When dealing with the charge that they pick on soft targets, MacArthurites respond by claiming that the responsible charismatics aren't numerically representative. I see MacArthurites make unsourced claims about the dominance of the Word of Faith heresy in global pentecostalism. That claim would be more impressive coming from a sociologist of religion who specialized in that particular area.
It's also ironic. To my knowledge, a full-blown MacArthurite is a Reformed Baptist classic dispensational pretribulational premillennialist. How representative is that? Pretty exotic, if you ask me. How many decimal points out must we go before that infinitesimal fraction registers on the scale of global Christianity? Would it be fair to judge MacArthur's theological synthesis by how numerically representative that is in relation to global Christianity?
But here's the main thing. Suppose we stipulate to their allegation that the Word of Faith heresy is deep and wide in global pentecostalism. When MacArthurites use that allegation to discount responsible charismatic scholars, they are using a wedge tactic. The responsible charismatics are so statistically insignificant that they can be written off. So it comes down to a stark alternative between cessationism and Word of Faith.
But notice the circularity of the objection. When you drive a wedge, groups fall on one side or the other of the wedge. By automatically discounting responsible exponents, by preemptively dismissing any middle ground, you are contributing to the atrocious alternative you claim to abhor. You're not giving Christians a third option.
Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with polarizing the debate. There are issues where it's appropriate to cast the choice in antithetical terms.
It is, however, viciously circular to simultaneously decry the prevalence of the charlatans while you discredit the reputable spokesmen. Marginalize the responsible voices, then complain that they are too marginal to be taken seriously. You yourself are directing charismatic Christians away from the most orthodox exponents. You yourself are doing your best to keep the reputable proponents on the fringe of the debate. In a way, you're collaborating with the Word of Faith movement. Both of you are squeezing out the responsible voices. You push at one end while Word of Faith swindlers push at the other end. Guess who's left?
What I find puzzling, given the priority afforded to Scripture by MacArthurites, is the deviation from Scripture in favor of a kind of (historical/empirical) inference to the best explanation with respect to their position on cessationism - and more specifically, miracles.
ReplyDeleteThis is a criticism of the cessationist position in general; but since when, according to their professed convictions, did sociology and history become significant factors in forming (their) truth claims?
Hi Steve, with regards to your main thing there's a chance you got something conflated. The cessationists are saying that the careful charismatics are a numerical minority, not the mainstream, or numerical majority of charismaticism.
ReplyDeleteThey are saying that they don't confront the excesses and abuses. But I don't view that as a sweeping move to discredit them.
"Hi Steve, with regards to your main thing there's a chance you got something conflated."
DeleteMore like you project a conflation to me.
"The cessationists are saying that the careful charismatics are a numerical minority, not the mainstream, or numerical majority of charismaticism."
Did I dispute that? No.
"They are saying that they don't confront the excesses and abuses. But I don't view that as a sweeping move to discredit them."
MacArthurites routinely discount serious charismatic scholars by claiming that they aren't representative.
"They are saying that they don't confront the excesses and abuses."
DeleteI can't help but imagine how a conference saying that dispensationalists don't confront Harold Camping, Chuck Smith, and Charles Russell types would go over.
"MacArthurites routinely discount serious charismatic scholars by claiming that they aren't representative."
DeleteThat's possibly a misunderstanding of the claim.
Here's my understanding of the claim: "If or when the "careful" charismatics make the claim that they are the mainstream representative face of charismaticism, then this claim is rejected by examining the numbers of adherents to "careful" charismaticism and comparing it to the numbers belonging to the churches/denominations that have charismatic abuses and excesses."
That's not a wedge tactic.
You need to drop the condescension. Your understanding isn't superior to mine. Don't act as if you enjoy a special gift of discernment. I've been reading these people too. Don't appoint yourself their official interpreter.
DeleteAnd don't presume to correct me on things I never said. I'm aware of the claim about whether or not reputable charismatics represent the fringe or the mainstream. Since that wasn't the basis of my post, for you to say "that's not a wedge tactic" is irrelevant to the tactic I identified. Pay attention to the actual content of the post.
I've read numerous MacArthurites who refuse to even consider the arguments of competent charismatic or continuationist scholars because they aren't representative.
You're the one who's guilty of failing to distinguish between different kinds of arguments. You need to get your own partisanship in check so that you can sort out what's being said.
"... a full-blown MacArthurite is a Reformed Baptist classic c."
ReplyDeleteOne correction: these are not "Reformed Baptists." These are semi-Calvinistic Baptists. Big difference as evidenced by the fact that they can simultaneously be classic dispensational pretribulational premillennialist.
Maybe Steve did mean a Reformed Baptist 1689er: http://pousto.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/strange-fire-strange-logic/
Delete