Here's a quick stereotype, which seems to be true far too often. I'll give a detailed example later.
- a Charismatic who hasn't got a strong theological background but has a real love for Jesus has a valid and helpful Christian experience
- that experience gets described theologically in a way that is clear to the people concerned, but is actually inaccurate in a strict sense
- Conservatives come across this description and realise that it isn't theologically accurate
- Conservatives conclude that the experience is wrong and/or dangerous
- Conservatives miss out on the helpful and valid experience
- Charismatics observe conservatives missing out on the helpful and valid experience and conclude that they are resisting the work of the Holy Spirit.
The big mistakes here are stages 2, 4 and 6. To prevent this stereotype from happening, charismatics need to learn to express their experiences clearly, and in a way that is theologically accurate and conservatives need to learn to see the strengths and validity of people's experience, even when it isn't explained clearly.
Case study here, on "coming into the presence of God in worship".
14 comments:
G'day Custardy.
I enjoyed reading this post, especially coming from a charismatic background.
However I think you care making a classic mistake and or assumption with your list.
The main one has to do with language. Every denomination and subculture has its own Christianese language and who is to say that the Charismatic in describing what has happened is or is not describing it in correct theological terms apart from the conservative Christian believing that their language and understanding is the right one.
Take for example the classic difference in belief between the Pentecostal and conservative view of Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
The conservative view is that salvation equals baptism of the Spirit and yet pentes will say no it is a different experience to Salvation.
Who says the Conservatives are right and the Pentes wrong?
Who says the Pentes are right and the Conservatives wrong?
The question of language is a difficult one, I understand the conservative view of salvation being the baptism of the Spirit - but I don't think Biblically it holds water and think the Pentecostal view is more Biblical.
So it comes down to actual real dialog and making a real effort from both sides to truly hear one another and not what we think they are saying.
Both sides have a lot to learn from one another and I for one am richer for it.
Great post craig
Ah yes - the language problem. I think the issue with the language problem is that in most (but not all) cases the conservatives are using the same language as modern translations of the Bible.
And because we use the Bible, often in the same translations, it does provide something of a normative standard for language.
So we can ask what Paul means when he says "baptism in the Holy Spirit", and we end up seeing that it's pretty much what the conservatives mean by the term, though of course Pentecostals can still be describing a valid experience, just they are doing so using a different language to the Bibles that they themselves use.
I’m not sure what you mean by conservative, would that be the same as fundamental - used in the correct sense not as a curse word : ) I believe in the fundamentals of Christianity but am not a literalist. I was involved in a charismatic church and came away from it disillusioned.
1. A Charismatic who hasn't got a strong theological background but has a real love for Jesus has a valid and helpful Christian experience.
Q. Do you think it boils down more to the, what, maybe personality of someone that they are emotionally driven people to begin with and so are attracted to this kind of belief? My personality is less emotional-I tend not to trust experiences though I don’t rule them out.
Q. What is “a real love” for Jesus? I am having a great deal of trouble with that concept. Is this love a feeling or is it revealed in our obedience and faithfulness to the One we know is God in Three Persons?
"conservative" in this context means "evangelical and not charismatic".
Q. Do you think it boils down more to the, what, maybe personality of someone that they are emotionally driven people to begin with and so are attracted to this kind of belief?
I think that's the key as to whether people are more likely to go to a conservative church or a charismatic church. I don't think people's personalities affect the underlying truth of God though.
Q. What is “a real love” for Jesus? I am having a great deal of trouble with that concept. Is this love a feeling or is it revealed in our obedience and faithfulness to the One we know is God in Three Persons?
I think it's both. Love for a spouse is seen in actions, but if there is consistently no feeling then there's a problem.
Having said that, I know I was emotionally numb for years after some of the stuff that happened growing up.
Hi John,
First time comment.
I think you have missed a little something here in that charismatics are not ALL about "experience" - but they do see things through the amazing things they see God doing and wanting us to be apart of to help bring about His kingdom.
I would agree with Craig on this fact as well - the most important bit is to make a real effort to understand one another. I can vouch for the fact that here is so much to gain from both side and indeed other angles as well.
That doesn't make it easy - but lets remember 1 Peter 4:7-11 and Colossians 3:15-17 to name but a few which clearly says we are called to harmony not devision. The emphasis is not only on the "hearer" but the "speaker" and not only on the "speaker" but the "hearer" to bring harmony and understanding to any situation.
At then end of the day it is probably unhelpful to always talk in "biblical" language anyway. After all if it confuses that much wouldn't it be better to try and talk in your native language? After all we are supposed to be able to speak to people who cannot speak Christianese aren't we?
Someone I know the other day was troubled by a conservative being worried about the word/implications of "cultural" when interpreting the bible. Ultimately we are all brought up in a culture be it our time, our locality or our church and it is very obvious that how we read and how we teach the bible is always going to be influenced by our culture. That doesn't mean that everything we say is right - we should be open to correction but at the same time we should also be open to what we hear from others from different cultures/understandings.
The thing that probably troubles me more about conservatives than anything else is the attitude of playing it safe with God. There is nothing safe about being about God or following God - we need to be aware of Him in our lives everyday and open to him forming our lives, hearts and minds into the ones He wants not the ones we want or have been taught in the past by our previous experience.
