|
Are Charismatics more loving than Non-Charismatics? |
 |
 |
 |
|
Geoff Willour 2/22/12
"If you love me, you will obey what I command." (Jesus Christ in John 14:15, NIV)
"This is love for God: to obey his commands." (First John 5:3a, NIV)
The recent issue of the OPC denominational magazine "New Horizons" (March 2012) contains a letter to the Editor from Ms. Ann Smith (on p. 21) in which she responds to the articles on the "charismatic challenge" found in the February issue of New Horizons. In that letter Ms. Smith expresses her disappointment in those articles because, as she alleges, the "good points of the charismatics weren't covered at all, only their problems (from our perspective)." And then she lists a number of "strong points" that she sees in the charismatic movement. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to her points, because I think the points she raises may very well represent the perceptions of many within broader evangelicalism with respect to our charismatic brothers and sisters.
First of all, Ms. Smith claims that "The average charismatic pastor reportedly spends much more time in prayer than the average noncharismatic pastor." I am familiar with this claim, and it may very well be true. Certainly Reformed and OPC pastors must strive to be men who are devoted to prayer, including personal, familiy and corporate prayer in the public assembly. But at the same time her comment seems to be based upon the assumption that the length of time one spends in prayer is the measure of one's personal piety and love for the Lord. To be blunt, so what if charismatic pastors spend more time in prayer than noncharismatic pastors? Even if this claim is true, it does not thereby mean that charismatic pastors are thereby (due to their greater time spent in prayer) more pious or faithful servants of the Lord than non-charismatic pastors. The model prayer that our Lord Jesus taught His disciples (the Lord's Prayer) is a very brief, succinct, to-the-point prayer. Furthermore, our Lord condemned vain repetition and hyper-verbosity in prayer when He said: "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." (Matthew 6:7, NIV) If my own limited experience with charismatic believers is typical, then the piling up of words unnecessarily ("babbling") and vain repetition are problems in charismatic prayer practice.
This is not to say that Reformed pastors should be content with 30 second prayers or that we can ignore the biblical command to "pray without ceasing" (which, I believe, speak more to the fact that we believers should live our lives with a constant attitude of prayer and should pray throughout the day on various occasions). At the same time, the amount of time spent in prayer is not necessarily an indication of one's spiritual maturity, love for the Lord, or faithfulness in ministry and service to the Lord. For example, let us say there is a charismatic pastor who spends five hours a day in intercessory prayer. Given that there is limited time in each day, and given the fact that the ministry of intercessory prayer is just one of many aspects of pastoral ministry, I would contend that such a pastor is most likely being grossly negligent in his other pastoral responsibilities. That five hours he spends in prayer is five hours less time spent in sermon and lesson preparation, pastoral visitation, evangelism, worship preparation, church administration, counseling, and other aspects of pastoral ministry.
The next point that Ms. Smith makes is in the following words: "I give charismatics in general high marks for endeavoring to labor in the power of the Holy Spirit and not in their own strength." While this certainly may be the case, it is an assertion that is based upon her own personal perception of charismatics. There is no way to prove or disprove her claim, since one would have to be able to read the hearts and inner motivations of charismatics in order to determine its truth or falsity. While no doubt charismatics do place a great emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit and would profess to rely upon Him for their strength, at the same time the theology that undergirds much of the charismatic and Pentecostal movements is Arminian, revivalistic and synergistic (meaning that salvation is viewed as a cooperative process where God and man work together as a team). These theological underpinnings actually tend to downplay the sovereign and efficacious work of the Holy Spirit in individual salvation and in the church corporate, thus throwing man back onto the treadmill of human willing, human doing and exhausting religious-emotional hype that can lead eventually to spiritual burn-out. While not all charismatics live consistently with the theology that undergirds much of the charismatic movement, as a non-charismatic Reformed believer I would assert that these theological underpinnings actually tend toward promoting the works of the flesh more than they do the sovereign, efficacious work of the Spirit. In fact, in my own limited experience with charismatics there seems to be an elitist mindset amongst some in the charismatic community, wherein they view themselves as "Spirit-filled Christians," thereby implying that the rest of us are not Spirit-filled, and thus we are viewed as living on a lower plane of spiritual life. Churches that do not practice "the gifts" (meaning tongues, prophecy, etc.) are sometimes viewed as "dead" or lifeless churches in need of "revival". Such elitism and censoriousness is not a manifestation of reliance upon the Spirit; rather it is an evidence of the sinful flesh (not to mention a manifestation of a lack of love).
