I'm going to comment on two popular criticisms of the Strange Fire conference. I'm going to comment on why both sides don't listen to each other.
Two common criticisms are "painting with a broad brush" and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Problem is, the opposing sides don't hear the same slogan the same way. They don't apply the same slogan the same way.
1. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
i) To begin with, what does that metaphor mean? It warns against being so concerned with what's bad that you eliminate the good in the process of eliminating the bad.
When critics level that charge, it has no effect on MacArthurites. They double down. Why is that? Because the two sides view the underlying issue differently.
ii) On the one hand, MacArthurites don't deny that charismatics can be genuine Christians, or even pious Christians. They don't deny that the charismatic movement has produced some good fruit.
However, they don't think that counts because they think the good occurs in spite of the bad. They don't think charismatic distinctives produce anything worthwhile. The good is incidental to, and inconsistent with, the bad. The good could exist and flourish without the bad.
iii) Moreover, they say responsible charismatics are enablers. They provide cover-fire for the charlatans. So even the good charismatics are bad by making the bad charismatics look good.
2. Painting with a broad brush
i) To begin with, what does that metaphor mean? It's a figure of speech for a hasty generalization, or guilt by association. A related idiom is "tarring everyone with the same brush."
Critics of the Strange Fire conference accuse the speakers of overgeneralizing. Ignoring the responsible charismatics. Lumping rather than discriminating. Attacking people instead of arguments.
When critics level that charge, it has no effect on MacArthurites. They double down. What is that? Because both sides view the underlying issue differently:
ii) For one thing, they disagree on the facts. On the extent of the "excesses" and "abuses." MacArturites think that's more widespread than some charismatics (e.g. Michael Brown). So they think that justifies their sweeping claims.
iii) But there's a deeper issue. MacArthurites don't think the "abuses" and "excesses" are isolated incidents. They don't think that's aberrational. Rather, they think that's the logical and inevitable outcome of a fundamentally aberrant theological paradigm.
By contrast, charismatics naturally think charismatic theology is basically sound. Biblical. Given that operating assumption, it follows by definition that the "abuses" and "excesses" are aberrations.
In principle, it doesn't matter how widespread the abuses are. For the extent of abuse doesn't disprove the truth of the position.
Suppose you're a husband with three underage children. You're diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. It has a 90% morbidity rate. The odds are stacked against you.
But because you have dependents, you undergo treatment. 10% is better than 0%.
So pointing to abuses, however, widespread, has no effect on the charismatics. From their perspective, that's tangential.
Incidentally, there are cessationist charlatans as well as charismatic charlatans.
iv) That's why it really comes down to an issue of which position (if either) is biblical (or more biblical), as well as historical. Now MacArthurites would say they did address that issue. Speakers like John MacArthur, Tom Pennington, and Nathan Busenitz made the case for cessationism from Scripture and history.
Problem is, the presentation was one-sided. They repeated the boilerplate arguments for cessationism, along with the boilerplate objections to continuationism. However, that's unconvincing inasmuch as sophisticated charismatics are conversant with the boilerplate arguments for cessationism and the boilerplate objections to continuationism. And they have counterarguments–which Strange Fire conferees ignore.
If you want to shift opinions, you need to have an actual debate, not a self-serving monologue. The Stranger Fire conference is a circular parade. It's by cessationists, to cessationists, and for cessationists.
"If you want to shift opinions, you need to have an actual debate, not a self-serving monologue."
ReplyDeletePastor Phil Johnson was on Michael Brown's radio program. I don't know if it was technically a debate, but you did have the opposing sides engage each other for a brief time.
Also, there was a lengthy on-line debate between Sam Storms and C. Michael Patton. Pastor Patton was highly critical of the Strange Fire conference for "painting with a broad brush."
Truth Unites... and Divides
Delete"Pastor Phil Johnson was on Michael Brown's radio program. I don't know if it was technically a debate, but you did have the opposing sides engage each other for a brief time."
That's a start, although some MacArthurites tried to discredit the interview because they said Brown kept talking over Phil's answers.
"Also, there was a lengthy on-line debate between Sam Storms and C. Michael Patton. Pastor Patton was highly critical of the Strange Fire conference for 'painting with a broad brush.'"
And I can think of one prominent MacArthurite who tried to discredit Patton on that account.
Yeah, for responsible charismatics, the truth of the principle outweighs the possible negatives. Just as MacArthurite cessationists would say that the truth of the principle of Sola Scriptura outweighs the fact that there are many Protestant denominations out there who disagree on non-essentials as a result of the practice of (or abuse of, or mere lip service to) Sola Scriptura (though, not as many as some Catholic apologists claim). The fact that Protestant adherents of Sola Scriptura (or "Scripturians" as John Gill once called Karaite Jews) have disagreements is not considered a disproof of Sola Scriptura by Scripturians. Responsible charismatics believe the same thing with regard to abuses of charismatic theology.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to say that there are charismatics who also pay lip service to "Sola Scriptura." Can charismatics consistently claim to hold to Sola Scriptura? I think so, if we define it to mean that now in this Age (in between the closing of the Canon and the return of Christ) Scripture alone is the sole infallible and assured source of inspired revelation in the possession of the church. Therefore it alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. That's how Anglicans often define Sola Scriptura and claim to hold to it even though they have a high regard for church tradition and reason. Wesleyans similarly do so and include a high regard for experience along with tradition and reason (i.e. the Wesleyan Quadrilateral). However, some of the Puritans defined Sola Scriptura more narrowly to mean that nothing could be established or allowed in the church (or state) unless a biblical model or precedent could derived from Scripture. But if we Protestants are going to claim that Sola Scriptura is historical and that the early church fathers practiced it, and that the Reformers weren't introducing a theological novum, we will have to abandon that extreme form that SOME of the Puritans and Reformers (and some of their theological children) held to.
DeleteSo, while in the past I've preferred saying I held to Summa Scriptura, or what some call Prima Scriptura, I now think that I should stick with the term Sola Scriptura. In order to ensure that it is positively asserted that no other claimed source of revelation is (or can possibly be) on par with Scripture (that is, before the return of Christ). Something which the phrase Prima Scriptura doesn't necessarily imply.