Charismatic lexicon - Part One

by Dan Phillips

In the interests of communication and instruction, and because I'm here to help, I offer this lexicon. I'm calling it Part One because (A) I'm sure there'll be more, because (B) I'm pretty sure readers will supply some great stuff that (C) I will steal, publish here, and claim as my own.

First, then: the term as used by a Biblically-oriented Christian (BibC); then the Leaky Canon Charismatic equivalent (LC²). I paint, as I must, with a broad brush... but not that broad.

BibC: Culmination of millennia of revelation in a completed, wholly sufficient and closed Canon
LC²: Whatever. (Alternate: And then that happened...)

BibC: Feeling.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Hunch.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Silly passing thought.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Impulse, best to be rejected after a bit of wise and critical reflection.
LC: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Testing by Scripture and rational examination.
LC²: Unbelief.

BibC: Walking in gracious, faith-driven obedience, which definitionally and consciously rests on the written Word alone.
LC²: Deism.

BibC: Living impulsively and irresponsibly, eschewing Biblical analysis and responsible decision-making, and blaming the whole mess on God.
LC²: Moving in the Spirit.

BibC: Undocumented anecdote allegedly done in a corner thousands of miles away and transmitted through the world's longest game of "telephone."
LC²: Proof that "the gifts" continue.

BibC: The undeniable absence of substantiated and globally-accepted claims to revelatory/attesting gifts among the Biblically orthodox from the first century until 1906.
LC²: "The man behind the curtain." (Alternate: "Look! A comet!")

BibC: The undeniable fact that modern instances of substantiated and globally-accepted claims to revelatory/attesting gifts among the Biblically orthodox depends on drastic reinterpretation of Scripture and playing fast and loose with the laws of evidence.
LC: (See above)

BibC: Prophecy is an explicitly Biblically-defined phenomenon in which God gives inerrant, binding, direct revelation to someone and assures that it is communicated as such. It is objectively verifiable.
LC²: Whatever you say it is. Except not verifiable or falsifiable.

BibC: Insisting on redefining the Biblical teaching about and descriptions of revelatory and attesting gifts so as to smuggle pale imitations into a time-frame some twenty centuries after their disappearance.
LC²: Non-negotiable essentials.

BibC: Affirming the all-over-the-Bible teaching of the sovereignty of God in salvation.
LC²: Totally negotiable, relatively minor.

...and one reverse:

LC²: A divine healing that undeniably proves all charismatic claims.
BibC: Answered prayer, God healing — which all Christians have always confirmed and distinguished from the gift of healing.

UPDATE: Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio had a lot of very creative, hysterical fun with this.

---

The Case for Gay Marriage (2 of 3)

by Frank Turk

So last week I asked for a secular definition of marriage which actually helped us understand what the advocates of Gay Marriage are looking for.  It was an honest question because I had in my back pocket this essay by Richard Waghorn, which is a weird twin cousin of this essay by the ineffable Sam Schulman.

But we did happen to come up with, I think, the best possible secular definition of marriage via twitter.  It's found at TheFreeDictionary.com, and it goes like this:

Marriage

socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. In all societies the choice of partners is generally guided by rules of exogamy (the obligation to marry outside a group); some societies also have rules of endogamy (the obligation to marry within a group). These rules may be prescriptive or, as in the case of the incest taboo, proscriptive; they generally apply to kinship groups such as clan or lineage; residential groups; and social groups such as the ethnic group, caste, or class.

Marriage is usually heterosexual and entails exclusive rights and duties of sexual performance, but there are instructive exceptions. For example, Nayar women of India would ritually marry men of a superior caste, have numerous lovers, and bear legitimate children. Among the Dahomey of West Africa, one woman could marry another; the first woman would be the legal "father" of the children (by other men) of the second. These examples highlight the functions of marriage to reproduce both a domestic division of labor and social relationships between different groups. Such functions are served even by the more common type of marriage, the union of one or more men with one or more women.

