Why Reformed And Charismatic Aren’t Contradictions
My generation of Christians are a unique breed. With the influence of pastors like Piper, Driscoll, and Grudem, we have taken two seemingly contradictory theological camps and mashed them together to make a new one.
In the book A Call To Resurgence, Mark Driscoll calls this camp the New Reformed. In essence, this crowd holds to the basic tenets of the Reformed faith, namely the Five Solas, TULIP, Covenantal Theology, and the Regulative Principle. But we also hold to a Continuation understanding of the “charismatic gifts” (usually tongues, prophesy and healing).
As you can imagine, this raises a lot of eyebrows and causes tension. Typically the words “Reformed” and “Charismatic” aren’t used in the same sentence without a few choice words. But the two aren’t nearly as opposed to each other as many believe. I have a few reasons why I believe being Reformed and Charismatic are more compatible than people think.
Let me clarify what I am advocating and what I am not. I am advocating an expression of the Spirit in line with Scripture, God-honoring, and that genuinely shows God’s power ; orderly and Christ-centered worship. I am not advocating a false-spirit-led outworking of false gifts, one chaotic and full of confusion.
Continuationism Fits Right In With Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria are Latin phrases used by the Protestant Reformers to say “Scripture Alone (is our authority)” and “To God alone be the glory”.
Continuationsim is the belief and understanding the spiritual gifts spoken of in Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:7-10, 28 and Ephesians 4:11 all continue to this day. The opposite view of this is known as Cessationism, which believes that in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, Paul is saying the gifts of prophesy, tongues, and knowledge will all cease soon (usually at the close of the Cannon of Scripture).
Continuationism fits right in with Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria. This is usually where my Reformed friends faint, but hear me out. Assuming these gifts do in fact continue today, they would, by Scriptural necessity, function under the authority of Scripture. Scripture gives a clear command to desire the gifts (1 Cor. 14:1). Would Paul tell us to desire something that is going to cease, before many of us are able to understand the Gospel and then desire the gifts?
Paul also tells us the gifts are given for the building up of the church. So if the gifts are used and the church is edified, wouldn’t God be glorified?
Most of the issues arise with the gift of prophesy. Often times, prophesy is misrepresented as a new revelation from God not included in Scripture. This is not what is actually meant by Scriptural New Testament prophesy.
The definition Wayne Grudem gives for prophesy is something God “spontaneously brings to mind”. It’s a direct word from God, and it is not authoritative. Prophesy can be used to glorify God. Imagine in a church business meeting, the members are stuck at a crossroads about whether to add another service or go multisite. The Holy Spirit presses upon someone’s heart to stand up and tell them to go multisite. They are obedient and do so, the church decides to do multisite and the church grows. God would be glorified. Nothing went against Scripture; everything was within the realms of Orthodoxy.
Typically when someone starts talking about the Gifts of the Spirit, people get anxious. Their first thought is some crazy guy running around mumbling. A lot of my Reformed friends see an issue with the gifts functioning in an orderly way in worship. Hopefully my next point will clarify that.
Continuationism Functions Best Under The Regulative Principle
Among the Reformed crowd, there is the Regulative Principle. The Regulative Principle, in simplest terms states worship is to be done according to Scripture, and only what is arranged in Scripture is to be used. That’s a very watered down version that probably doesn’t do it justice for what some believe concerning worship.[1] Its counterpart is the Normative Principle, which states whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, so long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church.”[2]
Holding to the Regulative Principle, how would the gifts function under something typically orderly? Well Paul, I believe, would be in favor of the Regulative Principle insofar as it doesn’t become authoritative or legalistic, and he would permit the gifts to function in an orderly fashion.
Look at 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, especially verse 40. Notice what Paul says about how the gifts are to function in a church service: decently and in order. These two words are significant to understanding this. Decently, in the original language means “honest”. So one shouldn’t function in their gift in a dishonest or deceitful way.
Orderly means “in time, fixed succession”. There is a time during the worship service for the edification of the Saints by the use of the gifts. It’s not happy hour at the local pub where everybody gets to speak at once. It is orderly.