RichardH - I think we agree.
The cons/char arguments (if we don't count Prosperity "Gospel") are actually tiny compared to the agreement, and most of the disagreements are a) wrong and b) seem to take the form I describe here.
I think what I mean will become clearer when I give an example...
The thing that probably troubles me more about conservatives than anything else is the attitude of playing it safe with God.
Quite.
Point taken! Maybe it was a mistake to write that - I did think about it before putting it in - but I don't think understanding comes from not talking either! I want to understand people really I do but it is difficult as you say to get over the barrier of language.
If you want to talk some more on that? We can do but I should probably get back to work for now...will catch up later
Custardy, here is a link to something Martyn Lloyd Jones says about Salvation and The Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
http://adrianwarnock.com/2008/02/lloyd-jones-on-how-to-grieve-holy.htm
What are your thoughts about it?
Thanks Craig.
I agree with DMLJ that so often people show a lot less of God working in their lives than they should. But I think he's wrong to identify that with "baptism in the Holy Spirit". I explain why at length here.
To be honest, I think you're being a little to kind on the 'conservative' folk in this example. A good number of the spats can happen the other way round.
1) Charlie the conservative decides they want to play it safe with God and not let him surprise them, or get outside the boundaries their own church culture has set.
2) Caroline the charismatic wishes they could get over it.
3) Charlie points out that Caroline doesn't do theology in the same way as Charlie's lot do, and jumps to the conclusion that this isn't because Charlie is wrong or paranoid, but that Caroline doesn't do theology right at all.
Sorry if that's a bit sarky.
misterbunbury -
I think the difference is that I'm posting as a conservative with a lot of charismatic friends who has seen far too much fighting over the conservative / charismatic divide in the past.
Yes, I agree that what you post is often the charismatic stereotype of how this argument goes. I can post the conservative stereotype too - it's something like this:
1) Charismatic has experience, possibly induced by drugs or mental illness which makes them feel good / make farmyard noises / whatever.
2) Charismatic assumes that experience must be from God.
3) Charismatic attacks anyone who doesn't uncritically accept their experience as quenching the Holy Spirit and hence probably possessed.
Maybe both stereotypes happen occasionally. But the truth is far more often in the middle, and I know how conservatives think on this one.
I know that you know! I wouldn't put myself in either of the camps you describe, so I'd love to say I don't have a dog in this race, but some of the conservatives I know made me a bit angry not too long ago, but it probably wouldn't be true. I have, however, worshipped in both sorts of churches and have friends in both camps.
Anyway, onto the actual discussion. Your second scenario is an extreme stereotype, but I think your first scenario is rather one-sided as well. It puts most of the blame on the charismatics, since it's their initial problem for not educating their flocks properly, and the conservatives are merely confused by the misformed thoughts coming their way from charismatic land.
In practice, I don't think that stands up. Conservative evangelicals (both the moderated anglicans and the full-on independent versions) are just as likely to follow their spiritual leaders without much thought as anyone else is. It's just that in the con-evo case, the language used needs either to be academicish or else 'sound', rather than the charismatic spiritual version. Con-evo's are just as likely to be factually wrong as anyone else, and I've seen con-evo clergeymen (men) mishandle the bible just as badly as I've seen anyone else do it. I don't think that the average con-evo Christian in the UK is significantly more theologically aware than lots of other Christians, and I don't see that changing much any time soon.
In this case, it really is six of one and half a dozen of the other. I also wish that especially in anglican quarters where the ground between the two camps is absolutlely miniscule, they could learn to get over it.
The artist formerly known as ds
Great initial post Custard and really useful discussion.
I agree that unity can and should happen.
Here is another take on it - I am aiming to be cheeky so please don't take it as a major affront, it is from my own experiences in University:
1. a Charismatic who has a real love for Jesus has a valid and helpful Christian experience
2. that experience gets described theologically in a way that is clear to the people concerned, but makes no sense to people who have not had a similar experience (for example - few cessationalists give credence for a theology of speaking in tongues today, no matter how "bliblically" based it is!)
3. Conservatives come across this description and because it is from a Charismatic they automatically assume that they are theologically naive and are only basing this on their experience. I irony is that there is a fair chance that the only reason they are rejecting the theological foundation is because they cannot corroborate the theological claims with their own experience of their faith.
4.Conservatives conclude that the experience is wrong and/or dangerous, and find a 16th century reformation father who also had not had a similar experience who agrees with them and uses lots of long words. (Often they ignore the fact the same reformation father had fellow christians killed for not agreeing with him)
5. Conservatives add the particular leader / conference / worship artist who inspired this experience to their lists of people who are false prophets
6. Charismatics wonder why they are being called names by fellow believers and so start meeting together with people who don't call them names
7. Conservatives get very angry that "unity" has been lost because charismatics are doing different things and accuse them of breaking fellowship within evangelicalism
8. Conservatives then claim the charismatic is deceived, and quote their favourite preacher who has just produced an 80 page thesis on how "Fusion" is actually a false gospel and that "Alpha" fails to fully explain penal substitution, basing the major conclusions on Wendy from Luton who went to a Fusion cell group and some people thought she may have been a Lesbian.
I think that until we realise that the way we act is part of the problem and needs to change, then we're still part of the problem rather than the solution.
Post a Comment