would have less of a wild pendulum swing if we were more of the ‘“both/and” perspective’ as stated in the previous comment. Much of the Charismatic movement was God shaking the traditional Churches free of the ‘God is Dead’ philosophy that had invaded the culture and strangled many. The churches of the time were deadlocked because of it, and the Charismatic move cut straight through to the reality of God. Of course there was some catch up to do in laying the base of doctrine- this is the work of the Church: to make disciples. Instead there had, and has been, so much caviling over spiritual expressions and style that there still is less real teaching of the basic doctrines of Christianity than there should be.
We minor in the majors as some put it; and for that, the criticism is deserved.
Comment by Chris E
1.06 am on 3 Jul 2007
Ilona –
In many ways I agree with you regarding the timings of some of the present charismatic movements and as long as you are actually referring to the origins of the ‘God is Dead’ movement (which really took off post Flanders) – rather than the 60s redux.
Having said that there are two caveats I’d add:
Firstly, the charismatic movement has to be seen in the context of the earlier spiritual movements, which in the West include those that characterise the various Great Awakenings (and is mirrored by happenings in various parts of the East).
Secondly, the very individualism which led to the Charismatic movement – certainly from Azuza Street onwards – also fed a division of denominations based on survivor bias and personality types which then meant that on the Charismatic side there was an uncritical acceptance of everything as long as it was seen as being willed by the spirit.
Certainly, this continued – and continues – to characterise the charismatic movement to this day, where emotionalism and misuse of spiritual gifts then provides ample opportunities for those opponents to ‘cavil over spiritual expressions and style’.
Even in Wesleyan quadrilateral, we still have to affirm that scripture as the final authority of all things, but too often the level of biblical illteracy and disrespect of scripture has led to an imbalance in this respect.
And I speak as one who is a charismatic, who believes in the spiritual gifts, who believes they, along with all God’s gifts, are vitally needed for the growth of the church, but who believes that they should be integrated in a natural way into the warp and woof of church life, and should be practised in accordance to the limits of scripture.
Comment by Ian
9.37 am on 4 Jul 2007
Ilona
What was true of the first generation of charismatic leaders – namely biblical literacy – is not true of this emerging generation of leaders. To me that is the big difference, but sadly not one that is acknowledged within the various charismatic streams.
Comment by Chris E
12.56 pm on 4 Jul 2007
Ian –
That’s certainly true if you look at some of the newer charismatic movements in the West (mainly coming out of the 50s onwards). There is an important parallel here with the emerging church; wrt the ‘older’ emerging church leaders who have a theological and philosophical framework (and associated set of boundaries) within which their radical questions are being framed and that this is not necessarily true of their younger acolytes.
Of course, in much of the ‘Global South’ a lot of the existing charismatic movements are still linked to the spread of literacy and the availability of the bible in the vernacular. Peter Leithart had an interesting snippet on this process on his website: http://www.leithart.com/archives/003132.php
Comments are now closed.