Southern Baptist Seminary bans "Charismatic" teaching

My dad tells a story of when he was in the navy stationed in Italy. One day he and a friend went into a beautiful old Roman Catholic Church to pray and have a look around. While inside they watched a very old nun shoo-ing a white bird, that looked suspiciously like a dove, out of the church with a broom. He and his friend just looked at each other not missing the powerful symbolism of how the old established churches had neglected the Spirit of God.

That story came to mind when I read that Southwestern Seminary's leadership had voted to ban any teaching or preaching that was favorable to Charismatic experiences, in particular speaking in tongues (even as a private experience), a decision similar to that of the International Mission Board because of which I was very critical of the IMB. The seminary's only board member that voted against the ban lamented the "charisphobia" that this decision represents.

I wonder which is worse: attributing activity to the Holy Spirit which he has clearly not taken (as when some church leaders - even bishops - claim that the Spirit is leading the church in a direction contradictory to the clear teachings of the New Testament and unanimous tradition of the Church) or banning the work of the Spirit when it does show up because it threatens the control of church leadership and the status quo (as has happened pretty much anytime a Spirit-led renewal has broken out). Now I know the SBC does a lot of good ministry and brings more people to know Jesus Christ than probably any American denomination (except perhaps the Assemblies of God, a pentecostal denomination), but this ban is part of a trend in the wrong direction on the part of the SBC. I hope that young charismatic Baptists will challenge this move in an appropriate manner.

Some have argued that charismatics ought to "let Baptists be Baptist," but I don't buy this. Since when was "being Not-Charismatic" somehow constituative to being Baptist? Classically, the SBC is congregationalist in polity, allowing each congregation freedom in doctrine and practice. If, in practice, the mission board and the seminaries become "top-down" doctrinal filters for the convention, then the SBC finds itself moving toward becoming a denomination with certain confessions or creeds. This is fine with me (I think those are vital things to have - one reason that I am not Baptist), but it does turn the question of who is really "being Baptist" on it's ear, I think. Unlike some of my fellow Methodists who are (sadly) more than happy to do so, attacking the SBC is not at all my point. I have many personal connections to SBC churches and have been greatly enriched by those ministries. My point is simply "cracking down" on the Charismatic movement, which if judged by its fruit in so many lives and churches must clearly be seen as a work of the Holy Spirit, is wrong.

The United Methodist Church (in spite of her many shortcomings) has, like several of the older more liturgical churches, actually (ironically) done a better job on the whole (we certainly have plenty of examples of "charisphobia") of integrating the blessings of the Charismatic movement into the life of our denomination. The Aldersgate Renewal Ministries, which are affiliated with the UMC's General Board of Discipleship is a ministry that focuses on teaching congregations to explore and use ALL of the charismata in the life of the local church (in a responsible manner consistent with our tradition), through various annual seminars and events and it is one of those few "official" ministries that I am really proud of.

Reformation Day! and Evangelical-Catholic Unity

As we celebrate Reformation Day, the day that Martin Luther famously nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenburg Church (which is also Halloween, the day before All Saints Day), I think there are two things that every Protestant should stop and do:
1) Actually READ the 95 Theses. They arent that long, and you might be surprised how "catholic" they sound at times (of course, he is answering the sale of indulgences specifically).
and
2) Read this post from Protestant (calls himself "Reformed Anglo-Catholic) blog "Communio Sanctorum" putting forth Eight Theses for Evangelical-Catholic Unity. It is unfortunate that the Protestant "break" ever happened since Luther's intent was to purify not split the church; in fact many of his reforms have slowly crept into mainstream Roman Catholicism over the centuries and at this point I imagine most Protestants could at least agree to 5 or more of these 8 Theses for unity.