In most societies men and women are valued for their different roles in the household economy. Marriage therefore often occasions other economic exchanges. If a woman's labor is highly valued, a man may be required to offer valuable goods (bride-price) or his own labor (bride-service) to his wife's family. If a man's labor is more highly valued, the bride's family may offer goods (dowry) to the husband or his family.

Marriage as a Societal Bond

In many societies marriage links not just nuclear families but larger social formations as well. Some endogamous societies are divided into different exogamous groups (such as clans or lineages): Men form alliances through the exchange of women, and the social organization regulates these alliances through marriage rules. In some cases, two men from different groups exchange sisters for brides. Other instances involve an adult man marrying the young or infant daughter of another man; sexual relations would be deferred for many years, but the two men will have formed a strong bond. Marriages are often arranged by the families through the services of a matchmaker or go-between, and commence with a ritual celebration, or wedding. Some cultures practice trial marriage; the couple lives together before deciding whether they should marry. Society generally prescribes where newlywed couples should live: In patrilocal cultures, they live with or near the husband's family; in matrilocal ones, with or near the wife's family. Under neolocal residence, the couple establishes their own household.

Although marriage tends to be regarded in many places as a permanent tie, divorce is allowed in most modern societies. The causes of divorce vary, but adultery, desertion, infertility, failure to provide the necessities of life, mistreatment, and incompatibility are the most common. Civil unions are now permitted in Western countries, but for nearly a thousand years marriage in the Western world was a religious contract. The Christian church undertook its supervision in the 9th cent., when newlywed couples instituted the practice of coming to the church door to have their union blessed by the priest. Eventually the church regulated marriage through canon law. In contemporary N Europe marriage has lost some of importance, especially as social legislation has emphasized assuring equal financial benefits and legal standing to children born to unwed parents.

Forms of Marriage

Monogamy (the union of one wife to one husband) is the prevalent form almost everywhere. Polygyny (or polygamy; having several wives at one time), however, has been a prerogative in many societies (see harem). It is commonly found where the value of women's labor is high and may be practiced as a way of acquiring allies: A man may cement his bonds with several other men by marrying their sisters or daughters. Polyandry (having several husbands at one time) is rare, having occurred infrequently in Tibetan society, among the Marquesas of Polynesia, and among certain hill tribes in India. People who enjoy only a marginal subsistence may practice polyandry as a way of limiting births. It is also practiced where brothers must work together to sustain one household; they share one wife. The custom of marrying a widow to her late husband's brother is known as levirate marriage and was common among the ancient Hebrews. In sororate marriages a widower marries his deceased (or barren) wife's sister. The levirate and the sororate occur in societies where marriage is seen to create an alliance between groups; the deceased spouse's group has a duty to provide a new spouse to the widow or widower, thereby preserving the alliance. In recent years many gay-rights groups have sought official recognition of same-sex couples that would be comparable to marriage.

And here's my point in bringing that up: I want you to ponder this definition deeply, and think about it as if it was the only definition of marriage you had ever known.  Think about it as if this was the definition behind the law of the land, and as if it was the reason people actually got married in the first place.

Now fire up your imagination for a second.  Imagine you are at dinner with some other person, and you've been thinking about this for a long time.  As the waiter leaves with your order of eats for the evening, you clench up a little, and then screw your courage to the sticking place.  You take a deep breath and you begin, "What I really want is to avoid incest, and embrace endogamy.  I want some rights and duties regarding sexual intercourse and property, and to establish a nominal division of labor.  I want a visible household economy.  And you seem like exactly the right person to do that with, at least for now.  Will you marry me?"

Is there anyone who would really say that, or really want that?

Consider that, and I'll register part 3 next week to tie this all together.

---

Words, words and words

by Dan Phillips

I once taught a 12-week series on sanctification without ever using the word. Itaught an eight-week series on incarnation without ever using the word. — Rick Warren

...preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. — Paul

There are words, then there are words, and then there are words, aren't there?

Biblical faith is a faith of words. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ," we read (Romans 10:17). "Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth," we read (John 17:17).

Well, now, look there: "sanctify," Jesus says. What does that mean? It isn't a word used in common conversation, at least not in the way Jesus used it. Takes some explaining, doesn't it? And whose job is it to explain it?

