From The New Reformation Review

courtesy of Dan Trotter

Printed with Permission

Vol. 8, No. 4 - September 2002

HOUSE CHURCH DIRTY DIAPERS CHRONICLES NUMBER FIVE
 Dear Charismaniac, Dear Cessationist: A Plague on Both Your Houses!



 When one enters the field of theological battle upon which charismaniacs and cessationists fight, where the combatants are deeply entrenched, well-enforced, and who routinely pockmark the landscape with their verbal and theological missiles, it is smart to identify oneself carefully before entering the battlefield. So let me first say that I think both sides are dead wrong.
Allow me to preface my admonitions with an autobiographical note. I became a charismatic in the early 1970s while at college during the famous Jesus movement. I had miracles done on me, and I worked them on other people. I mean real miracles, where various human limbs grew out into thin air. I became convinced of the basic charismatic pneumatology, explained it to whoever would listen with an open mind, and had a ninety-nine to one-hundred percent success rate with getting my listeners to speak in tongues (either on the spot or later), and to accept a filling of the Holy Spirit subsequent to regeneration. I was a charismatic of charismatics. Today, I still believe that pneumatology. I still attempt to pray in tongues one hour every day. So later when I begin to complain about the baneful effects of charismania on house churches, please understand a couple of things. First, I am not a cessationist. Second, although I have left the charismatic movement, I still believe in and practice charismatic gifts, and wish that house churches would be biblical, and practice them too.
Even as it is the ex-alcoholic who most finds the taste of wine offensive, I find myself, as a dropout from the charismatic movement, to be utterly disgusted with what the charismatic movement has evolved into since its inception in the late 1960s. The scholar Bruno Snell makes this interesting observation: "...this is true of organic nature as well as human affairs - that all forms show themselves in their purist state at the point of origin, before they have undergone the changes which later befall them." (The Discovery of the Mind, Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 261) In my view, the charismatic movement, once a wonderful thing, is now in an advanced state of degradation.
 

The charismatic movement, once a wonderful thing, is now in an advanced state of degradation.

So, I need to sort out my ambivalence towards things charismatic. I'll call myself a "little c" charismatic. I'm one who believes in a filling of the Holy Spirit subsequent to regeneration, and I believe in the practice of spiritual gifts, because it's all in the BIBLE. I don't believe in all that because some blow-dried charismatic hotshot just swaggered into town and said the latest phenomenon was a result of some hallucination he had seen. Just as we now need to distinguish the house church movement from the "biblical house church" to disassociate ourselves from the wacky foolishness that is going on in house church circles, perhaps we should coin a new term for that dying breed of folks who believe in charisma because the Bible tells them so. Maybe we should refer to them as "biblical" charismatics.
 Charismatic critics have complained about pentecostal disdain for the scriptures for decades. I used to ignore those complaints, for several reasons. One, the critics would interlace their criticism with outlandish claims that miracles and tongues had ceased. Since I was speaking in tongues, and since I had seen miracles, but ultimately because the cessationist case was so feeble (based mostly on dispensationism), I was sure the cessationist criticisms of charismatics were bogus. I therefore assumed that everything else the cessationist critics said was ridiculous. Two, in many ways, charismatics did honor the Scriptures, when it suited them. They would appeal to the Scriptures to back up their pneumatology, for example, and I always found their explications much better than the anticharismatic defense. When I heard charismatic opponents explain the famous five pentecostal passages in Acts, denying a work of the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation, and denying that speaking in tongues was available for all Christians who so desired, I kept hearing a lot of air-sucking special pleading. Even so, I should have listened to those anticharismatic complaints charging the charismatics with lack of proper concern for scriptural admonitions. The critics are especially justified now, as the charismatic movement has lurched further and further into antibiblical la-la-land.
 To illustrate how detached from scriptural moorings the charismatic movement has become, let me quote you a question I publicly asked a charismatic speaker at a house church conference: "All of us who are not cessationists believe that speaking in tongues, healing, prophecy and other spiritual gifts are valid for today, and biblical. In your book, you state that 'the beginning of the Toronto Blessing, an outpouring of joy, holy laughter and renewal of passion for Jesus, brought numerous manifestations. I witnessed, first hand, different kinds of reactions that peoples' bodies had to the presence of the Holy Spirit. Laughter, roaring, falling down, shaking, contorting among others, were all somewhat normal in many of the meetings I attended...' Can you cite Scripture where laughter, roaring, falling down, shaking, or contorting is described as a spiritual gift like tongues and healing? Further, can you cite even one New Testament church in which laughter, roaring, falling down, shaking, or contorting was considered 'somewhat normal'?" The speaker's attempt to answer was valiant, but, of course, vain.

The charismatic movement has lurched further and further into antibiblical la-la-land..