I like his first "thesis," on what we mean by "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone). I have been going around saying that I am not a good Protestant (or at least not a good Lutheran) because I don't think I believe in Sola Scriptura anymore, but rather in Prima Scriptura. The Bible is first, and most authoritative since it is revelation from God (his written word) in a way that no other writing is or could be, but it cannot be interpreted "alone" without the help of the whole Church's teachers and tradition. If you try "all alone" you get all the subjective chaos of American Protestantism. But if we qualify Sola Scriptura (perhaps "Sola Scriptura, sed non omnino sola" or something to that effect - someone check my rusty Latin here) then I can claim that.

I think he left out one. Protestants may also be able to agree that the five "other" sacraments (not accepted by Reformers as such) of ordination, matrimony, confirmation, confession, and annointing with oil CAN have a sacramental character (some of us already call them "sacramental rites" or "sacramentals") if Catholics can agree that they do not have the same prominence or status as Baptism and the Lord's Supper which were explicity commanded and practiced by Jesus himself in the canonical gospels (which the 5 others were not). I think we can do that.

Also, it would be good for your soul (be it Protestant or Roman Catholic - or Orthodox) to sing Luther's wonderful hymn "A Mighty Fortress is our God" as loud as you can right now.

And if you are still ready to learn more then I recommend Luther's Treatises "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" and "Letter to the German nobility" which reallly shed new light for me when I read them in seminary on the meaning of salvation "by faith" and the relationship between the Word/pledge/promise of God and our faith/trust/faithfulness. I think it interesting that in his early reform proposals, Luther suggests 3 sacraments - baptism, communion, and confession.

Feast of Saints Simon and Jude

OK, how many feasts ARE there? I already missed Saint James of Jerusalem whose feast was on Monday! Maybe I won't be able to keep up with the calendar so well as I suggested in my last post after all...

October 28th is the feast of the Apostles Simon and Jude (also called Thaddaeus)(see Luke 6:15-16; the names get a little confusing when you compare with the other lists: Matt. 10:1-3; Mark 3:13-19; Acts 1:13-14).
I don't know too much about Simon or Jude. Some have held that Jude the apostle wrote The Letter Jude (though this is debated within the tradition because there are several people called Jude, and the letter itself doesn't make this claim). The Letter Jude is best known for the oft-quoted verse 3, about defending "the faith that was once delivered to the saints," implying that the true faith is timeless and distinctly identifiable (and in no need of "revision" to fit neatly with the latest philosophical trends). And it also has that weird bit about Michael and Satan fighting over the bones of Moses, doesn't it? Hear any sermons on THAT lately?

According to Wikipedia, (a more prominent) tradition holds that Simon and Jude were an evangelist team (thus the shared feast day); they preached "the gospel of the Kingdom of God" in Egypt and then in Armenia where they were horribly martyred, Simon being cut in two with a saw, and Jude being killed with some sort of an ax.

As in many other cases The Book of Common Prayer (p. 245) may be the best guide of our reflection and thanksgiving:

O God, we thank you for the glorious company of the apostles, and especially on this day for Simon and Jude; and we pray that, as they were faithful and zealous in their mission, so we may with ardent devotion make known the love and mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

So this day might be a good day to pray for renewal of the Armenian Church and for Christians in Egypt who even today are often persecuted for the name of Christ.

The Feast of St. Luke

I think I am going to try to do a better job of keeping up with minor holidays of the Christian year on "Gloria Deo." Today is the traditional feast day of St. Luke, so read his Gospel and The Acts if you have time. In addition to giving thanks to God for this witness, I guess any "saint's day" gives us the opportunity to ask "how can I imitate _____ (today Luke), as he imitated Christ?" (following the precept of 1 Corinthians 11:1).

Missionaries give opportunity for prayer

A saintly young woman once thanked me for passing along a prayer request (which I too seldom do) because it gave her the opportunity to intercede for someone else. Either she saw in the opportunity to pray for a stranger an open door for her own growth into Christlikeness, or she was already so filled with charity she just rejoiced at an opportunity to exercise it. In either case I think that is a wonderful testimony.