"Preach the word," Paul tells young pastor Timothy. He tells him to do it above all things (v. 1). In fact, Paul says that God values that labor of preaching and doctrinal teaching more than He values any other pastoral activity (1 Timothy 5:17). So it is the pastor's job to explain what all those words mean. Words like "sanctify."

Because Jesus uses those words, and He moves His apostles to use them. Words like sanctify and justify and impute and propitiate and redeem. We don't commonly use any of those words as Jesus and the apostles used them. We need someone to help us understand them. That "someone," God says, is the pastor.

Yet here is pastor Rick Warren saying, with an unmistakable tone of pride, that he "taught a 12-week series on sanctification without ever using the word." Twelve weeks on a topic, yet not one of his hearers would have been able to connect what he had said with the word that Jesus or His apostles had used. Why? How? Well, if Pastor Warren is to be taken at his word, he had to avoid reading any of the twenty-one verses in the ESV NT that use some form of "sanctify." So what did Warren use for source material? We are left to wonder, and to surmise that his hearers came away understanding Pastor Warren's thoughts on the subject, but not God's words on it.

I can only speak for myself: I would think that, if I had taught for three months on a Biblical topic without my hearers being able to connect it with Biblical words, I would feel I'd been a miserable failure.

Because you see sanctify is a big Bible word, as are holy and holiness. If I am not teaching people about those Bible words, I am not teaching them about the Bible.

For the Christian, those words are vital words indeed.

And then there are words that are not directly-Biblical, but they are pretty hard to avoid if you're trying to teach the Bible. Wouldn't incarnation be one of those words? What is John 1:14 about, if not incarnation? That isn't even really that uncommon of a word. I think a great many secular people understand the concept just fine. Why ever would a Bible teacher (i.e. pastor) want to avoid such a word, let alone pride himself on avoiding such a word?

Other similar words which express Biblical truth might include Trinity, and inerrancy, and canonicity. How could one teach very broadly in the Bible without engaging and eventually using such concepts?

Yet now I will leap past a possible third category of words (i.e. more advanced theological terms like aseity and infralapsarian) to a fourth: idiomatic, non-essential words raised to an unwarranted level of importance.

Here I am thinking of teachers like the late Col. Robert Thieme Jr., who invented an extremely technical catalog of terms used by no one else in church history, anywhere, ever. Even leaving aside the question of the Biblical accuracy of his teaching, the upshot I observed was that his disciples would be locked into Thieme-related churches. Everything else would seem shallow and watery, because they weren't getting the "deep truths" of alpha and bravo grace and rebound and so on. They find themselves isolated, divided from Christians of all ages and lands.

Or, to go to the Reformed tradition, there's Steve Brown. I shared concerns (here and here) about Brown's winsome way of grounding his teaching in personal stories, illustrations, and "Brownisms," rather than directly and consciously in Scripture and Scriptural words. The fruit often is disciples who can quote Brown fluently, but bristle at aspects of words from the Bible.

This is, I think, the inevitable fruit of substituting anything for teaching the words of Scripture.

God's intent seems to be unity. Certainly, Christ prays for unity in John 17. But God did a great deal to provide a basis for unity: there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, one body (Ephesians 4) — and one Bible. We believe that this Bible contains absolutely all the words of God we need on any subject (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And what is that Bible filled with? Words. Not one drawing, not one diagram: just words. Words like sanctification.

If a pastor doesn't consider it his very God-given job to explain and apply those words, then one must ask: what does he think his job is?

And if a pastor wouldn't count it a miserable failure if he did not succeed in explaining and applying those words, then one must ask: what would failure be?

---

Filthy Calvinists, and the people who love to hate them

by Frank Turk

Before the real antics begin today, our friends at Triablogue have digitally-published a book called The Infidel Delusion to respond to John Loftus' cadre of sad-faced clowns' most recent book, the Christian Delusion -- because it's the Christians, you see, who slavishly follow the thoughts and edicts of their mentors and heroes.

Anyway, Peter Pike's announcement for the book is worth the read as well, and there you can download the PDF for your reading pleasure. Bring a Lunch.

