Why I Am Non-Chrismatic

This morning my wife and I had been talking about church and I said to her, “I am not charismatic.” This surprised her. I guess she thought I was. Perhaps, others who know me might feel the same. But no, I am not charismatic because I do not believe or hold to three things that are prevalent within Charismatic circles.

1. Slain in the Spirit. – I do not see anywhere in the Bible of any example of anyone being “slain in the Spirit.” When people start to fall down backwards laughing or in some catatonic state, I am amused more than amazed. I am yet to be shown anywhere in the Bible one example in the New Testament church of any example of this taking place. This is why I cannot embrace this.

2. Baptism of the Spirit - The way Charismatics interpret this is like a second work of grace. Once a person is saved, then subsequently (time will vary) the Holy Spirit will baptize a person (come on him or her) and evidence of this will be praying in tongues. Examples of this are given in Acts 2, 10 and 19. But this is not at all the baptism of the Spirit. If you want to know what the baptism of the Spirit is, then you go to 1 Corinthians 12:13 – “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. . .”

Notice some key observations:

First, the baptism of the Spirit includes “all” – not just some.

Second, the baptism of the Spirit has to do with being placed by the Spirit into “one body” (i.e. the church, the spiritual body of Christ).

Third, the word “baptized” in the Greek is in the aorist tense, meaning that it is an act that occurs once and for all time, never to be repeated. Since the bible teaches that “all” are baptized and since this baptism involves being placed into the body of Christ, we concur that it refers to a time when one puts his faith and trust in Christ at the moment of salvation. It is at this time a person is baptized by the Spirit, placed into the body of Christ, and such an act is never to be repeated again. There is no such thing as a person getting saved and waiting subsequently for the baptism of the Spirit.

Fourth, the preposition, “by” can also be translated “in” or “with.” I think this is better rendering. In other words, the Spirit does not do the baptism, instead the Spirit is the means by which the baptism occurs.

Well then, who does the baptizing? Listen to how John the Baptist puts it: “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11).

Notice it is Jesus who does the baptizing “using” (with) the Holy Spirit. The first part of the passage above, John says, “I baptize you with water. . .” Did the water do the baptism? No, it was John who did so using water. So it is with the baptism of the Spirit. Jesus does the baptism using the Holy Spirit. There is no baptism by the Spirit. Jesus is the baptizer!

So I believe the baptism of or with the Spirit, occurs at the moment of salvation, placing a person into the body of Christ and not subsequently for power. I think the average Charismatic confuses the baptism of the Spirit with the filling of the Spirit (Eph. 5:18-20).

One more thing, ask yourself this: Were all the Corinthian Christians baptized by the Spirit? According to 1 Corinthians 12:13, “all” are baptized. Now answer this: “Do all Christians (or the Corinthian Christians) pray or speak in tongues?” No (see 1 Cor. 12:30). Therefore, the baptism of the Spirit that subsequently comes upon a believer with the evidence of praying or speaking in tongues is not supported by the Bible.

3. Praying in tongues. The third reason why I am not charismatic is because I do not pray in tongues. I use to do so in the past for several years, but I understood it to be fake and full of emotions.

Let me simply add a few comments here.

First, give me just one example anywhere in the New Testament (or Old Testament) of anyone praying in a tongue. There are examples of people speaking in tongues – known languages that were given by the Spirit to a person who had not learned the language (Acts 2, 10 and 19). But no one praying in a tongue.

What is the difference between praying in a tongue and speaking in tongues? Speaking in tongues is a legitimate gift by the Holy Spirit given to a few in the body of Christ for the purpose of proclaiming the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:11) and a sign to unbelievers that God was present (1 Cor. 14:22).

Praying in tongues is simply jibberish talk with no coherent meaning. It by-passes and disengages the mind and allows the spirit or emotions to simply run wild. I cannot find support anywhere in the Bible where we Christians are allowed to shut down our minds and operate independent of it. We are to love the Lord with all our minds (Matt. 22:37), except when praying in tongues? See 1 Cor. 14:14 – where Paul says to pray in a tongue means the mind is “unfruitful”). Paul says that in the church (among and in the presence of other believers), better to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others, than ten-thousand words in a tongue (that carries no meaning or understanding) – see 1 Cor. 14:19).

I personally reject anything that encourages me to perform in a way that causes me to shut down the use of my mind. To do so, I risk opening up to demonic intervention.

Now, let me add this: I believe in the use of all the spiritual gifts mentioned in the Bible – Romans 12, Acts 2, 10, 19; 1 Cor. 12-14; 1 Peter 4. Some gifts are categorized as “sign gifts” (tongues, healings, miracles, etc.), which I believed are still active and given by God today, but not as prevalent. Other gifts are known as serving and edification gifts (prophecy, teaching, helps, administration, etc., which are more prevalent today.

I close with this: To my brothers and sisters who are charismatic, good for you. We ought to know that being Charismatic or non-Charismatic is not an issue of salvation. Jesus is the issue regarding being saved. I can serve along side of and love my Charismatic brother and sisters. I hope they feel the same about non-charismatics.

But it is for these reasons that I consider myself non-Charismatic.

See you in heaven!

The Immutability of God, Part 2

When the Bible says that God doesn’t change, it means that He never changes His character or His will. Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent.”