So, here is an opportunity for prayer! A United Methodist minister couple, Michael and Sherri Morrissey, are being sent as the denomination's first missionaries to Thailand. There they will partner with a local Independent church to coordinate and plant small groups and churches in this country where Christianity, a tiny minority, is steadily growing. Both attended an evangelical non-Methodist seminary where they were drawn to Wesleyan theology and joined The United Methodist Church. Apparently they then transfered to Asbury to finish up and became clergy members of the Kentucky Annual Conference. I have a feeling they will be great missionaries, and probably not the sort who "forget" to do evangelism.

Also, a small group (including me) from First United Methodist Church in Gonzales, Louisiana will be doing a short medical mission trip in Reynossa, Mexico (through "Volunteers in Mission") starting tommorow (we will do clinics Thursday evening, Friday, and Saturday).

The Renewing of your minds: Imaginative Spirituality

This morning in Sunday School class I was trying to explain the intended relationship between Man and Nature (that was distorted by sin, as pictured in Genesis 3). As I contemplated the event later (thinking of all the really good things I should have said) I realized that much of what I was trying to say was almost more intuitive than it was really information that could be relayed.

This is related to the problem I run into when I try to explain how I moved from a traditional and simple (formulaic?) conservative evangelical theology to a more evangelical sacramental view of things. It was a journey that included more than meditating on biblical texts or concepts such as "covenant oaths" (though it did include alot of that) but also it involved learning to see the whole of creation in a new way, filled with "incarnational" potential somehow and headed toward a fusion with heaven when the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev. 22 descends to a "born-again" Earth. There was something that was as intuitively compelling about sacramental theology as it was intellectually compelling for me. Something mysterious (the Greek term for sacrament, reflected in the Methodist liturgy, is of course "mystery"), and good.

The phase that was on the "tip of my mind" was "Biblical Imagination." I have heard it said that C.S. Lewis' fiction was intended to "evangelize" or "baptize" the imagination. On the other hand, I am convinced that rampant pornography (or just sex obsession in general, even when network television doesn't "show anything") sexualizes the imagination in a perverse way. Constant exposure to advertisement and compulsive trips to the mall also works to hedonize the imagination (for lack of a better word). They change the way we see the world on an intuitive level. What the Church needs to be doing in the process of making disciples (among other things) is to evangelize people's imaginations. Recovering holistic and sacramental worship that helps us learn to wonder and rejoice in God's presence and mystery, (to which we are connected, into which we are ingrafted "in Christ") will be a part (not the whole) of this process, I suspect.

We have so much still to learn about what it means to "enjoy God forever," as the compilers of the Westminster Larger Catechism put it, and what a glorious lesson it will be to revel in the Triune God, the I AM, as we "participate in" his Perichoresis, through Christ and in the Spirit even using the elements, the material, of this world which is being redeemed through the unfailing Word of God, unto a new creation.

I started thinking of this because of a post on the blog "Out of Ur" on just this subject, that was a very timely read for me at any rate. And so I commend it to you.

American conceptions of God

In several of his books, N.T. Wright relates a conversation he once had with and undergraduate student while Wright was a chaplain at Oxford. The young man says something to the effect of "You probably won't see me in the chapel too much, since I don't believe in God." Wright responds "Which God is it you don't believe in?" When the young man describes a far away God up in the sky looking down with a somewhat disinterested scowl on humanity, Wright says "I don't believe in that God either." Opening the way to talk to the surprised young man about the God revealed in the person and ministry of Jesus Christ.

SO the question of "which God do/don't you believe in" can be an important one for the Church to ask those who are (or who refuse to be) spiritual "seekers." So we may be interested in the findings of sociologists at Baylor university from a study on American conceptions of God.

4 conceptions are the most predominant among Americans:
-Angry authoritarian God who is involved in our world: 31%
-Benevolent forgiving God who is willing to accept everyone who comes to him: 23%
-Critical God who is judgmental but not involved in the world: 16%
-Distant God who may or may not be personal who started the world and then left it alone: 24%

ALSO - The most excellent blog Locusts and Honey did a profile on me & "Gloria Deo," so check that out.

