Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists
Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism
The
Beliefs of the Montanists
Perhaps more important than the history of Montanism is what those in the group believed. It is commonly noted that the Montanists held mostly orthodox beliefs. Schaff recorded, ?In doctrine, Montanism agreed in all essential points with the Catholic Church, and held very firmly to the traditional rule of faith.?[1] Sine the movement existed prior to the councils and creeds, such formulations should not be expected of them. However, in relation to their contemporary doctrines, they expressed orthodox understandings of the Trinity and salvation. Shelly notes that Montanus ?came with a demand for a higher standard and a greater discipline and sharper separation of the church from the world. Had he halted there, he could have done little but good, but he went much further.?[2] Deviation from what some might call ?the fundamentals? did not trouble the Montanists? critics. Rather, it appears the church found their claims regarding prophecy and some of their practices intolerable.
F.F.
Bruce uniquely summed up Montanus?s position: ?For (he maintained) Christ?s
promise of the coming Paraclete had now been fulfilled, and he, Montanus, was
the Paraclete?s mouthpiece. The coming of the Paraclete was the immediate
prelude to the second advent of Christ and the establishment of the New
Jerusalem in one of the towns of
A
fundamental element of the Montanist prophecies was their millenarian
perspective. D.H. Williams defines a millennial movement ?as a religious-social
movement which expects immediate, total, collective, this-worldly salvation,
and which believes this will be accomplished by divine agencies.?[5] In
other words, the substance and motivation of Montanist prophecies rested in the
belief in a rapidly approaching apocalypse, which was often characterized by
the descent of a New Jerusalem. This eschatological emphasis appears to have
enticed many Christians to accept and even follow Montanus and his prophets.
Beyond
their beliefs regarding prophecy, the Montanists were also known for some
distinctive practices. Because Maximilla and Priscilla had left their husbands
to serve with Montanus, some thought that they taught celibacy and the
dissolving of existing marriages. However, the records only indicate strong
teachings against second marriages. They did adhere to a form of asceticism and
self-denial, and this too was rooted in their millenarian perspective.
[1] Phillip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Christianity, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 1950), 421.
[2] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain English, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 65.
[3] F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 218.
[4] Shelley, 65.
[5] D.H. Williams, ?The Origins of the Montanist Movement: A Sociological Analysis,? Religion 19 (1989): 335.
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism
In recent years there has been a revival of interest in the faith of the early church. Some have insisted the way forward must be traveled first by looking back, and thus embracing an ?ancient-future? faith. There is much to be said for such a position since history and tradition ought to significantly inform the faith of those in Christ?s church.
Given this paradigm, the struggles and disputes the church has grappled with through the centuries are of considerable importance to Christians today. The standards put forward by leaders in the early church ought to inform contemporary discussions in some authoritative regard. One such struggle in the early church was with a group who referred to themselves as the New Prophecy.
Those in the New Prophecy, also known as Montanists, immediately raised suspicion and were ultimately condemned as charismatic heretics. The standards used by the early church to condemn this group should have direct implications for current charismatic discussion in light of the ?ancient-future? paradigm. Therefore, it is important for theologians today to understand the Montanists and why they were considered heretics to see what it may mean for current debates.
The
History of Montanism
Montanus
and his followers considered themselves the New Prophecy; however, historians
usually refer to the group as Montanists. While it is agreed that Montanus
began the movement, there has been some debate as to when it began. Humberto
Raul Treiyer notes, ?The date of the organization is uncertain because
Montanists remained in the Christian churches as long as they were permitted to
remain.?[1]
Based on calculations in light of Epiphanius, an early apologist, the origins
of Montanus?s prophecies date to around 156 C.E.; however, calculations based
on Eusebius, an early historian, date the origins to around 171 C.E. Most other
speculations fall within these two dates. Some have suggested the earlier date
may have been when Montanus began his teaching and the later reflects when the
bishops of
Montanus
was a convert to Christianity in Phrygia, a region in central
[1] Humberto Raul Treiyer, ?An Investigation into the Possible Influence of Montantism in the Development of the Theology of Tertullian? (D.Theol. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974), 43.