The Lord may, however, choose to react differently to man’s varying responses. For example, God commanded Jonah to preach to the city of Nineveh that they would be destroyed. But at the preaching of Jonah, the whole city repented. The Bible says, “God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it” (Jonah 3:10). Instead of destroying them He blessed them. Did God change? No, it was the people of Nineveh that changed, and God responded to their repentance with a blessing, which is consistent with His nature.

Genesis 6:6 says that when God looked at the debauchery of the human race in pre–flood civilizations, He “was sorry that He had made man on the earth.” God had made humanity to be blessed and to be a blessing, but Adam’s fall into sin turned God’s blessing into a curse. God’s will and His character were unchanged. He would reward good and punish evil. But what changed? Humanity had changed, and God was sorry for what His creatures would suffer in judgment. He has no joy when judgment falls (2 Peter 3:9).

When the Bible says God was sorry, it doesn’t mean that He thought He had made a mistake. The King James Version uses the word repented. That doesn’t mean He changed His mind. The Bible simply expresses in terms we can understand a divine attitude of grief over sin. In theological circles this is referred to as a anthropomorphism. It means God responded to man’s iniquity with sorrow and altered His treatment of mankind in accordance with how they were behaving. His will never change. He never varied from His course (cf. Jeremiah 13:17).

God’s immutability sets Him apart from everything created, because everything else changes. The whole universe is changing. Galaxies die and begin. Even the sun is slowly burning out. Our world is constantly changing. The seasons change. We grow old and die, and from the beginning to the end, all we know is change. Not God. He is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

End of Part 2

Are We Guilty of De-mythologizing The Scriptures?

Most evangelical Christians have not sided with the theology of Rudolf Bultmann, (Rudolf Karl Bultmann was a German Lutheran theologian and professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg. He was one of the major figures of early 20th century biblical studies and a prominent voice in liberal Christianity), who insisted that we could not believe the Bible as it is written, but we must de-mythologize it. That is, we must take out of it those things that were religious myths in order to understand what the language means in our own day.

I disagree with Dr. Bultmann. The Bible does not need to be de-mythologized in order to understand its real meaning. But could we evangelical Christians possibly be doing our own degree of de-mythologizing?  What I mean is this: Have we been de-mythologizing what the Scriptures say about the charismatic teaching on spiritual gifts?  I know in some circles of evangelicalism it is popular to teach that the “sign” gifts are no longer valid for today. Signs gifts being, healings, miracles, casting out demons, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, and so on. But I also have noticed this.  In the churches where the signs gifts are practiced, there is a spiritual passion and rejuvenating energy that pervades the whole congregation. In those churches where signs gifts are frowned on, there is a staleness mix with a deadening spirit. Of course, there are exceptions to this. But overall, what the church really needs is the charismatic dimension in our churches.

I am not saying we need a new doctrine. What we need is a new dynamism that will make all of the old evangelical conviction operational. We need not so much to be educated as to be vitalized. It is not a doctrine of the Spirit that we need, but a movement of the Spirit pervading and filling us and setting our convictions on fire.

Just a thought! 

Thinking About “The Shack”

My wife and I went to see the movie, “The Shack,” a couple of weeks ago.  I was moved by it. But later, I know enough about myself not to let my emotions teach me theology. I needed time to process what I saw now that my emotions have calmed down.

I love what C.S. Lewis wrote in his book, “Mere Christianity” -- "God is the only comfort. He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most need to hide from. He is our only possible ally and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again."

One day we will stand before Him, overwhelmed by that goodness. Instead of condemning, he welcomes us. Invites us to share His throne and His reign—an act of compassion and nobility that staggers our dim imaginations.

When I watched “The Shack,” I was overwhelmed with how the movie portrayed God’s kindness and compassion. But I am also reminded that God’s kindness may not be in ways that fit our minds.

For example, God was so kind to offer us a way out of our sins, but it came as the price of Jesus’ death and suffering.  I tried to compare the suffering of Mack in the movie, “The Shack” with the suffering of Job. Mack lost one little girl.  That in itself is bad enough. But Job lost seven sons and three daughters (Job 1). 

So what I have done is to compare how God dealt with Job in his time of extreme lost and crisis (a biblical account) with how God dealt with Mack in his lost and crisis (a movie’s version).

When I compare the two, I find that the greatest deficit of the Papa (God) of The Shack—his/her kindness fits too easily into our minds conditioned by today’s New Agey, marshmallowy, overwrought compassion. Tender feeling-with but without holiness or righteousness or accountability or sacrifice or hard-earned wisdom from a man like Job who lost far more than Mack.

God comes to Job like Papa comes to Mack in his pain and suffering and gives the most important gift—the gift of His I-AM-enough presence. The fulfillment of our deepest longing when we are in the deepest pit. When we need an Answerer far more than an answer.

But interestingly, God comes without comfort food or Neil Diamond music. He comes to Job and says, “Brace yourself like a man and I will question you” (Job 40:7).

“The Shack” was an entertaining take on God.  But for this Christian, I am convinced that the Book of Job is a much more truer and biblical take on nature of God and His compassion toward those who are in severe pain.

Again I say, God’s kindness may not fit in the way our minds may think.