The final point Ms. Smith makes in her letter has to do with loving Jesus. She states that "It is often easier to see this love of Jesus in the charismatics." Certainly I would not deny that there may be many charismatic Christians who genuinely love the Lord Jesus and love His people, in spite of their doctrinal errors and unbiblical worship practices. At the same time in my own limited experience I don't find this love as evident as Ms. Smith does. Perhaps one of the problems is that often in our North American context we confuse "love" with niceness and friendliness. Certainly I have met numerous charismatics who seem to be very friendly and nice, at least on the surface. But biblical love goes much deeper than mere niceness and friendliness. Having a bubbly personality and interjecting the phrase "praise the Lord" every other sentence is not in itself a measure of love for the Lord or love for His church. (I am not saying all charismatics are like this; but it is a fairly accurate description of some with whom I've had contact.) From a biblical standpoint, loving the Lord means obeying His commandments from the heart, and for the glory of God. His commandments include the command to avoid a censorious spirit and an elitist mindset among the Christian brotherhood (such as, for example, we find undergirding the divisiveness and factionalism in that most "charismatic" of the apostolic churches, the church in Corinth; see First Corinthians 1-3). From what I can perceive (and I recognize that this is just my personal perception), the charismatic movement seems to me to be riddled with an elitist mindset (some "Spirit filled" charismatics looking down their noses at us pitiful non-charismatic believers for being lacking in the "Spirit-filled" department). In addition, charismatic worship is often riddled with the "strange fire" (Leviticus 10) of unauthorized worship practices. If we love Jesus we will obey His commandments; and one of the ways to obey His commandments is to make sure that the biblical elements of worship are observed in the worship services, and that reverence and awe and respect for God be shown by making sure that everything is done decently and in good order (1 Cor. 14:40). It seems to me that some (not necessarily all!) charismatic worship services are man-centered, emotionally-hyped, and incorporate unbiblical, man-made traditions (falling in the aisles, the practice of the so-called "altar call," the incorporation of drama in the worship services, entertaining Hollywood-style "laid back" worship, etc.). The kind of irreverence and disorderliness engendered by the casual, man-centered, emotionally-hyped charismatic worship service does not, in fact, promote or express love (biblically-defined) for God or God's people.
Are charismatic Christians more loving than noncharismatic Christians? From the above considerations I would argue that our charismatic brethren cannot legitimately claim to love the Lord or His people more than us non-charismatic believers. True love for God is obeying His commands from a heart renewed by the Holy Spirit, believing the truths revealed in His Word, and worshiping Him in accordance with His revealed will in Holy Scripture. By this definition none of us (whether we identify ourselves as charismatic or non-charismatic) loves the Lord perfectly, and all of us have areas in our walk with the Lord where we need to grow in our sanctification. Therefore let us strive to grow in love - biblical love - for the Lord, and for our brothers and sisters in Christ. |
|
|
A Case for Weekly Communion, Part 3 |
|
|
|
|
Geoff Willour 2/20/12
When the Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to "do this in remembrance of Me" He did not explicitly state that they should do this on every Lord's Day. Nevertheless, there are good biblical and theological reasons for adopting the practice of weekly communion. In particular, I believe the example of the apostolic church as recorded for us in the New Testament Scriptures and a sound biblical theology of the means of grace support the practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper on every Lord's Day.