[2] See Paul Monceaux, Histoire Litteraire de l?Afrique Chretienne Deupis Les Origines Jusq?a l?Invasion Arabe, Vol. 1 (Paris: Leroux, 1901-1923) 177.
[3] Treiyer, 39.
[4] Eusebius, ?Church History? in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 232. 5.16.13
The Reformed critiques of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views are, I believe, devastating. To confer a divine attribute to Christ?s human nature is nothing less than a violation of the Chalcedonian Creed, which affirms that Christ?s two natures are neither confused nor mixed. Likewise, the finite cannot contain the infinite, which rules out any doctrine of the Eucharist that would seek to contain Christ within the elements. David P. Scaer?s response to this argument was twofold: First, he argued that we cannot let a philosophical axiom be a basis of doctrine. This is a weak argument, however, since I?m sure Scaer would agree that we can and should (and indeed must!) allow the basic laws of logic to be a basis for doctrine. Second, he argued that without the power to contain itself in the finite, the infinite would not truly be infinite. But this sounds like the sort of argument that says ?if God were truly omnipotent He could do anything, including make a contradiction true.? But this, of course, is to misconstrue the meaning of omnipotence. Likewise Scaer seems to have the wrong idea about infinitude.
Moreover, Russell D. Moore?s argument that the misunderstanding of Christ?s metaphorical teachings about Himself is a recurring theme in John?s gospel (an argument that can easily be appropriated by the Reformed view) deals a similar deathblow to Catholicism and Lutheranism by removing the force of the most explicit passage of Scripture in their favor (John 6).
But what of the Memorialist view? There is strength in their connection of the Lord?s Supper to Passover, which was by no means a meal that conferred special grace or contained the Spirit of God. And if we are to support Memorialist arguments regarding the metaphorical nature of Christ?s body and blood, why not go all the way and admit that the elements are merely signs that point metaphorically to those realities?
I believe there is one primary reason to affirm the Reformed view rather than the Memorialist view (I think there are others, but they would take us too far into other areas of theology), and it is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 16. In this verse, Paul is clear that when we eat of the bread and drink of the cup we are actually participating with Christ?s body and blood in a special way that is different from the ?regular? participation with Christ that the church in general enjoys. At this point, Russell D. Moore reminds us that Paul contrasts this with food offered to idols, which he says makes a person a participant with demons. Does this imply that eating food offered to idols allows a person to spiritually commune with the ?real presence? of a demon? Of course not. But here I think Moore simply makes the mistake of directly equivocating what the Lord?s Supper means and what food sacrificed to demons means. What is significant in this passage is not that there is a direct and perfect correlation between the two, but rather that Paul is affirming that there is something real and supernatural at work behind the worship of idols. To be sure, the statues themselves are lifeless creations of man and the ?gods? they represent do not exist, but behind them is the real, supernatural work of Satan and his demons. That is the only point Paul is trying to make here. The correlation to the Lord?s Supper, then, is in the fact that, likewise, there is something very real and very supernatural going on behind the partaking of the Lord?s Supper. This strongly suggests something more than mere symbolism.
For these reasons, then, I believe the Reformed view to be the superior understanding of the doctrine of Holy Communion, while at the same time acknowledging that such a profound mystery will never fully be grasped by the human mind, at least not this side of Paradise.
Roman Catholic
Roman Catholics would take Christ?s words of institution in the Gospels literally, as they would also take Christ?s words in John 6 literally. Also undergirding this view is the Catholic understanding of sacrifice and the continuation of the priesthood. Each Lord?s Supper is another sacrifice, albeit an ?unbloody? one.
Luther also took very seriously Christ?s words in the gospels, ?this is my body? and ?this is my blood.? Although, historically, Lutherans have shied away from using John 6 as support for their view. David P. Scaer (a Lutheran theologian) argues that that should change.
