What is a Reformed Charismatic?

Thanks for this piece, Sam!  On your last point about the Spirit and Scripture, I'll never forget how Henry Stob put it years ago when he was sitting in the seminary coffee shop with a group of us students.  Between puffs on his Salem menthol, he declared, "The Spirit always rides the back of Scripture."

I was directed here by my colleague, Kathy Smith.  I'm glad to learn of another member of the "Reformed charismatic" tribe!  I would describe myself the same way.  Indeed, I sometimes tell friends that, in some sense, the CRC has been at least "officially" charismatic since the 1970s when Synod resisted cessationism and affirmed that all the gifts remain operative.  

I think one can imagine something like a "charismatic worldview" or a "pentecostal worldview" (small-p) which is not only entirely consistent with Reformed theology, but in fact an expression of fundamentally Reformed convictions.  This was something I tried to argue in a Christianity Today article a few years back, "Teaching a Calvinist to Dance."

I have also tried to articulate the resonance between Reformed and charismatic worldviews in my book, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy (Eerdmans, 2010)--sort of Alvin Plantinga meets Gordon Fee.  There I try to unpack what I think are some of the basic, ecumenical elements of a charismatic worldview, along the lines that Sam has suggested here.  It's not just about tongues or healing or miracles--there's much more to it than that.

I think it is especially important for us to be having this conversation precisely because the explosion of Christianity in the majority world is charismatic Christianity.  Indeed, many of our global brothers and sisters in the Reformed churches would look quite "pentecostal" to those of us in staid, buttoned-down North America!.

May the tribe increase!

Sam,  Thanks for the great post!  I have to admit, I cringed just a wee bit when I read #5, and the last sentence about trusting a wide variety of sources "except the voice within me".  I understand the need for caution and absolutely agree that we should look for/expect affirmation and confirmation that comes from the Spirit in many ways.  However, I also know that we can learn to recognize God's voice in our lives, and grow in our discernment of his voice, among the others in our lives.  Even prophets, elders, mentors and sermons can be sinful, or off the mark.  Life in the Spirit is deep and mysterious, and I wouldn't want to put any box around how the Spirit moves, including saying "never through the voice in myself".  The evidence of a Spirit-filled life is always in the fruit.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Sam.

I personally was never convinced of theological cessationism. However, I had a practical cessationism, in that I didn't opperate much in dependence on God working through me. Instead I thought it was my job to work for Him.

Didn't work and I got quite depressed.

Along the way, the Spirit made a massive appearance in my life at a revival event in Toronto (TACF - now Catch the Fire). It was totally unexpected, but had a wonderful transformation to my spiritual life, and my ministry.

After that event, I spent 3 months wondering if I could still, in good conscience, remain in the CRC. I studied the 1973 report (on neo-pentecostaliosm) again, along with everything that's said about the Holy Spirit in our confessions. I spoke with colleagues and friends and came to the conclusion that there was no need to leave the CRC at all, and that what had happened to me had been embraced by the CRC, with some caution, in that 73 report.

Several months later, in speaking with a Presbyterian friend, I learned about PRMI (Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International - prmi.org). This is an organization that is quite intentional about bringing together Reformed theology with an active Spirit-led and Spirit-empowered life. They have been very helpful to me theologically, and practically. You may have heard of them through one of their Dunamis events they sponsor across the US and Canada.

One very, very helpful distinction they make is between the Spirit within and the Spirit upon. It's helpful because it cuts through much of the confusion. The Spirit within is the indwelling Spirit who always remains and is at work on my sanctification and in producing the fruit of the Spirit in my life. The Spirit upon is the Spirit who empowers for ministry, unleashes His gifts, releases healing, etc. As we read through the Scriptures (particularly the gospels and Acts) the Spirit upon seems to come and, when the ministry is finished to 'lift.'

This distinction is helpful because it so closely parallels my personal experience, and probably yours. Sometimes, in ministry, we just seem to be 'in flow' with the Spirit. Words come out of our mouths and we're just a bit surprised at how smart we are -- exept we realize we are speaking out of our own league. God's Spirit is at work. This has happened to me in personal conversations, in counseling and in the pulpit. There is a powerful moment, and then it seems to pass. We can't repeat it, even if we try. The Spirit seems to have lifted.

Regarding hearing God speak to us, I think we, in the Reformed tradition have always believed that He does, not only through the Bible, and that second book of revelation, but also into the hearts of believers and into entire congregations. That's how our entire system and theology of 'calling' works.

As a Reformed Charismatic I cannot be a non-cessationist about all the gifts, except the gift of prophecy (and words of knowledge/wisdom, etc.). It's simiply theologically untennable, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us. In other words, we can't let our fear, nor misuse of the gift, disqualify the gift. In so doing we are taking authority over both the Scriptures that teach this gift and the Spirit who dispenses it. To do so would be even more outrageous than the misuses of the gift we have heard charicatured.