---

The best way to ensure, by the providence of God, that I will have a full week at work is to promise to post something controversial which will require significant moderation and a lot of time disambiguating people regarding their own bum preconceptions.



So on Monday, I promised to write a blog post where hating on Calvinism would be on-topic. And here we are.

Back in February 2009, Challies made a post called A Portrayal of Calvinism in which he was reviewing two different books entitled Finding God in The Shack (ugh -- and he survived) where the authors of these books were taking pot-shots at Calvinism.



Before we get to the meat there, I just want to point something out: the real barking dogs of horrible theologically who want to still call themselves Christians always always always find it necessary to beat down on Calvinism in order to say, "see how much better my system of thinking about the Bible and Jesus and God and people is?" Why is that I wonder? Why is Calvinism the whipping boy for people who want to find God in the Shack, and the people who want to say God doesn't know the future, and the people who want to say all roads lead to the same God Almighty, and the ecumenicists, and the social gospelists, and so on?

Why is it that all these people hate Calvinism -- if it's such an obvious falsehood?

That's a thought to ponder if you want to fire up your vitriol in the comments -- in fact I insist: why do all the nut-jobs hate Calvinism most of all rather than, for example, the idea that God is the Eucharist, or that your soul will suffer in purgatory for your sin before you get to spend eternity with God and the Virgin Mary? Why is Calvinism the one they know they have to overcome?

OK -- back to Challies. In what may be the most strongly-worded statement Tim has ever made publicly, he had this to say about the way these books treated Calvinism:

My reaction when reading all of this was, if not anger, real frustration. I hate to think that thousands of people will read such an inaccurate, uninformed, fictitious view of Calvinism (and this by an author who has some credibility by virtue of his position as a Professor of Theology). Even where Rauser is correct, his words often lack the charitable nuance we might well hope for. But in so many ways he is really, really wrong. Not surprisingly, he does not quote any sources; I know of none that would support his statements.

You know: Challies was almost angry. That's saying a lot.



But people hate calvinists, right? I mean, let's do some benchmarking here. I dropped this into Google, and look at the results I got:

About 557,000 sites which are decidedly not Arminian, yes? But when we put the competition into Google, check it out:

Wow! Like DOUBLE the number of sites! Seriously -- if the problem is that there's quite a lot of venom going around, check the internet, because clearly someone out there is wrong.

So what's your beef? You hate Calvinism? Really? Let's hear your beef - in comments which are neither vulgar nor insulting, si vous plait - with only one limiting factor: one comment of complaint per customer, limited by Blogger's new-found character limit of about 4,000 characters.

Have at it. You loyal Calvinists need to buck up for this because it's going to be instructive one way or the other. Stay away from brawling and responding to taunts. You have heard this all before, and all I'm asking is that you spend you time today thinking about why people will be glad to dump on Calvinists in the first place.

I'll moderate at will. Enjoy.

---

Not more, nor less

by Frank Turk

Since last week I promised that I was going to approach Dr. Piper's sermon series on the gifts more particularly, I want to do that from a different place than having said that Dr. Piper and C.J. Mahaney need to clap on the apologetic 6-shooters and become the new sheriff in those there Charismatic parts.

I want to start with something I said in the meta a while ago which, I think, people need to keep in mind as we approach the question of how the Holy Spirit works in the church.

My opinion is that a "cautious" continualist and a "cautious" cessationist have way more in common that they have in contention. They agree that prayer is efficacious; they agree that God is the giver of all good things; they agree that the Christian has a privilege to ask God for his needs; they agree that we should rejoice when God supplies those needs.

The problem is when someone claims more than that, or less than that. I would say that those who fall outside of those affirmations put themselves in spiritual danger -- a topic about which I am sure I have more I should write down.

---

My Hope and Refuge, Inc.?

by Frank Turk

Briefly today, (no, seriously) I wanted to say something about idolatry.

I was the last man out that my bookstore yesterday, and as I was locking up I started praying about God's provision for me and my family. I don't know about you, but my kids are brilliant and healthy, my wife is brilliant and loving, and frankly we have never spent a day without a meal or a roof over our heads. That's not bragging: that's just what it is, and I know that some of our readers may have had parts of their lives which have not been so fortunate.