Still, however, Calvin took seriously the ?real presence? of Christ in the Lord?s Supper, even going so far as to affirm that we do indeed partake of Christ?s flesh and blood. How could this be? Calvin understood that while the two natures of Christ were distinct, they were also inseparably joined. This meant that even though Christ?s human nature is localized in Heaven, it is united to His divine nature, which is omnipresent. Thus, by partaking of Christ?s divine nature (which is present in a special way during Communion), through the Holy Spirit, we are also partaking of His human nature. Calvin readily admitted that this is a mystery beyond our comprehension. In the same mystical way that Christ?s two natures are united, so we can mystically commune with and partake of Christ?s human nature through His divine nature, which is brought to the Supper and given to the believer by the Holy Spirit (interestingly, this focus on the Holy Spirit in Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper bears some similarities to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine. So much so, in fact, that both Catholic and Lutheran theologians have pointed this out. In many ways, it actually seems as though the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist is closer to the Reformed view than to the Roman view. This would be an interesting topic of exploration for another time).
So, which view is the best (in my young and humble opinion)? Stay tuned!
(For a recap of the Memorialist view click here).
The following is from an article on witches in Salem and a recent public educational forum:
Throughout the evening, the panelists described a mainstreaming of their religion that they never dreamed possible. Today modern paganism is the 19th most popular religion in the United States, said Adler. ?Wicca has exploded as far as numbers,? she said. There are now Wiccan-based charities, Wiccan-based AA chapters and Wiccan groups adopting highway beautification projects. Pagan studies courses are offered in major universities, she said.
Why is Wicca more accepted today? The MTV.com points to favorable portrayals in the media: "A surprising number of young witches MTV News spoke with also said that they became curious about their faith through misguiding pop-culture fare like the camp Neve Campbell vehicle "The Craft" and the "Harry Potter" series. (Guess a few conservative Christian groups were right about that one)." The Salem News article points to the dispelling of old impressions that witches are evil and to some degree of compromise in order to make it more mainstream.
As people in our culture look ever in toward themselves, they care less for objective truth and more for what feels right to them:The videos (which I recommend watching- the second starts after the first concludes) feature a recurring theme: "there is no wrong way to worship." This is why Wiccans only have "a few simple beliefs in common." Though united in these few things, every Wiccan approaches religion like a buffet- only taking those things that appeal to them. Religious belief is no longer in the realm of objective truth, it is now private expression.
Wicca and related pagan religions make up just some of the hundreds of options put before Americans today, but it all boils down to two options: Will you seek the true God of the universe who refuses to to be crafted according to your mutable desires, or will you idolize and worship feelings that don't exist apart from yourself?
Are we as Christians prepared to preach the gospel to those who choose the latter?
Christian Answers for a New Age has some great articles on this topic.
Articles and books by Peter Jones are also an excellent resource. I especially recommend Capturing the Pagan Mind.
If you stopped random evangelicals on the street and asked them what the differences are between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the top three responses would likely be the Pope, the adoration of Mary, and the Lord?s Supper. The average evangelical layperson may not know very much about Roman Catholic dogma, but he is likely to know that they believe in transubstantiation (even if he isn?t familiar with that term). What the average layperson is not likely to know is that the doctrine of the Lord?s Supper was also the single most divisive doctrine within the various camps of Protestantism as well, sharply dividing Lutherans from their Reformed counterparts. Today in the West, there are basically four major views of the Lord?s Supper, three of which are held by different Protestant evangelical groups; Lutheran, Reformed and Baptist/Pentecostal. In this series of posts, I will briefly outline the four positions, and then offer my critical analysis. For the sake of space, I will leave out questions of how often the sacrament should be administered, who should administer it, who can partake, whether or not other elements can be substituted for bread and wine, etc. I will instead focus on what I believe is the primary issue, namely the presence of Christ. Where is Christ present? How is He present? How is the sacrament efficacious? With these questions in mind, let us now explore the first view.