Biblical Considerations
(1) Acts 2:41-42 - "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (NIV)
This passage records for us the results of the Apostle Peter's preaching of the gospel on the Day of Pentecost. About three thousand came to repent and believe in Christ, and as a result they were baptized and thus added to the membership of Christ's church (v. 41). Verse 42 tells us that these new believers "devoted themselves" to certain religious practices. These practices include "the breaking of bread." Some would argue that "the breaking of bread" here refers merely to the believers gathering together for ordinary meals in their homes, as the similar expression in verse 46 does ("They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts" - NIV). However, in verse 42 the phrase "the breaking of bread" (which could literally be translated as "the breaking of the bread") is found in an immediate context where Luke is describing the various means of grace and/or holy activities of worship ("the apostles' teaching/doctrine" involving the teaching/preaching of God's Word, "the prayers" meaning corporate prayers together, "the fellowship" probably referring to religious fellowship in the corporate acts of worship). Thus the immediate context would seem to support the interpretation that "the breaking of the bread" is a reference to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. If this is so, then the implication is that "the breaking of the bread" (i.e., the Lord's Supper) was something that these early disciples observed ("devoted themselves to") whenever they observed the apostles' teaching, the prayers, and religious fellowship in worship. As we shall see, in the early apostolic church these activities were observed by the church at least on every Lord's Day. Thus Acts 2:42 would seem to implicitly support the practice of weekly communion. Furthermore, let the reader keep in mind that not only is explicit apostolic teaching binding upon Christ's church, but apostolic practice and example are also morally-binding upon the church as well. If the early apostolic church under the direction of the apostles practiced "the breaking of bread"/communion whenever they devoted themselves to apostolic doctrine/the preaching of the Word, then expressions of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" today are morally-bound to follow this apostolic practice and example as recorded for us in the New Testament Scriptures if they wish to be faithful to the Word of God.
(2) Acts 20:7 - "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread." (NIV)
This matter-of-fact statement is an interesting one. Luke, who wrote Luke-Acts and who was a travelling companion and associate of the Apostle Paul, tells us that while they were at Troas, they gathered together with the disciples there "on the first day of the week" (i.e., Sunday, the Lord's Day/Christian Sabbath). How does Luke characterize their gathering together with the disciples for worship? He says that they came together "to break bread." He didn't say "we came together to hearing the preaching of the Word" (although they certainly did that; in fact, Paul preached and addressed the believers until midnight, as the verse goes on to say). He didn't say "we came together to offer prayer and worship to God" (although no doubt they did that). Rather, he characterizes their meeting together for worship as a coming together to break bread (which, as in Acts 2:42, seems here also to refer to the celebration of holy communion). If, in the apostolic church, church meetings on the first day of the week (Sunday/the Lord's Day/Christian Sabbath) were characterized by the practice of breaking bread together (i.e., communion), then this would seem to imply that the celebration of weekly communion was an established, accepted practice in the apostolic church.
(3) First Corinthians 10:16 - "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (NIV)
Paul's statement here makes it clear that a worthy participation in the Lord's Supper is an actual "participation" (the Greek word indicates "fellowship") in the body and blood of Christ. Now, of course, this does not mean that the break and wine are literally, miraculously transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ (as taught in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), or that the literal body and blood of Christ are present "in, with and under" the elements of bread and wine (as taught in the Lutheran doctrine, often referred to as "consubstantiation"). But it does mean that when believers partake of the Lord's Supper by faith and in a worthy manner, they commune with Christ in the benefits of His broken body and shed blood. In other words, the Lord's Supper is a real fellowship, a real participation, in the benefits of Christ's body and blood; and Christ is really present in the celebration of the Holy Supper by His Spirit and to the faith of those who receive Him worthily in the Supper. If this is the case -- if the Lord's Supper is a real means of grace and a real (though spiritual) participation in the benefits of Christ's body and blood (and not a mere mental remembrance) -- then why would any believer not want to receive the benefits of such a means of grace on a regular (indeed, a weekly) basis?
