Why be a Charismatic, and Not Merely a Continuationist?

Jonathan Edwards

Over the last ten or so years I have journeyed from being a charismatic Christian fresh out of my experience of the Toronto Blessing through many years of theological education and many different ecclesial and ministry contexts. Throughout this journey I have needed to ask myself the question many times 'Do I still want to be a charismatic Christian? Can my theology and practice still legitimately be labelled charismatic? Do I want to let go of this movement with its theology and practices?' Although my theology and ministry practice have changed much over the last ten or so years, I have consistently answered in the negative to these questions, even in the light of the many moral scandals that have rocked the charismatic movement over the last several years. This is because, as I became more proficient at being a close reader of the biblical text, with the help of both formal theological training and exposure to many different ecclesial traditions and ministry contexts, I have become more convinced, not less convinced, that some of the key tenants of charismatic theology and practice are highly biblical, oftentimes neglected in the wider church, and extremely helpful in our calling to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in the 21st century world. In this blog post, I want to focus on two key points in particular: 1. The temptation to be what Jack Deere calls 'functional cessationists', and 2. An oft-neglected but consistent strand of church history - the many documented cases of people experiencing God's presence in immediate and powerful ways in various times and places, especially in the wake of heightened Christian activity. I am going to frame these two points within the question 'Why be a Charismatic and not merely a continuationist?'. For those unaware, those who want to reject a theology of cessationism but do not want to be identified as charismatics will sometimes label themselves 'continuationists', meaning that they believe the gifts of the Spirit have continued throughout all of church history up to and including the present day. This blog post is, in essence, my apology (as in the Greek 'apologia' - a defence of something) for the continuing validity and goodness of charismatic theology and practice, despite the many problems and weaknesses currently present in the movement.

Point 1. 'Functional Cessationists' (Jack Deere)

As we move deeper into the 21st century, the number of people holding to a strict cessationism seems (to me at least) to be dwindling. Many leading evangelical scholars (such as Don Carson and Wayne Grudem), who are certainly not charismatics, have provided robust exegetical and historical reasons why cessationism is not a convincing position. The fact that Pentecostal and charismatic forms of Christianity have also spread like wild fire around the globe and are exploding in places like South America and Africa also adds further weight to this changing of the theological tide. We have more and more Christians holding to the validity of the gifts and the continued miraculous working of the Holy Spirit for today, and yet there is still among many a reticence regarding what many see as 'excesses' in the charismatic movement. There are undeniably excesses in the charismatic movement, as there are in every part of the global Christian Church. But I and others have observed a strong tendency in denominations, churches, pastors and lay people who are not cessationists and yet deny any (or much) validity to the charismatic movement: Oftentimes the bulk of these Christians are non-cessationists in name only. They ascribe to the validity of the gifts and present-day miraculous working of the Spirit, but they make little to no effort practically speaking in their church services or day-to-day lives to actually try and use the gifts. As I mentioned above, Jack Deere calls this phenomenon 'functional cessationism'. In my mind, as soon as you abandon cessationism, and presuming you want to be faithful to the teaching of the New Testament, you are morally obliged to seek to try and use the gifts and pray for healing and the move of the Spirit regularly. This is in part because Paul actually writes in 1 Corinthians 14:1 (ESV) "Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." Two quick insights from the Greek: 1. Firstly, the verb translated "earnestly desire" is in the imperative mood meaning that in Paul's mind it is a command. The only way to except yourself from this biblical command is to adopt cessationism. But once we have rejected cessationism, why do we feel free to abide by all the other biblical commands (be thankful, pray without ceasing, love your enemy, give to the marginalized, seek justice for the oppressed, be humble, etc) and yet conveniently ignore this one? 2. The reason the ESV adds the adverb "earnestly" into its translation is because the verb in question is a verb of intense desire and seeking from which we get the English verb 'to be zealous'. This underscores the fact that Paul is passionately insisting that the Christians in his churches (not only the leaders but the whole body of believers) use the spiritual gifts that God has graciously given them. This is not a suggestion, but an impassioned command.

Point 2. Christian History

My second point pertains to the fact that although masses of theologians, pastors and lay people flock to condemn phenomena such as the Toronto Blessing, which broke out near Pearson International Airport in 1994 to much controversy, the documented fact of Church history is that Christians have experienced intensified and unusual encounters with God at various points and in various places throughout the whole two-thousand-year history of the Christian Church (not consistently in every time and place, but sporadically throughout the whole two-thousand years). The Toronto Blessing, and other events like it, are not the invention of modern-day supposedly 'false teachers', they are a documented and ancient part of the experience of the global Christian church. Many today are happy to hastily condemn modern charismatic leaders, but they certainly would not rush to condemn either Jonathan Edwards or John Wesley. Consider the following two quotations from these two illustrious figures in Christian history:

Summary

None of my arguments in this blog post mean that all charismatic churches, leaders or events ought to be accepted and celebrated without critical thinking and prayerful discernment. As I have mentioned many times in my blog, every part of the global Christian church has its share of wolves in sheep's clothing, excesses and theological errors. These realities notwithstanding, I think that two strong reasons to be a charismatic Christian are that 1. The charismatic movement makes it a central part of its mission to seek to actually use our spiritual gifts in a consistent and concerted way, rather than believing in the validity of the gifts and yet conveniently side-stepping this biblical imperative whilst insisting on others, 2. Many millions of Christians in both recent times and ancient times have at various times and in various places (not in every place all the time) experienced intense and at times unusual encounters with God. This is a key feature of charismatic theology and practice and, whilst it is often denounced as 'unbiblical' by outsiders, this reality often brings about immensely positive fruit in the lives of those who experience it (remember: Jesus didn't tell us to evaluate things by whether or not they were strange or whether they made us uncomfortable, but by their fruit).

These are some of the main reasons why I remain a charismatic. Contrary to much popular rhetoric in charismatic circles, going to bible college and seminary and becoming an academic does not automatically lead to a dwindling of one's faith or hunger for the work of the Spirit. In my case, by God's grace, it has strengthened and deepened both. No 'seminary cemetery' for me!