Memorialists argue that Christ?s words of institution in the Gospels, ?this is my body? and ?this is my blood? are symbolic or metaphorical. This is especially true of Christ?s words in John 6:53-54, where he seems to explicitly teach that believers must actually eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Russel D. Moore responds to the Catholic reading of these verses by pointing out that there is an ongoing theme in John?s gospel of Jesus teaching metaphorically, but being taken literally by his hearers and thus misunderstood by them. In John 2, for example, Jesus teaches that He will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, and his hearers do not understand becaue they assume he means the literal temple in Jerusalem. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and Nicodemus is confused because he takes Christ?s metaphor literally. In John 4, when Jesus speaks of living water, the Samaritan woman takes him literally and misunderstands what he is trying to teach. And more examples abound.
Memorialists also ground their position in a continuity between the Passover feast and the Lord?s Supper. Just as the Passover feast was meant as a celebration and remembrance of things past and a proclamation and hope of things to come, so is the Lord?s Supper. More importantly, there was nothing spiritually efficacious about eating the Passover meal, and neither is there with the Lord?s Supper.
There's a story in Judges about a man who sends his concubine out to be abused by the men of the town in order to save his own skin. When he finds her dead in the morning, he sends parts of her body to all the tribes of
I imagine that the people of
Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts [an art student at Yale] will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.
The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body . . . "I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."
There's a detailed description of the exhibit in the article, but there's no way I'm going to post it here. All I can say is that our country is hurtling down a dark, ugly road if we're producing people like this woman. How did the creation and destruction of human life become a clever way of "sparking conversation"? We had better wake up.
Yale now insists that the whole project is a fake, but Shvarts is sticking to her story, saying her purpose was to point out that the "central ambiguity [of not knowing whether or not she was actually pregnant] defies a clear definition of the act [of miscarriage]. The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming--an authorial act." Second, she meant to "assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form, It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability." It was her goal to use her body outside the "narrative of reproduction" in order to shock people into acknowledging that it is the "prerogative of every individual" to explore other uses for his or her body. (This, of course, would be absolutely true in a postmodern, Darwinist, Creatorless world.)
Connected with the obvious atrociousness of Shvarts sick use of human life is her view of art:
"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."
Art is a medium for politics and ideologies? Whatever happened to goodness, truth, and beauty? To uplifting the viewer? Where did this new grotesque and ugly standard of art come from? Why is this the only standard she knows of? It's not hard to figure out that just like in the days of Judges, a country that loses sight of the living, holy, good God will soon be stripped of all beauty, and everything--good or evil--rather than being things to delight in or abhor, will be reduced to mere "statements."
Because of God, there is real beauty and it's tragic that so many people in our culture have never tasted it. It's easy to forget when we're feasting on the glory of God that most people have no idea a banquet like this even exists. Let this remind us of our responsibility to tell them.
(HT: Steve Wagner)
 |
One of the criticisms made of new media platforms (such as blogging and social networks like MySpace and Facebook) is that they encourage fascination with the self. How might Christians involved in new media avoid the trap of self-fascination? |
Virtual reality can simply be a world of information or it can be the world into which the lonely and the disconnected find solace and ?relationships? which have none of the human reality of actual relationships. Virtual relationships are an illusion; real relationships are what we are made for by creation. So, we need simply to ask ourselves how we are using these technologies and why. What needs are they meeting? The need for information or for communication is one thing; the need for distraction, or to feel connected is something else. Technology can?t really do too much which is healthy along these lines if a basis of relationship is not already there.
You draw a strict line between spiritual practices that are pagan in nature and biblical in nature. How do some evangelical practices today reflect pagan spirituality rather than biblical spirituality?
The key is that biblical spirituality comes from ?above? and pagan spirituality comes from ?below.? The language of ?above? is used over and over again in Scripture of Christ?s incarnation from a realm which we as humans and as sinners cannot access. God is, as it were, beyond our reach and beyond our natural radar. That fact, however, is not obvious to us. If it were, we who are sinners would not be seeking him on our own terms, in our own way, and assuming that he can be accessed when we want and for whatever it is that we want. These assumptions make up the spirituality from ?below? and while it is exactly what pagans have always done it is now exactly what contemporary consumers are doing. The sacred is there to be used when we want, how we want, and for whatever needs we have just as products are which we can buy at the mall.