(4) First Corinthians 11:20 - "When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat" (NIV).
In this passage Paul is in the midst of rebuking the Corinthians for their abuses of the Lord's Supper (abuses that brought Divine chastisement and judgment to some of the members of the church - see verses 30-32). As he is in the midst of rebuking them for their abuses, Paul's words here seem to imply that their "coming together" as a church in worship was a coming together in which they professed to gather for the purpose of eating the Lord's Supper. In other words, the implication here is that church meetings for worship ("coming together") were characterized by the celebration of the Lord's Supper in early apostolically-founded churches like the church in Corinth. This too is at least an implicit support for the practice of weekly communion.
Theological Considerations
(1) The nature of the sacrament should determine its frequency.
If the Lord's Supper is viewed as a mere memorial - a mere mental recollection of what Christ did for us on the cross - then the practice of infrequent communion is understandable. But if the sacrament is a real means of grace - a real means by which God strengthens our union and communion with the Lord Jesus Christ and renews to us the sanctifying benefits of His atonement - then weekly communion makes sense. If the Lord's Supper is a real means of grace, a real communion in Christ's body and blood; and if Christ by His Spirit is really present in the celebration of the Holy Supper, then a church that practices infrequent communion is guilty of cheating God's people out of the comfort and assurance they could gain from the weekly observance of this vital means of grace.
(2) Word and Sacrament are meant to go together.
As a confessional Reformed church we affirm the Protestant and Reformational understanding of the centrality of the Word in the life and worship of the church. That is why a pulpit (rather than the communion table) is usually front and center in our worship assembly halls. The climax of a Reformed worship service is the preaching of God's Word. But while the Word is the central and primary means of grace, the Word (read and preached) is meant to be signified and applied by the sacrament of the Lord's Supper (which is the "visible Word" - the Word of the gospel under the symbols of bread and wine). The audible sermon (the preached Word) ought to be sealed to the hearers by the visible "sermon" of the Lord's Supper. While the Word (read and preached) is the primary means of grace, and while the sacraments (including the Lord's Supper) are secondary and dependent upon the preached Word for their efficacy, nevertheless the preached Word without the sacramental, symbolic Word of the Lord's Supper is, in a sense, incomplete. Because of the close connection between Word and Sacrament as means of grace, a worship service that offers the Word (read and preached) without the Sacrament is, in a sense, an incomplete service. Once again, the Word is absolutely central and primary. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Nevertheless, the faith engendered by the preaching of the Word under the blessing of the Holy Spirit should be confirmed and strengthened by the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. This close connection between Word and Sacrament support the celebration of weekly communion.
(3) Weekly communion can enhance godly self-examination and deepen unity in the church.