Those readers probably know something the rest of us don't know -- because the rest of us live in what can only be called ridiculously-opulent wealth. Most of us don't consider ourselves "rich" -- because we compare what we have to what the top 5% of Americans make and have, and we see our lives as quite modest compared to people with multiple, gigantic houses and so on.

But you know something: when we are in danger of losing what we have in this life -- for example, because our employer has a business model that's not expanding and what we do is in danger of being "right-sized" -- I think many of us are afraid that God doesn't love us anymore even though we have more wealth and more opportunity for wealth than 99% of all people who ever lived.



When our hope lies in money or in some job in particular, we are idolators. And while it is a wholly-biblical axiom that if you don't work, you don't eat, our hope for our provision shouldn't come from some job or career. God is still God when you have to find a new job. Some trust in chariots, some trust in paychecks. We trust in the name of the Lord our God. Please, God: don't let the one we trust have an "Inc." at the end of His name.

I'm as-guilty of this stuff as anyone, so consider this a protestant act of confession.

---

UPDATED

Just in case you think I forgot about the God and Politics stuff, I haven't. But last week, Dr. John Piper podcasted a little something that was relevant to that topic, and I was edified by it. My edification, btw, came not from his clarity and simplicity but from his own admission, as you can read below, that this is a very difficult ball of twine to untangle:

Bob Allen: Should we try to legislate the Bible in today's society?

Dr. Piper: It's not inappropriate to seek to apply the Bible, provided that we apply it wisely. And the wisdom lies in realizing that—since coerced faith and coerced obedience are unbiblical—the Bible itself provides the guidance and the ground for making space for a culture in which people have the right to choose which moral elements they will or will not obey. It sound almost contradictory. In other words, the Bible insists that there must not be coercion for every single moral command that it contains.

For example, "Thou shalt not covet." Are you going to make that into a law? No, because coerced non-coveting won't work. It's a self-contradiction. It's the same thing with belief in Jesus. The Bible clearly commands, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Should we turn that moral religious command into a moral law? No, because a law-constrained faith in Jesus is unbiblical and has no validity. Therefore, in a sense, the Bible shows that we should not turn all of its commands into law.

So your question boils down to, Well, which ones then?

Don't kill? - We all agree on that one. Make that a law.
Don't steal? - We all agree on that one. Make that a law.
Don't commit adultery? - Hmm. Now what about that one?
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy? - We used to have laws about that.

The way it works practically is that for the laws where we can get overwhelming consensus in the culture we're going to use coercion. The irony is that we believe in using coercion as a culture for the things that don't seem to matter very much. For example, I've got to get all the dog poop out of my back yard or I'm going to get cited, and coercion will be used to make me cut my grass or clean my yard. And yet, we can't use coercion legally to save a baby's life if he is still in the womb.

What we need to do is find those things in the Bible that we believe should be lived by, and then try as Christians—through preaching, teaching, and prayer—to bring about as much consensus as we can. And yet we will not press for the legislating of things where there is massive unwillingness to do it, because we would wind up making coercion the ground of our morality.

---

What is an "antinomian"?

by Dan Phillips

This might be briefer, less commented-on, and less controversial than its predecessor, on legalism. The word "antinomian" isn't thrown around quite as freely. Maybe because (unlike legalism) it's not much of a dodge to hide behind. You can't get much mileage, when a brother is exhorting you to take the Word to heart on some point, by calling him an "antinomian."

It is, however, misused as a dismissive way of refusing to deal seriously with other Biblically-based positions. If you can successfully label a person (or school) "antinomian"... well, he's bad, and that's that. So you don't need to think too hard about it.

It also is of course properly used of schools that are antinomian; and they are bad. Once again, then, what matters is using the word correctly — which, again, depends on defining it correctly.

So here are some proposed definitions. Note: they all have to do with Christian living, not how to become a Christian. None has to do with how to get saved, but with how to live as a Christian.

By popular usage (and with some overlap), an antinomian is...

1. Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey any part of the Law of Moses qua Law-of-Moses
   
2. Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey the moral division of the Law of Moses qua Law-of-Moses
3. Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey the commands of Christ and the apostles
   
4. Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey any law
   
5. Anyone who sets the leading of the Holy Spirit in opposition to obedience to any rule or law, whatever the source or location
6. Anyone who sets grace in opposition to obedience to any written word of God
   

As before, in the meta, tell us:

• Which of these have you heard most frequently?
• Which do you think is (or are) accurate and legitimate uses — and on what basis?
• Which do you think are inaccurate and illegitimate — and on what basis?

Again, have at it.

What is a "legalist"?

by Dan Phillips

Were I forced to pick the most overused and undefined word in Evanjellibeanism today, and I might pick legalist. I think most Evanjellybeans think of legalism as Associate Justice Potter Stewart (January 23, 1915 - December 7, 1985) thought of hard-core pornography: he wasn't sure he could define it, but said "I know it when I see it."

We all know legalism when we see it — or so we think. But do we? Here are some definitions that I have culled from common use, by means of hearing, reading, observation and/or analysis. There will be some overlap and repetition.

Got all that?

Here we go, then:

A legalist is...

1. Anyone who thinks Christians are under the Ten Commandments
2. Anyone who thinks Christians are under the Law of Moses (more broadly)
3. Anyone who thinks that we must obey law (— any law, whether of Moses or of Christ) to merit salvation
4. Anyone who thinks a Christian should obey the commands of Christ and the apostles
5. Anyone whose example makes me feel bad about my life
6. Anyone who imposes man-made rules on other Christians' consciences
7. Anyone who lives by standards that I don't share
8. Anyone who tells me that I should not do something I want to do, or do something I don't want to do
9. Anyone who tells me that a sin I sinned was sin, that I must repent before God and man, and that I must make it right with those I've wronged
10. Anyone who seriously thinks that what the Bible says is more important than what I strongly feel
11. Anyone who seriously thinks that the Bible should be our only rule of faith and practice, and that it is wholly sufficient to that end
12. Anyone who quotes a Bible verse I don't want to hear
13. Anyone who affirms a Biblical truth I don't want to think about
14. Anyone who thinks that, just because I say I believe in Jesus, I should take seriously anything that Jesus or His apostles or prophets say, even if I don't want to
15. Anyone who evaluates my outpouring of emotions and reactions in a Biblical manner, however humanly and compassionately
16. Anyone who holds to a lot of rules
17. Anyone who applies the Bible accurately, but without so much as a breath of grace, patience, compassion or humility
18. Anyone who thinks we should ever say "No" to anything we really deeply feel in our hearts
19. Anyone who goes to church when he doesn't feel like it
20. Anyone who takes literally parts of the Bible that I don't take literally
21. Anyone who thinks I should go to church when I don't feel like it, just because I say I believe in Jesus
22. Anyone who thinks I should respect an authority I don't agree with
23. Anyone who thinks that, just because I call Jesus "Lord, Lord," I should actually do what He says
24. Update: Anyone who tries to hold another to a biblical standard [credit: Carrie]
25. Update: Anyone who thinks that there is no problem that cannot be solved by more and better rules

In the meta, tell us:

• Which of these have you heard most frequently?
• Which do you think is (or are) accurate and legitimate uses — and on what basis?
• Which do you think are inaccurate and illegitimate — and on what basis?

My chum: it is unlikely that anyone will be able to make a case that legalist is never used in any of the senses given above. I observe that this plethora of competing usages creates two very serious problems:

First, Christian A preaches or writes or otherwise rails fiercely against "legalism" in, say, senses 3, 6 and/or 17, but is heard by Christian B as denouncing legalism in, say, senses 9, 10 and/or 23. (Or vice-versa!)

Second, Christian A bitterly denounces Christian B as embodying senses 3, 6 and/or 17, when Christian B was in reality motivated along the lines of senses 4, 10, 11, 15, and/or 23 — because this pious dodge sounds and looks so much better than simply admitting the truth of the matter.

Have at it.

---