Many of the emergents who teach pagan spiritual practices "from below," as you've identified them, believe their spirituality is "from above" because the practices are based on the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Is this just the language game, or can the Spirit use practices "from below" to teach and enrich the lives of God's people?
No, we should not play games with ourselves. The work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is tied to the Word written and the Word living. The work of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the Scripture he inspired in the first place and, second, to apply the work of Christ to people today. So, in this sense, the work of the Spirit coincides with the work of Christ. Why else would Scripture speak of the Spirit is the ?Spirit of Christ? or ?his Spirit?? When people start ascribing to the Spirit their own internal intuitions, senses about life, desires, and yearnings, they will soon find themselves adrift if they have not asked themselves two questions: first, have I checked what I am sensing against the (objective) revelation of God?s Word? Second, is what I am sensing leading me to a deeper understanding of, and more faithful service to Christ? If we have no answers to these questions, let us speak no more about the ?Spirit? doing this and doing that!
Some believe that it is the churches that have neglected the reciting and teaching of Christian creeds and confessions that have fallen out of historic Protestantism today. How effective do you think creeds and confessions might be in helping to rebuild the evangelical church?
Creeds and confessions are secondary reflections on biblical truth which seek to capture what it is teaching in succinct ways. They are very helpful to those who, at a primary level, are daily engaged with the truth of Scripture. And, almost incidentally, they are reminders?since most come from the past-- that we belong to a single people of God which stretches across time and is found in almost very culture in the world. Creeds and confessions, however, are of little use to those who are strangers to the truth of Scripture.
You conclude that churches must be God centered as opposed to consumer or Self centered. Since most Christians aren't involved in church leadership, how might individuals effect changes toward God centered Protestantism?
It is hard, on the one hand, for those in what used to be called the pew to change the tenor and temper of their churches when their pastors are off chasing success, numbers, and cultural ?relevance.? Many churches, on the other hand, deserve the leaders they have because their audiences (may we still say ?congregations??!) are enablers who want their Christianity lite and undemanding. Here are all the symptoms of our decline and among those who yearn for something so much better are the seeds of renewal. May their number grow every day!
We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or later in our discussions with atheists. Does the presence of the Inquisition in Christian history discredit all of Christianity? Does it render our past completely barbaric?
In the first chapter of The Courage to Be Protestant you map out three constituencies that make up the current evangelical world: classical evangelicalism, church marketers (or seeker-sensitives), and emergents. To help familiarize our readers with your book, could you briefly explain each of these groups and the problems they pose for Christianity? |
What I was describing is the way in which the evangelical world was reconstituted after the Second World War by people like Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and John Stott and how it has declined in recent decades. This kind of rhythm?renewal followed by decline, followed by renewal, followed by decline?is, in fact, the story of the Church. In Scripture, we see this very rhythm working itself out in the Book of Judges. It is always important, though, for people to know where they are in such a cycle. There is no time when the Church is perfect but there are times when it is better and others when it is worse. My view is that in important ways we are leaving behind better days, even as being ?born again? gains cultural acceptance and as megachurches become more numerous. It is the deep sense of truth, the truth that God has given us in his Word, that defined the earlier evangelicals and this sense is now fading in comparison to the desire to be culturally relevant. We should, of course, be engaging culture but not so that that culture defines who we are and what we want and how we go about our church business. It is ?sola Scriptura? not ?sola cultura? ! The marketers are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have adopted from the business world all of the tricks of marketing that make corporations successful. The emergents are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a postmodern mood which imagines that knowing what is true is arrogant, that the way we make connections with Gen Xers. is by being so diffident that we are unsure how true Christianity really is or what its demands actually are.
Focusing on the problems with church marketing strategies, you note that, "The gospel cannot be a product which the church sells because there are no consumers for it. When we find consumers we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel." If the marketers/seeker-sensitives are not "selling" the gospel, what is it that their consumers are actually buying?