Do you believe that the New Testament pattern of church life is exemplary and normative for church life today? If so, where do you find violent uncontrolled laughter, roaring, falling down, shaking, and contorting in that normative New Testament church life? I don't see it anywhere. The best the modern day charismaniac can say is that his nuttiness is not prohibited anywhere in Scripture. To which I reply, not even God-inspired apostles could foresee the insanity of which twenty-first century charismatics are capable. But believe me, if they could have conceived of what you were going to come up with, the apostles would have added a special book to the canon to deal exclusively with your looniness.

Just a little attention to Scripture would have saved the charismatic movement from all the lunacies with which it is now associated. There wouldn't have been intercessors rolling around "in labor" on the floor "birthing spiritual babies." Nor would there have been people walking each other around in dog collars, nor tearing pages out of hymn books and throwing them at the congregation. There wouldn't have been charismaniacs writing full-length books about seeing an angel explaining the "truth" of the so-called pretribulation rapture theory. There wouldn't have been demon-chasers casting out demons of sore-throats and headaches. Their wouldn't have been the authoritarian slavery of the charismatic "discipleship" movement. Their wouldn't have been the quasi-occult name-it-and-claim-it, mark-it-and-park-it, confess-it-and-possess-it, blab-it-and-grab-it "faith" movement. There wouldn't have been angel-hysteria, where excited churchgoers get up every Sunday and testify about their personal angel that helped them brush their teeth, and who helped them drive to church, and every feature of whose physiognomy is lovingly detailed during the testimony, during which "angel-dust" floats down from the rafters. There wouldn't have been charismaniacs arrested at funeral homes for refusing to leave because of their "vision" that their deceased pastor was about to resurrect.

Please allow me to insert a caveat here for all you worried charismatics out there who think that I've "put God in a box." I certainly believe that it is possible to have supernatural manifestations that are NON-scriptural (as opposed to ANTI-scriptural). But whether a particular manifestation is legitimate or not has to be individually spiritually discerned on a case-by-case basis, and the typical charismaniac won't lift a finger to do so. The United States government spends a lot of money on detecting counterfeit currency, to protect the real thing. The average charismatic doesn't spend a nickle to protect something even more valuable.

Not even God-inspired apostles could foresee the insanity of which twenty-first century charismatics are capable.

It appears that now the charismatic movement has become so discredited in the eyes of noncharismatics, that institutional church charismatics will not even use the word "charismatic" in the title of their churches. I was so told by a charismatic friend attending such a church. Recently, I received a phone call from a charismatic who was involved in a noncharismatic house church community. These believers, however, were very touchy-feely, and so my telephone correspondent tried to introduce them to charismatic things. The response he received was, "Why should we be interested in anything that crazy?" End of story. But what was so sad is that my charismatic caller and I both laughed and said, well, how can you blame them? Charismania has predisposed millions to avoid a scriptural acceptance of very important spiritual gifts which would enhance our church life immeasurably.

Charismaniac excesses have made it very difficult for charismatics and noncharismatics to work out their differences practically in a home church setting. Of all the things that divide Christians, I have never witnessed any one issue that divides quicker and sharper than the charismatic issue. But this shouldn't be. Do the apostles ever allow for a church to divide over charismata? Paul's famous "body" metaphor (I Cor 12-14) was written, in part, to keep the Corinthian church from dividing over charismatic gifts, not to comfortably divide into "charismatic" churches and "noncharismatic" churches. Let's call a spade a spade: our division over this issue is a sin.

Its more than charismaniac extremes that cause division. Legitimate charismatics who treat their charismatic gifting as if it were a personal idol contribute their fair share to the great divide. Prophets and charismatic "worship leaders" are especially guilty of this. If they can't prophesy in church, somehow, their life on earth is ruined. If they can't sing for two or three hours in tongues every meeting, and can't lead a ten-piece orchestra in your living room, all community with their noncharismatic brethren is wasted. Of course, given the alternative, I would choose a church where prophecy flowed freely. The apostle Paul encouraged us to "desire prophesy." (I can't say the same for charismatic worship leaders, who are nowhere to be found in Scripture.) But what's more important, the charismatic prophet's prophetic "flair", or community and church life? Would it be too much to ask the prophet to sacrifice his idol, excuse me, his gift, for a greater good?

Let's call a spade a spade: our division over this issue is a sin.

Lest you think that all of the fault lies with charismaniacs, however, let me point out to you that there is plenty of blame to go around on the noncharismatic side. Many cessationists are just as bull-headed over the issue as charismaniacs. I remember a couple with five kids who twice attended my home church. They loved it. They heard no tongues or prophesy at those particular meetings. The husband called me, asking everything he could about home church, he lived close by, he was coming regularly, etc. Then I received another phone call from him, during which he informed me that he had heard we were charismatic, and was that true, and if it were, he could no longer attend. This, after experiencing not one charismatic excess, but after not even knowing we were charismatic! This cessationist pinheadedness was repeated by another couple, who were so excited about finding us, and meeting with us, until they found out we were charismatic, after which they refused to return my phone calls. Another example: on an evaluation form, one participant at the Annual Southern House Church Conference requested that the organizers not invite any more charismatics! From these three examples I extrapolate to the whole noncharismatic world, and come to the following conclusion: noncharismatics are generally just as ridiculously divisive as charismatics are.