Scripture (Sola Scriptura) teaches the gifts function in an orderly manner (Regulative Principle). In order to ensure order, prophesy and the like should be filtered through an elder first. I simply believe this is a wise use of the Godly men who shepherd the flock.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe Scripture teaches that the gifts do in fact continue today, and that they should only function under the authority of Scripture which I believe also teaches an orderly worship service. Therefore, I believe being both Reformed and a Continuationist is compatible, and not a contradiction.
[1] For a couple of good resources concerning the Regulative Principle, R.C. Sproul has a good article ( http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/regulative-principle-worship ), as well, Mark Dever has two chapters in his book The Deliberate Church (Crossway, 2005) dedicated to understanding and applying this principle. The Westminster Confession of Faith is also a go-to resource.
[2] Regulative Principle. n.d. http://theopedia.com/regulative-principle Accessed (August 9, 2015)
Rachel
On this subject (and others) we can learn a LOT from our brothers and sisters in Africa. I am a Presbyterian missionary, of more than 2 decades,working in partnership with the Ethiopian Evangelical Church, Mekane Yesus – which is a member of the Lutheran World Federation and the Association of Reformed Churches. However, if you ever have the chance to go to a worship service at any of their churches, you will think you are at a Pentacostal church. Routinely you will hear speaking in tongues, you will see and hear demons leaving bodies, you will see people who were on the brink of (or even further) death dancing in the aisles!
Come to Africa and see and learn how Reformed, Reformation, and Charismatic theology mess in perfect harmony!
Maxwell Kendall
Hi Guys,
Allow me to mix it up a little bit with y’all, in all honor, faith, good will, and charity. I trust my antagonistic comments are welcome to sharpen and further examine the Scriptures. I have a lot of friends who are “Reformed, Charismatic, and Credo-Baptist” by their own profession. I therefore comment here with full confidence my thoughts will be welcomed.
Thanks to John Piper, it is very popular to believe in (1) credobaptism (2) continuationism and (3) calvinistic soteriology. I praise God for the last point, but I do believe that the second two issues are not only on the wrong side of Church history (only a few hundred years old at best), but falsifiable when allowed to be interrogated by Scripture. Rather than “New Reformed”, then, “Piperism” seems a more accurate label. Perhaps Driscoll would be more pleased with this term as well, since almost no PCA/OPC/NRC/URC folks commended him, but Piper did, and has no regrets.
In saying, “Reformed theology and charismatic theology mix well”, we are boiling down one part of the three forms of unity (the doctrinal standards of the United Reformed Church) to the five headings of one of those three documents, the Cannon of Dort. Much work has been done within the historically reformed camp (those who hold to the Reformed confessions) to combat this reductionistic view of reformed theology, generally made popular by John Piper, John MacArthur, and other popular baptists such as Francis Chan, David Platt, and Matt Chandler.
The Reformed faith cannot be reduced below the Reformed Confessions. (Please see R. Scott Clark’s book “Recovering the Reformed Confession) With that granted, all of these confessions, without exception, are cessationist in nature. The Cannons of Dort, with the 5 headings of TULIP, are supplemented by two other confessions as a reformed doctrinal standard; the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. This is called “the 3 forms of unity.” The other reformed confession is the Westminster Confession of faith, which is also cessationist in nature.
This is then what is meant when it is said that one cannot be Reformed and Charismatic. John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Mark Driscoll all are Calvinistic, praise God, but not reformed in the historic sense. They have no elaborate, historical confession of faith to which they have taken vows to uphold. This lends itself to theological innovation; “Reformed Charismatic”, “Multi-site”, “Non-authoritaive/revelatory prophecy” etc, etc, etc…
This in my view is a very bad thing. Innovative theology is no bueno. I would love to engage anyone on the Scripture’s clear teaching on the cessation of the signs of an apostle… My blog has five posts, and links to other resources, which provide ample place for dialogue on the issue.
Also, Ian Hamilton debates Wayne Grudem on continuationism, asking him “how is it possible, that God can speak to us, and it not be authoritative?” To which there is no rationale answer.
See the link:
Overall, love the blog and the ideas here, but glad to offer some pushback on this particular post.
Blessings,
Max
Kateri
Thanks Dylan!