What we seldom understand is that the modernized world in
which we live has untold benefits but it also extracts from us deep, inward
costs for having those benefits. That is our paradox. Never have we
had so much --so many products, choices, opportunities, so much knowledge,
instant communication, and long life (in 1900, people could anticipate on
average 49 years of life in America but today it is in the early 80?s).
But, at the same time, the levels of anxiety have never been higher, or
the levels of stress, and the incidents of depression have never been greater
and we now have more kids who are more demoralized than ever before. This
is our paradox. Never have we had so much and never have we had so
little. Living in the American consumer
You claim, "There is a line which connects Marshall and
Wright to Bell and McLaren. It is that the authority of God functions
separately from the written Scriptures? The common threads across this broad
front are that Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its
functioning in the life of the Church today. We are, in fact, autonomous,
freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in
our own way, in the postmodern world." One might argue that evangelicals
have been doing this for some time. For example, many try to find guidance from
God through "putting out fleeces", feeling a special peace about a
decision, or waiting for some other sign. Would you say that the common thread
also extends through these sorts of spiritual practices that appear to water
down the authority of Scripture? How would you assess the role Scripture
currently plays in the lives of most American evangelicals?
We all find ourselves in the midst of a world which is sometimes baffling,
confusing, and painful. Like the psalmists of old, we often ask, ?where
is God in all of this?? This experience, I suspect, is the common lot of
those who know God because we are all being trained to walk by faith and not by
sight. We find this hard. We want to be supported by
evidence?interesting coincidences, miraculous escapes, compelling
narratives?and so we do, indeed, often lean to our own understanding as you
suggest. However, this weakness, I believe, is of a different order from
those who, in small or large ways, have undermined the full, working authority
and truthfulness of Scripture.
You state, "It is important for us to remember that
culture does not give the Church its agenda." Given the context of debates
over our relationship to the culture, what ought our relationship to culture to
be?
Culture is simply the public environment in which we live that has been brought
about by the modernization of our world. Our culture is defined by our
urban concentrations, by our consumerism, the fact that technology is
interwoven through our lives, by the massive bureaucratic structures in
our society which create its impersonal feel, by our loss of connections to
place and family so that loneliness has become epidemic. This is what
explains why our music is as it is and why serious movies are exploring the
themes which they are. So, as in ourselves, so in society which is an
extension of who we are, we must make a distinction between what is good from
creation and what has been corrupted. The N.T. understanding of
worldliness is that it is everything in our culture which, however pleasant, makes
sin look normal and righteousness look strange. It takes discernment to
be able to see what is good in culture and what is not. The problem here
is that discernment is essentially a moral ability and we are now raising a
church generation which is simply adrift morally. That is a fact which I
have documented.
A significant criticism in your book is against the
autonomous self that has come to define popular culture and even many churches.
You argue that we have become self-centered as opposed to God-centered. Isn't
there some degree, however, to which we should be aware of ourselves? Some of
the great hymns emphasize our wretchedness and our gratitude toward God. How does
a healthy view of self differ from the autonomous self?
Yes, we should be aware of ourselves and it is still true that the unexamined
life is not worth living. That, however, was not what I had in mind.
The ?autonomous self? is what happens when we have little or no
compelling reality outside of ourselves; we have no Scripture that summons us
into the presence of God, no God who is indistinguishable from our needs and
wants, no community that can help or correct us, no moral world in which right
and wrong are enduringly true and out ?there.? There are millions of
Americans like this and many are in evangelical churches.
One of the emails I received today linked to a men?s devotional series called ?Live by His Power,? which is published by Christianity Today. The very brief ?devotional? for today recites the story of a pastor counseling a young man regarding sexual temptation:
I counseled Justin, a gifted young man fighting a losing battle with pornography and chronic masturbation.
"The next time you rent a porno movie," I advised, "pray, 'God, I know this isn't right, but I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.'"
"You call yourself a pastor?" Justin exclaimed. "How could you tell me to keep on doing this!" He rose from his chair and headed for the door.
"God already knows the needs in your heart," I said. "He knows the content of every pornographic movie you've rented and witnessed your every act of self-gratification. Why not stop pretending and acknowledge the God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff?"