There's another small beef I have with noncharismatics who are not cessationists, but who honor the charismatic gifts in the breach. I'm referring to those who say we can't forbid spiritual gifts, because Paul didn't forbid them (good), but in whose churches spiritual gifts never, and I mean never, appear (bad). This mere academic acceptance of spiritual gifts inevitably snuffs any charismatic's desire to contribute to the building of the body with his gifting. I know from experience its hard to get the average Christian to prophesy amongst charismatics (the apostle Paul had the same trouble, which is why he encouraged his readers to "desire it"). When one couples this natural human reluctance to prophesy on the part of the charismatic with the complete indifference of those noncharismatics in his church, their is obviously never going to be any prophecy, despite Paul's admonition that "all should prophesy." The charismatic is going to understandably want to go where his gifts are not merely tolerated, but recognized and encouraged.

What amazes me about noncharismatics who accept academically the existence of spiritual gifts, but then never practice or encourage them, is the inconsistency involved. If one believes that those gifts are part of the pattern of church life in the Scriptures, then why not seek to emulate the pattern? We seek to follow the New Testament pattern with regard to open meetings, the Lord's Supper as a full meal, and consensual government, so why not do the same when it comes to spiritual gifts? And if we accept that a consistent pattern of practice in the New Testament church is a sign for us to do the same practice, why do we reject the clear pattern in Acts, where there are five clear instances the Christians openly practiced receiving a work of the Holy Spirit subsequent to regeneration. In four of those instances the recipient of that filling of the Spirit either explicity or impliedly spoke in tongues on the spot, and in the fifth instance, the recipient (Paul) later spoke in tongues "more than you all." This pattern is much clearer than some other patterns that house churchers hold to, for example, open meetings. So why do we ignore it? Why is it that in 100.00000 percent of all house churches in which it is believed that all the work of the Holy Spirit is completely done at conversion, there are no charismatic gifts every practiced? Why is it that in 100.00000 percent of all house churches in which charismatic gifts are practiced, there is a belief in a filling work of the Holy Spirit subsequent to regeneration? Do you think there might be a connection somewhere?

Noncharismatics are generally just as ridiculously divisive as charismatics are.

We need to end this tragic and senseless division over spiritual gifts. To that end may I offer the following unsolicited advice? If you aren't a charismatic, do the following. First, confirm that you have received a filling of the Holy Spirit subsequent to regeneration, as was the universal practice in the book of Acts. It doesn't matter what you call it. It always amused me that evangelicals who fought the charismatic movement tooth and nail almost all had literature urging that regenerate believers get filled: R.A. Torrey, Billy Graham, Campus Crusade for Christ. They just left the tongues off. I remember using Campus Crusade literature to get one new believer "baptized in the Holy Spirit," which I thought was a delicious irony, since I had been placed on an actual Campus Crusade blacklist at my university for my charismatic activity! So, let's don't quibble over terminology, lets do what about 90 percent of all Christians recognize: we need a certain power that comes after regeneration, and the provision for this power, for all of us, not just an elite charismatic few, is in the Bible.

Second, for all noncharismatics, I would offer this advice. Once you have confirmed that you have been filled with the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion, start praying in tongues, as was the universal pattern in the book of Acts. Please quit using the demeaning excuse that only "some" get it, and you're not part of that "some." What! Only charismatics are worthy? You're probably more holy than 95 percent of charismatics out there. The only people who speak in tongues are those who, not having been brainwashed by evangelical seminary tradition, believe that tongues are for EVERY Christian that wants them, and are granted not as a result of works, but grace.

Why is it that in 100.00000 percent of all house churches in which it is believed that all the work of the Holy Spirit is completely done at conversion, there are no charismatic gifts every practiced?

Third, once you have experienced the present-day supernatural by praying in tongues, explore the use of other charismatic gifts. This might mean finding some sane charismatics somewhere with experience (probably a difficult task), and learning from them.

Now, for all charismatics, I would offer this free advice. First, quit worshipping your gifts. God's more interested in his church than your gifts. Your gifts were given to build up the CHURCH, not for your personal edification. If I had a nickle for all the prophets I know who don't have a church to prophesy in, I'd be rich. What good is a gift without a church? If you have to choose between the two, get a church, and then later maybe you can convince the charismatically challenged within that church how much a blessing your gift can be to church life.

My second piece of advice to charismatics is this. Please quit acting crazy, and please read your Bible!

-By Dan Trotter

The Web of Practical Theology is committed to the inerrancy and infallibility of the 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books of the Christian Scriptures. We believe "Theology is Practical."

  • "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." 1 Timothy 4:16

  • "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

  • "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

  • "He [an overseer] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Titus 1:9

  • "You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine." Titus 2:1

This is a new web as of December 8, 2003 -- If you have any good links, ideas, articles, or advice for its improvement, please drop us a note at the address below.

We hope this web has been edifying to your Christian Faith.

kasih_indonesia@yahoo.com