Calvinist Comeback

One of the things that happened to me when I was at LSU, were the debates with the 5-point Calvinists. This happened alot. I attended several of the campus ministries at LSU, and at the Baptist ministry I met a handful of real live Calvinists. At first, I thought it was some sort of strange coincidence, after all "there hasn't been a Calvinist in these parts in a hundred years!" But I met alot more than I expected.

Turn's out this trend isn't just isolated to South Louisiana. A large number of young seminary students, especially among the Baptists, are turning to classical "5-point" Calvinism. According to a Christianity Today article about this trend, there may be alot more young people connected with a resurgence of Calvinism than are involved with the much more widely publicized "emerging church movement."

To be honest this movement distrubs me a little, and makes me glad I am not Baptist (like the whole forbidding missionaries to practice "speaking in tongues" did awhile back). Reaction to this Calvinistic trend has been varied. Young and zealous Calvinists with their tight rational system with all of its certainty can come of as (and sometimes may actually be) arrogant and narrow, not respecting the rest of us. I have even met 3 or 4 Calvinists at Perkins School of Theology (and none of them among our Presbyterian students!) which is according to conventional wisdom the sort of liberal seminary where I would never find one.

Now, my own theological perspective is Wesleyan (meaning something like Anglo-Catholic + Charismatic + Evangelical + a hint of Progressive = Wesleyan), which on a couple points is very un-5-point-Calvinist. John Wesley preached a scathing critique of 5-point-Calvinism in his sermon "Free Grace", because he understood the logical repercussions of its teachings.

Here is a very brief run down of the teachings of 5-point (TULIP) Calvinism and why I find it problematic (I realize that this is a gross simplification focusing on the problems not the "pluses," but I think I cover the fundamentals).

Total depravity - this expression does not occur in scripture, but if it means that "every inclination of all the thoughts of their hearts were evil, and that continually" that causes me to wonder why so many non-Christians do so many apparently good (or at least refrain from even more evil) things. Calvin himself addressed this problem with what he called "restraining grace" which is in my opinion very similar to what Wesley called "prevenient grace." Both of them ended up saying the same thing: we are totally depraved in theory, but it doesn't play out that way in practice (Calvin says we are able to refrain from some evil and Wesley says we are also able to freely choose to accept/reject Christ) all because the grace of God is already at work in every person.

Unconditional election - those who are elected by God for salvation are not elected based upon any work or quality of their own. There are no conditions they must meet in order to become the elect, God simply chose them (apparently arbitrarily since "there is no partiallity with him," which is very problematic). This is necessary because our depravity and the corruption of our wills is SO total that if God did not choose for us, then no one would be saved at all. Unconditional election is aimed at the same problem (our broken will) as Wesley's prevenient grace. If Unconditional election is true, then surely God, who wants everyone to be saved according to 1 Tim. 2:4, would therefore act in accordance with his own will and elect everyone for salvation unconditionally, to do otherwise would seem to imply some imperfection in God if he wills one thing (universal salvation) and then acts to ensure it can never happen. Thus if I believed in unconditional election I would immediately be a universalist Calvinist. I am of the opinion that we are elected according to the foreknowlege of God on the condition of our faith in Christ and our consequent and necessary participation in the covenant and the covenant people of God, and that all humans are called to do that by the grace of God, though many reject this calling.

Limited Atonement - Since God chose before the foundation of the world who would be saved, then Christ only died to save those people. Otherwise Christ is dying to save people whom God ordained could not be saved and this would make no sense. This teaching is the one most likely to be rejected by Bible-believing young people who are otherwise tempted by Calvinism since it plainly contradicts explicitly several (and implicitly several more) verses of Scripture, most notably 1 John 2:2. I have never yet met a Calvinist who could explain this one away to my satisfaction.

Irresistable Grace - since God has already chosen who will be saved, they cannot resist his grace to the point of not being saved. They will be saved whether they want to or not (though, I would imagine they will always want to or would not be elected). Along with unconditional election this doctrine would essentially eliminate our freedom to accept or reject God.