I understand the gift of prophecy in terms of 1Cor 14, where it is most fully explained. First, it is a gift, not an office (the office mentioned in Eph.4 is another matter entirely, IMHO), and as a gift comes to serve, not to exert authority. So no prophetic word uttered within this gift, should ever be taken as authoritative. Paul didn't think so, since he believed the whole church should discern whether what was said was really from God or not. The authority doesn't rest with the gift (nor with any gift). I teach folks to say "I hear the Lord say..." or "I think the Lord might be saying..." or "I just had this thought come to mind, and I wonder if it's the Lord..."  In other words, the gift of prophecy, as with all the gifts must be exercised in the context of humility and submission to the authority of the body and its officers.

Thanks for bringing up this topic. It's one that's very important to me.

Wow, a lively discussion!  As Jamie Smith pointed out many of those in officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations overseas look quite charismatic to North American Reformed folk.  In addition, many of those who are in officially Pentecostal denominations are very open to the Reformed culture-shaping emphasis.  I got back on Thursday from a trip to Nicaragua where 30% of the population is Protestant and 80-90% of them are Pentecostal or Charismatic.  The Nicaraguan staff of the Nehemiah Center are actively engaging churches across this spectrum with the goal of discovering, encouraging, connecting and resourcing local leaders for community transformation.  It's an exciting ministry, sort of Gordon Fee meets Abraham Kuyper. 

I agree!  These last few posts have been superb and very illuminating.  I find that the "in" compared with "upon" distinction rings true not only with my experience individually, but also have seen the same happen corporately when the church has been gathered on occasion.  No amount of effort can manipulate this, but there have been times when pronouncing the benediction such a tangible sense of God's presence descended upon the congregation that we just sat in reverent silence and sort of "soaked" in the moment.  I even had at one point to just acknowledge and give words to what we were all sensing.  And then we concluded and fellowshipped around coffee and cookies in the lobby.   

I was overwhelmed by so many comments in favor of a so-called "Reformed Charismatic" label. For me, as a convert to Reformed Christianity, who flirted with Charismatic Evangelicalism for a while, I cannot disagree more with such stream. I apologize for being so blunt by I think we are being too naïve about the Charismatic movement and its benefits for our tradition. Yes, we need to change. But, that's what we have been trying to do since the Reformation (ecclesia reformata semper reformada…) and even before that.

The amount of heresy, arbitrary interpretations, lack of accountability, moral failures, prosperity gospel, abuse of power, apostles and prophets, latter-rain superiority, plain money-making schemes, and many other evils are more patent in the Charismatic movement than in any other segment of the Church. I can boldly say this because many, many years ago I had the "privilege" of working in a Charismatic television station, and had the chance to see first hand the lives of people who claim to be superior to other Christians who lack the fullness of the Spirit and its supernatural gifts. I've seen people who would make Bishop Earl Paulk look like a kindergartener as far as moral failures. I could go on and on, but for the sake of sanity, I am done. Please, take another look at things before jumping into a bandwagon that might look like one of those cinnamon rolls at the pastry shop, so delicious, so enticing, so sweet, so jummy, and so bad for your health.

I think we are all well aware of these lamentable aberrations and definitely have no intention of going down the prosperity gospel road. I, like you, Allejandro, am deeply grieved by and  reject the implicit "superiority" that comes from that bad and unbiblical theology of subsequentalism which is often called the second blessing theology characteristic of classic pentecostal theology. If one follows the internet discussions, it is interesting to find that the most sustained critics of Word Faith cults, prosperity gospelers, latter rain folks, the Toxic Broadcasting Network (TBN) etc., are the classic Pentecostals.

For 36 years, since "coming out" of pentecostalism and embracing the Reformed faith, I have found the Reformed faith, its theological integrity, its ecclesiology that eschews "annointed leader" syndrome and power abuses in the church is far and away the most capable for embracing the positive features of charismatic pneumatology without giving way to its imbalances, excesses and errors.  So, why would we deny the one the benefit of the other?  For 27 years I saw people burned out on Pentecostal excesses join our church precisely because our theology provided theological integrity and ecclesial saftey without requiring them to deny spritual giftings the knew from Scripture and practice were legitimate.  

The mere fact of imablances and unsavory character says nothing about the legitimacy of gifts, the many ways of the Spirit's leading, etc.  

I don't claim to be enamored of taking a "Reformed Charismatic" label to distinguish myself from any regenerated Christian who has by Scripture's teaching the fulness of the Spirit and the capacity to be used in any way the Spirit in His sovereignty deems proper.  I believe every regenerated Christian (the only kind there is) is "charismatic" to the degree that charis means grace.  The Reformed emphasis on sovereignty and grace as opposed to man-centered and Arminian teachings is the greatest antidote to abuses of spiritual gifts.  So, good enough, let's forgo the label and avoid any hint of occasioning division or elitism, but let's be done with ignoring legitmate, biblically supported giftings and biblically illustrated ways in which the Spirit leads not just individuals but the church corporately in exercising all the charimata as the Sovereign apportions them for the common good.  Does this suggestion help allay fears and promote confidence that the Reformed theological tradition is equal to the task of incorporation, evaluation, balance and providing proper accountability?