When it is understood that receiving the Lord's Supper requires careful, godly self-examination, and that it symbolizes (among other things) our unity in the Body of Christ, the practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper weekly can actually enhance the practice of godly self-examination and assist in helping to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Many other things could be said in favor of the practice of weekly communion. I hope this series of articles has at least offered some food for thought on this topic, and I hope that in this area of communion practice God in His mercy would grant that our churches would be "reformed and ever reforming according to the Word of God" in this matter of frequency of communion. |
|
Geoff Willour 2/4/12
"You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean" (Leviticus 10:10, NIV)
"When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat...Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord...If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment." (First Corinthians 11:20, 27, 34, NIV)
One of the most important biblical distinctions is the distinction between the common and the holy. Another way of expressing this distinction is to speak of a distinction between the secular and the sacred. But it is just here that many Christians object. Largely due to militant secularists who want to ban all expressions of religious faith (especially Christian faith) from the public square, and who thus basically want to confine all expressions of religious faith within the four walls of the church building (and even there some of them would like certain controls placed upon what can be preached), many Christians are nervous about the term "secular" and about any kind of distinction between the "secular" and the "sacred." That nervousness is certainly understandable. While we as believers must rightly reject the perversion and distortion of the concept of the "secular" by militant secularists and by secular humanists, at the same time many believers over-react to militant secularism by completely rejecting any recognition of the secular/sacred distinction and thus end up trying to "sacralize" (i.e., make holy) every endeavor of life. "All of life is holy" we might hear such believers say. This attempt to "sacralize" every area of life is evidenced by the call of many within the Christian community to "take back our culture for Christ" (as if our culture in America was ever consistently "Christian") and for the church (as a church) to engage in endeavors of cultural and political transformation. But, ironically, when Christians attempt to "sacralize" that which is secular, what ends up happening is the sacred ends up getting secularized. If everything in life is holy, then ultimately nothing is holy. When believers blur the biblical distinction between the common and the holy by attempting to make holy that which God in His Word has declared to be common, the holy ends up getting cheapened, the church ends up getting secularized, and the Lord's holy Name ends up getting taken in vain (Exodus 20:7).
The term "secular" simply refers to that which pertains to this present age, that which is temporal in distinction from that which is eternal; that which is "mundane" (in the sense of that which pertains to common, everyday life) rather than that which is spiritual and heavenly; that which is within the realm of "common grace" rather than that which pertains to the realm of redemption and saving grace. On the other hand, the "holy" refers to that which is set apart by Divine ordination for sacred use; that which pertains to man's spiritual communion with God; that which operates within the realm of Christ's redemptive kingdom. Many examples could be offered. Take, for example, the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is a covenantal fellowship meal. As such it is a "holy" meal (the elements being set apart by consecration from a common/secular to a holy/sacred use). In fact, under the new covenant the Lord's Supper is the only holy meal that Christians can enjoy. In distinction, consider a Christian family sitting down to enjoy a wonderful dinner together at home. The wife has prepared a sumptuous feast. The head of the family (the father) calls upon his family to bow their heads and to give thanks to God for the wonderful meal they are about to enjoy and for the hands that have prepared it (as he should give thanks - see First Timothy 4:3-5). This family enjoys a blessed time together as they enjoy their food and as they converse about things of the Lord around the table. They all leave the table full, both in their bellies and in their souls. Is such a special family dinner a "holy" meal? No. Not from a biblical perspective. While holy conversation took place around the meal table, the meal itself was not "holy," for only God in His Word can declare something to be holy (in the sense of setting something apart for His redemptive purposes). And while all things - including our common everyday eating and drinking - should be done to the glory of God (First Corinthians 10:31); and while there is a certain sense that we can say that even our daily bread received with thankful hearts is, in some sense, "consecrated" by the Word of God and prayer (First Timothy 4:4-5); at the same time dinner in a home (even a Christian home) is not a holy meal - at least not in the same sense as is the Lord's Supper. Jesus Christ Himself appointed the Lord's Supper as a holy ordinance for His church, and the Apostle Paul's rebuke of the Corinthian Christians for their abuses of the Lord's Supper (as recorded in First Corinthians chapter 11) shows that the Lord's Supper has been uniquely "set apart" (made holy) by Christ Himself as a holy meal. The purpose of the Lord's Supper is the holy purpose of feeding the believing soul with the benefits of Christ's broken body and shed blood, not the common grace purpose of satisfying physical hunger. Paul assumes this distinction between the holy character of the Lord's Supper in contrast to the common character of ordinary meals when he writes in First Corinthians 11:34: "If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home..." (NIV). But if we Christians decided to view all of our common, everyday meals as "holy" meals - meals just as holy as the Lord's Supper - then the Lord's Supper would lose its uniquely sacred character and would be cheapened in its significance.