Perseverence/Preservation of the saints - those who have been elected may not fall away from salvation, since God's decree cannot be annulled and since grace is irresistable. I tend to lean away from this idea, but with some humility and uncertainty, simply because there are a number of passages of Scripture that speak of Christians "shipwrecking" or falling away from Grace (such as Hebrews 6:4-6, John 15:6, etc.). Though many passages also seem to endorse it.

I think 5-point-Calvinism has erred in some other broad assumptions that lay behind the actual 5 points: 1) I think it is overly individualistic in its understanding of election. God elected Israel as a people (not a collection of individuals) and God has elected the Church as a people. It is no surprise that Calvinism developed after the emergence of Western individualism, but ancient Jews and Christians who wrote the Bible would not have shared our more recent individualistic assumptions. 2) Calvinists tend to assume that God is contained within time. I think it is important to remember that when we talk about God doing something or knowing something "pre" or "before" or "after" that this language is only a glimpse or an attempt to capture a reality that is for us incomprehensible: God, God's knowledge, and even (some of?) God's action transcends time - as bizzare as that seems. Thus the phrase "pre-destination" can be misunderstood to include the elimination of free action, but I think this is an error based upon an overly anthropomorphic view of God. 3) Five-point-Calvinism is too "neat" to be Biblical. As I pointed out above, 5-point Calvinism must simply ignore or explain away several passages of Scripture because they contradict the schema. Of course, the whole point of any schema is that it is neat and anyone can learn it. But the Bible is just not that neat and clean like some mathematical theorem. It is as messy and bewildering and wonderous as real life.

Though I am clearly no Calvinist, I think the re-emergence of Calvinism can potentially teach the rest of us some important lessons. Chief among them: doctrine really is important. I think Osama bin Laden has also begun (in a very different way!) to help those of us in mainline churches and seminaries remember that in theology an "anything goes" attitude toward doctrine really can be dangerous. The Calvinists, who take seriously the need to have a teachings that are Biblical and rationally coherent, will seriously challenge some of the less weighty theological teachers and ideas that are mindlessly accepted in many "mainline" circles.

Another thing that Calvinists can remind the rest of us is that election really is a Biblical doctrine that is at the very HEART of the Biblical story. I would like to see a greater emphasis on the relationship between election and covenant among Calvinists and a re-learning by most of us of the relationiship between covenant and sacraments (Scott Hahn, a Presbyterian turned Roman Catholic, is a worthy teacher along these lines). I think all of us need to reconnect the ideas of election (of a covenant people), covenant relationship, faith, and sacrament (as covenant oath) that all work together in classical Christian orthodoxy. This lesson (that I am admitedly still learning) will help us avoid the extremes of Calvinism (denial of freedom) on the one hand or medieval Catholicism (reliance on self-merit) on the other, and Scott Hahn's book Swear to God is as fine a place to start as any I know (though clearly, he is a Roman Catholic apologist).

Finally, the rest of us should learn to speak more of the "sovereignty of God." I understand this not simply to mean "God is the cause of everything that happens," as some Calvinists often seem to mean, but that God is rightly the Sovereign of the universe. The Kingdom of God is what this story really is about - it is about God, his glory, and his will, and his worthiness of our trust and worship, and really just his wonderous self.

God created the universe and we have misused our freedom (which God graciously allowed us) and have partiallly ripped it away from him by our rebellion (if sovereignty means "God strictly controls every thing" then the concept of "sin" loses its meaning since we could not do anything unless God willed it, in which case even our sins would be according to his will, which is a self-contradiction - this problem was explored by Milton in Paradise Lost). And yet, God's providence is still somehow seen in the various circumstances of our lives and even our past decisions. His will does already reign and yet will reign more fully at the restoration of all things. I freely admit this paradox, but I do not believe it is possible to clearly understand this mystery in a systematic and comprehensive way, the exact nature of the sovereignty of God is a mystery beyond our human comprehension a fact of which the failure of 5-point Calvinism to capture the mystery should make us aware.