SIncerely in his grace & peace, Neil

Thanks Sam for the article.  It has helped me in my discussions with area pastors as we together try to work out our faith with fear and trembling.  I love the gifts of the Spirit and seek to experience all I can in God.  

Grace and Peace.

Hi Sam,

I too come from this "tribe" as K A Smith calls it in this thread.  I am also a Church planter for the CRC and am in the first few months of our church plant.  My ordination in the CRC was approved two years ago.  Prior to that I was in the Vineyard for 15 yrs., where I planted a Vineyard church which I pastored for almost 8 years.  Prior to my Vineyard years I was a minister in the PC(USA), where I was originally ordained (1986).  My MDiv was earned at Gordon-Conwell where Dr. G. Fee was one of my professors, and in fact became somewhat more, as a friend, since we met in his home for small group meetings and we both attended a new church plant in Beverly MA.  We also have a Sovereign Grace church in our area.  I know the pastor quite well and love the work he and his church are doing.

Now, all this being said.  I do have a couple challenges for you . . .

1.  Sovereign grace ministries is reformed "in part."  I would not give them the unmitigated affirmation you gave them.  They lack a great deal theologically particularly in the area of Covenant theology.  Therefore they are baptists in practice and only practice "believer's baptism."  I think because of their lack of understanding God working through covenant with entire families/people groups etc., they have a very individual understanding of God's grace and do not affirm paedo baptism in any way.

2.  Given Christ's own affirmation in John 10, that his sheep do hear his voice, and follow him, I believe that we should not be skittish about claiming to hear the voice of Christ.  But we should learn how to hear well, and teach others the same.  I am very comfortable saying God spoke to me . . .  I belive this is "normative" Christianity (as Fee would call it).  For a Christian to be hesitant about affirming God speaking to him/her is what I would find to be at odds with the Scirptures, and unnatural to Christianity, not the other way around.  It is my experience, that we might tend to be hesitant about hearing God speak to us, because of at least two reasons:  1) The way we've been taught in traditional Reformed and Presbyterian churches.  We've been taught that either God does NOT speak directly to us anymore, or at least we should be very cautious and avoid that if we can.  2)  We have not done a good job of teaching people how to hear their Good Shepherd's voice.  When I was young I was taught how to listen and hear God speak to me.  It has always been a regular part of my Christian life (38 years now).  The main issue, at stake, which I believe you rightly identified, is the agreement with the written revelation God has already given us as the Bible.  Now here is my proviso: It is my position that God speaks to me perfectly, by my hearing (and understanding) is not always so good!      Finally, on this point I would suggest something I belive we Reformed people have long since agreed upon, and as far as I know, it is a pretty unanimous agreement, viz., God communicates to his people.  The entire Bible affirms this truth.  And in Reformed circles (and most other "tribes" of Christianity for that matter), we have made much of this truth, declaring very loudly and consistently, that the God of the Bible has never demonstrated even a slight proclivity to leave his people in a state of agnosticism.  I say all this to affirm my conviction and experience that -- God speaking to his people throughout human history, from Adam onwards, is the norm, not the exception.  (Notwithstanding, there is at least one occassion we are told that "the word of the Lord was rare in those days" (1 Sam. 3:1).  However, it is virtually impossible to get through one page of Scripture without "a word from the Lord" being divinly imparted to a human!  I agree with the Reformed tradition that this matter of God speaking, communicating to his people is the norm. And I see nowhere is Scripture where that historically consistent pattern of God is ever indicated to cease.  I believe our struggle in Reformed churches is not our affirmation of this "norm," but rather our "application" of it.  John Wimber (Vineyard) was marvelous at creating and opening doors to allow "applications" of our doctrines to develop.  I still appreciate that "experimental" risk taking approach.  For "where there is no ox, the stable is clean, but much strength comes from the ox" (prov. 14:4).  In other words, we can all keep a nice clean controlled church, if we do not encourage and allow people to try applying their faith.  But when we do encourage people to "go for it," they WILL make some mistakes along the way, and there will be some clean up to do after them.  But in the long run, I am very happy to be on the clean up crew if people learn and grow and the church makes real advance.

I hope this adds some value to the conversation.

By the way, I came into the CRC (of course by the providence of God), but for my part, based on the need for a theology to explain what the Spirit was doing in our churches (a weak point in the Vineyard).  Good theology does not resist the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in our lives or churches.  Rather it, helps us understand His presence and work, and what our response, if any, should be.

Peace to all,

Randy Simon