The illustration of the Lord's Supper is just one of many illustrations that could be offered to show the importance of distinguishing properly between the common/secular and the holy/sacred. Baptism is another example. Baptism involves a washing with water. (I'm not concerned here to discuss here whether this washing should be performed by sprinkling, pouring or immersion; that's another issue for another post.) Like most people (at least in our cultural setting), my ordinary practice is to take a shower every day (and usually a pretty long one at that, as our water bill can attest). Now, since I am to do all that I do for the glory of God (First Corinthians 10:31), as a believer I should take my daily shower in a manner and for purposes of glorifying God. (Such purposes could include, not putting a stumbling block in the way of my gospel witness by my body odor, proper hygiene and care for my body, etc.) But my daily shower (which involves the "mundane" process of cleansing my physical body), while important and singificant, is not a "holy" or "sacred" event. It is a "common" or "secular" event. On the other hand, baptism, which is a sign and seal of cleansing from sin through the blood and Spirit of Christ (among other things), is a "holy" washing with water in the sacred Name of the Triune God (Matthew 28:19). If I "sacralize" my daily shower by attaching some kind of holy or redemptive significance to it, I will end up secularizing the significance of my baptism, thereby cheapening and denigrating the holiness of that baptism. And many other illustrations could be offered.
Jesus Christ is King and Lord over all creation and over all realms of life. What has come to be called the secular/sacred distinction is not, in itself, a denial of Christ's Lordship over all, including the "secular" realm. Jesus Christ is, in fact, Lord of the secular realm, just as He is Lord over the sacred, redemptive realm. Jesus rules the "common" just as He rules the "holy." All biblical Christians will affirm this. But the manner in which Christ rules the sacred/holy realm is different from the manner in which He rules the common/secular realm. The "secular" realm is under Christ's providential, cosmic Lordship (His Lordship as Creator, Providential Governor and Mediatorial King) and involves the application of God's "common grace" covenant with Noah (Genesis 8:21-22; 9:6-7) during this present age. In this present, pre-consummation age both believers and unbelievers benefit from Christ's providential Lordship over the common realm (Matthew 6:45; Acts 14:17; 17:15-16; etc.). This common realm includes man's cultural endeavors (business, art, music, agriculture, government, medicine, technology, etc.), which both believers and unbelievers may cooperate together in pursuing (so long as religious fellowship and unequal yoking between believers and unbelievers are avoided - Second Corinthians 6:14-18). In this realm the wheat and the tares are permitted by God to grow together until the consummation (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). But the "holy" realm is under Christ's redemptive Lordship. It is the realm of salvation, where Christ's spiritual reign of saving grace (in distinction from His providential reign of common grace) is displayed. In this present age this holy realm, this spiritual redemptive kingdom, is found in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is made present and displayed in the objective means of grace (the holy ordinances of Word and Sacraments) and in the church's holy worship of the holy, Triune God. Christ's redemptive kingdom is His reign of grace and salvation in the hearts and lives of His elect; and it comes to visible, communal expression in this present age, not in a national theocratic state (as it did under the old covenant), but in the visible church, which is international ("catholic") under the new covenant. Let us not desecrate the sacredness of Christ's spiritual, redemptive kingdom by confusing that kingdom with the common grace cultural realm through well-meaning but naive agendas of "cultural transformation" or religio-political activism. While Christ is Lord over the common/secular realm; and while believers are called in their earthly vocations to be active in the common/secular realm as "salt" and "light" in this world; and while we should be thankful for the good things of this present world and may enjoy them with thankful hearts; at the same time let us remember that "our citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20, NIV). Like the saints of old, let us remember that we are "aliens and strangers on earth" (Hebrews 11:13, NIV), and like them, let us be "longing for a better country - a heavenly one" (Hebrews 11:16, NIV). Let us not confuse the common and the holy, the sacred and the secular. Instead, let us properly distinguish them without unduly separating them (for in God's providence the secular and the sacred, while distinct, are to work cooperatively in this present age, all for the glory of God). |
|
|