As a Christian who grew up in a smattering of denominational influences (Lutheran, Catholic, Christian Missionary Alliance, Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, and now Presbyterian) I feel like I’ve had the opportunity to see a spectrum of really bad to really good attempts by Christ-Followers to serve the Lord with authenticity. Having received his forgiveness and experienced Jesus’ love through grace and repentance and followed his call to serve him OUTSIDE of the reformed tradition, it is clear to me that he has been at work to draw myself to him through this mixed bag of experiences. I have been blessed to be planted in a tradition that preaches the word with conviction and clarity (the PCA). As an artist, however, I find that the artistic practice of creation as worship is greatly influenced by much of what I learned in my charismatic seasons in the church and the embracing of the more “phenomenal” gifts. For example, if I want to greater understand what it means to use images that communicate truth that points people back to God, I would need to spend some time with the prophets (see Ezekiel 4, Ezekiel 37, Jeremiah 13, Jeremiah 27, Acts 21:11, etc.) In fact, most of the edgiest contemporary artists of our time are artists who put on performances that remind me a lot of the prophets (who are not nearly as committal in these performances as God’s servants, who would marry prostitutes or walk around naked for years… see the following image if you are curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Minuj%C3%ADn#/media/File:Marta_Minuj%C3%ADn_Leyendo_las_noticias3.jpg )
I would be mistaken to say that all Christian artists are called to be prophets and should refer to themselves as such, but if I am to make work that makes an impact without words, I would be amiss to not consult scripture, Old Testament as well as New, that my work might be in submission to the Lord’s commands and standard.
I have also been blessed with an opportunity to lead worship in various church settings. In order to lead with a servant heart and authenticity, my own practice of private musical worship must be present alongside scripture meditation and prayer. Oftentimes, when singing spiritual songs, the music trails off to a place I haven’t sung before and new words emerge, portions of scripture and praise, and often these become cries, shouts, and sung notes with no distinct words that convey deep longing and need that I can’t put words to anymore. I have often wondered why people sing “oh” when nothing else remains (check out this song, 4:10 min mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJznj1a8I1w ). I am not seeking to redefine the gift of tongues, but I sometimes wonder if some of these gifts sneak into our lives more often than we would like to admit…
I guess my thought is this; good gifts that have been given to us to enjoy the Lord in all his fullness and glorify him. Is it right to say that those gifts have become null and void if we are not totally positive how they fit into our current historical narrative? Could we, as the reformed church, be sapping our fellowship and communion with God by ignoring these gifts instead of teaching and regulating them? Personally, I think that these get pushed out of the way because it would be a greater liability if we were to practice them and then be called on to hold each other accountable. Enjoyment of things is dangerous and can often become idols… sex, alcohol, wealth, etc. Yet God created these to be used in their proper context, and when they are offered up to him to be used to his glory, they can be huge blessings.
That said, I ask the Lord to give me and my church family more of his good gifts, especially those that tie us in deeper love and communion with him. I long to see myself and others pray and worship and evangelize with even more power and fervor.
Earon James
Thank you for your thoughts on this. This was very encouraging to me. I am one of the “New Reformed” guys. My background is charismatic and I hold to the doctrines of grace and Reformed theology. At first I felt like I had to check the gifts of the Spirit at the door but now I’m seeing an openness that is in line with what Scripture teaches. Articles like this are a big help.
Dylan Justus
I appreciate that Samuel! I grew up, much like your other Reformed friends, on the outside of “charismaticism”. I came to my position under the preaching of a friend who simply opened Scripture and taught and allowed the Spirit to work. Dr. Grudem is right, there’s not enough proof to discontinue the gifts.
Samuel
Thanks for the article Dylan. I am part of the New Reformed Camp. After sitting under Wayne Grudem through several classes and graduating from Phoenix Seminary, and having been ordained a minister in the COGIC denomination (pentecostal), I have always clearly seen how worship can be orderly while allowing gifts like prophecy to proceed. I’ve also seen where it doesn’t have the proper order. Quite often the negative experiences broadbrush the entire movement as negative, and my other Reformed friends tend to stay away from it.
I recall Dr. Grudem making this statement (I’m paraphrasing), which has some validity: “If you were to lock yourself in a room for a month, and all that you read was Sola Scriptura, at the end of that month, you would come out believing that the gifts still exist. There wouldn’t be enough proof to suggest otherwise.”