Justin left my office very upset with me. But several months later, he returned. "You were right," he admitted. "God is there with me. Recognizing that has spoiled lust for me and made me listen to the real yearnings for love in my heart."
This story was quoted from a book, so I don?t know if there was more to it. I sure hope the pastor worked with Justin to help him repent of his sexual sins instead of simply pointing out the God knows the desires of his heart. Regardless, I think this brief story highlights some of the problems with the way in which we often address sexual sins with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
1) ?Chronic masturbation?- ?Chronic? has strong psychological connotations. There?s a sense in which something chronic is out of our control. Too often we treat pornography and masturbation this way- we know they are not healthy, but we sometimes treat them like psychological conditions or diseases rather than sin. While there are often emotional and behavioral problems related to these actions (e.g. misplaced intimacy, addiction) that should be addressed, we must not lose sight of the simple yet devastatingly sinful nature of these problems.
2) ?I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.? At best, this is a poorly worded statement. We have unmet desires of all sorts in this life, but I?m not sure we have unmet sexual ?needs.? The claim that these are needs too often becomes an excuse for engaging in sinful activities (e.g. viewing pornography, masturbation). We recognize that we must eat to survive and nourish our bodies. Many see certain sexual sins in the same way- such as masturbation is necessary to relieve stress or tension. A man once told me he masturbated before dates so he wouldn?t be as tempted to go too far with his girlfriend. Because he viewed his sexual desires as ?needs,? he exchanged a terrible sin (pre-marital sex) with a ?lesser? sin. But it was still sin, and the Bible makes it clear that following Christ means we must repent of all sin.
3) "God already knows the needs in your heart.? This is true. God knows our needs and provides for them. He also knows our desires, and some of them are repugnant to His holiness. The desire to feed our lusts inappropriately is one of those desires. Not only does God know these, so does everyone else. We treat them as if they are secret unique sins, but just about every one in some way struggles sexually. Because we don?t often acknowledge that, we find comfort in sharing our struggles through sympathizing with others. I?ve been in a few ?accountability? groups were guys would go around in a circle and list some of their sexual sins from the past week. Then everyone would pray and leave. There?s nothing wrong with sympathy. It can often be helpful. But finding sympathy alone will not lead to repentance. God does know my desires, as well as every other totally depraved man, and that?s why some of them need to be drastically changed under the guidance of His word. God doesn?t just know and understand them, He wants to sanctify them.
4) ?God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff.? God not only knows, He?s not only present, but He has also spoken on these struggles. God is there, and He has not been silent. Whether we view Him as a caring friend or a condemning judge, we must not stop at simply acknowledging His presence. We must also seek to understand what He has said- what He has commanded and what He has forbidden. What did Jesus mean when He said ?everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart?? (Matt 5:28) Lusting after a single woman may be acceptable if we limit adultery to a crime against someone?s marriage. But if adultery is also a crime against God, then the marital status of the woman is irrelevant. Such excuses for sin will be destroyed when we regularly and humbly meditate on the Bible. The Holy Spirit works through God?s word to instruct and change us- to make us look more like Him. So while it?s okay to point out that God is with us, we must not fail to point also to His word as it is His means for sanctification in our lives.
For a more thorough biblical treatment of sexual sin, I highly recommend David Powlison's excellent chapter, "Making All Things New: Restoring Pure Joy to the Sexually Broken," in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, which is available for free in .pdf on Desiring God's website.
Biola University's posts:
Public memorial information
Dr. Clyde Cook Bio
Read about Dr. Cook's Legacy
John Mark Reynolds has posted some reflections on Dr. Cook:
Dr. Cook: We Will Meet, But We Will Miss Him.
The Passing of Dr. Clyde Cook
An Interview Where Dr. Cook Discusses His World War II Experiences and Hopes for Biola
Reflections from others:
Magnolia Mountain
Laura's Writings
Home of the Clint
Mere-Orthodoxy
So, I realize that this method of breaking up my critique of Storms' book into small, brief sections lends itself to the suspicion that I'm just taking cheap pot shots. But I hope the reader will understand that I'm simply doing this for practical reasons, mostly relating to time (and besides, you don't want to read a 1500 word blog post anyway!).
In Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?: 4 Views, Storms gives two suggestions to explain the "dormant" periods in history, where the Spirit was not ubiquitously and supernaturally active among the people of God. The first is sin and apostasy, the second is Biblical ignorance. The first suggestion is meant for Old Testament history, the idea being that Israel's constant sin and rebellion against God caused the quenching of the Spirit's power. But as Dr. Robert Saucy points out in his response to Storms, this suggestion can hardly be taken seriously, since one of the most active periods of supernatural power in Israel's history is the time of Elijah and Elisha, and this is arguably one of the worst times of apostasy, at least in the Northern Kingdom.
The second suggestion is meant for the early medieval period. Rampant Biblical ignorance, primarily due to illiteracy, is a primary reason that the Spirit was not working miraculously in the same way that He was in the 1st century. My question is, does Storms extend this charge to his contemporary cessationist (or even open-but-cautious) brothers? I would think not, since Storms praises cessationists for being word-centered and having a high view of doctrine, etc. And yet, the only other option Storms has left us with is sin and apostasy. One of these two things must be true, or, according to Storms, cessationists should be experiencing the power of the Spirit on a regular basis. He might want to suggest that some cessationists do in fact experience the power of the Spirit, but dismiss or rationalize it. But this seems unlikely on any large scale, especially when it comes to things like speaking in tongues. It could also be argued that cessationists don't experience such things beacuse they don't believe in them. This seems problematic for two reasons. First, it seems to adopt the "if it didn't happen, then you just didn't have enough faith" mentality that is antithetical to a true Christian worldview. Second, according to Stroms, one of the primary purposes of the spiritual gifts is to engender and strengthen faith, so it would be odd to argue simultaneously that faith must preceed them (with the possible exception of initial, regenerating faith).
The fairly obviously conclusion, that Storms and others seem stubbornly unwilling to accept (and I'm really not sure why), is that it is God who ultiamtely determines when and where (and how) the Spirit works, not just on any given Sunday morning, but within history as a whole. I personally don't see how this conclusion is harmful to the Third Wave position, and I see no reason why Storms must attempt to rationalize the Spirit's "dormant" periods by appeals to apostasy or ignorance.
In Convergence: Spiritual Journeys Of A Charismatic Calvinist, Sam Storms lays out a solid case for the continuation of spiritual gifts in the church today, and argues that "charismatics" need not be anti-intellectual or anti-doctrine. He believes that cessationists have historically done a wonderful job developing doctrine and what we might call the "life of the mind" in the church, and he admits that charismatics have often ignored the life of the mind in favor of spiritual experiences. But he does not believe that this divide is a necessary one, and takes his own story to be evidence that one can be both charismatic and a "Word-centered" Calvinist.
I found the majority of the book to be both helpful and informative. I was a cessationist not too long ago, but now I would consider myself in the broad middle category of "open but cautious" (in part due to Storms' arguments against cessationism). But I found several of Storms' arguments to be inadequate, and at times even ad hoc. I wish to address these concerns in a series of posts. This first post will deal with just one of the arguments.
Storms argues that Charismatics don't put immediate Spiritual guidance ahead of guidance found in the Word. Why not? Because, says Storms, every prophetic word or dream or vision that is received is immediately and meticulously weighed against Scripture. Scripture, then, is the final authority.
That answer sounds good, but it actually dodges the question. Notice that, while the Bible may act as a rubber stamp that will allow a certain bit of direct Spiritual guidance to pass, it is still the direct guidance itself that remains central. It is not Scripture that is actively guiding a person, Scripture merely allows (most often by its silence) someone to be guided by other means.
This is no knock-down, drag-out rebuttle, but it does seem that Storms' attempt to show that the Bible remains just as central to daily guidance for the charismatic as for the cessationist mostly fails. The difference between "active guidance" and "passive allowance" is a big one, and one that Storms cannot ignore.