A Little More on My Christian Gearshift

(Posted 25 June 2020)

Since my last post about my shift from Charismatic to Reformed theology, I have had numerous conversations with friends, not to mention a ton with my wonder-wife, Angelique—let me just say she is the greatest sounding board ever, with a built-in rubbish detector.

Now, some have raised concerns, and knowing the place they come from, the concerns are understandable, but unnecessary or even unfounded. So today I would like to address the two main worries in this post, at the risk of being too personal. Yet, as I am addressing my friends here—old and new—why should it not be personal?

So here we go:

1. It’s dry, dead, theology, Jaco! Some have warned me against the dry study of theology that becomes a dead religious pursuit, void of the move of the Holy Spirit and relationship with Christ.

Two problems arise when I hear these concerns.

First, the unspoken superiority always accompanying the statement.

On a single post stating my new leaning towards Calvinism, assumptions were made about the state of my relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit. These assumptions were made not based on a relationship with me but rather based on said Facebook post - more accurately, its declaration of Calvinism.

From certain quarters of the Christian faith, there is just no possibility that one could actually move forward in their relationship with Christ by believing something different from the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. In other words: “This is the pinnacle of Christianity and any move away from it is a step down.”

This was not the first time I had noticed this attitude among a large group of my C/P brothers. There is a definite prevailing attitude of we are the “good sons” and the rest are part of the flock, but black sheep…

This is never spoken aloud, but it is very clear in the undercurrent. For example, the emphasis and importance of speaking in tongues: Teachings range from a sign of the indwelling Holy Spirit to a sign of actual Salvation. So, either those who do not speak in tongues do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or they are not saved!

A similar emphasis is placed on other gifts like healing, which I always found rather strange considering the unbiblical miss to hit ratio. And we have all had the conversations, haven’t we? Not with the Pastor, maybe, but with our friends:

“They are in the Methodist church… you know, they are nice people and I think they believe in God, but they just deny the power of the Spirit.”

The second problem was encapsulated quite accurately in this statement by one of my very dear brothers and friends when speaking about a focus on theology: “…there is just something in me that says: stay away from all that!”

Well, of course there is!

We stay away from it because it is overwhelming. We would all rather be like the Peter we see in the pages of Scripture. In the space of one gospel and two chapters of Acts he goes from uneducated fisherman to Spirit-filled Apostle of Christ, working miracles and preaching like a machine!

But this is based on a false assumption about the disciples. We sometimes consider them as uneducated simpletons, but that is confusing their origins with the start of their ministry as Apostles of Christ. These Apostles attended a three-year-long seminary where the lecturer spoke not one contestable word.

Perfect teaching, by a perfect Lecturer, debates with the leading authorities on all things spiritual, and even practical missions were all part of their education.

What would be the equivalent of three years of Jesus Christ explaining the deep things of the kingdom to you in seminaries today? There is none! They too, studied to show themselves approved. They were more perfectly educated than anyone today.

Being a Scholar was not the exception among the Apostles.

Yet, even so, God quickly added to their number the more classically trained Paul. And it was this classically trained person God used to write most of the instructions on the proper practice of worship, and on the doctrine and theology of the early church.

And Paul himself wrote: “Study to show yourself approved!”

The human penchant for the emotional rather than the intellectual is contrary to the Word of God which encourages us so frequently to study and to learn and seek out the deep things of God.

“But I have the Spirit to teach me!” I hear you object. Yes, you do, I do and all of God’s elect do. Yet where does the bible teach this doctrine of Wisdom through osmosis?

Standing in worship with hands out and saying: “Here I am Lord!” is fine as a form of worship, but useless in and of itself for gaining wisdom and knowledge. God has given us his word for that, and it is going to take hard work… more than just reading three chapters and praying half an hour in the morning.

The Spirit helps us understand the Word and supernaturally reviews what we have learned before, so we can apply it to what we are learning now.

The writings of the early church fathers, the puritans and the reformers form a lineage the modern church needs to be proud of. Instead we look askance at the pursuit of knowledge and spit on our heritage of scholars from Luther, Calvin and Wycliffe to Augustine, Justin Martyr and the Apostles.

2. Don’t let offense drive you away!

Firstly, let me state unambiguously that I did not leave the Charismatic movement because of some slight or offense at anything in the movement.

In fact, it was the people in the movement that made me doggedly defend it as long as I have. The respect and love I feel for many of my charismatic brothers and sisters made me stubborn in the tradition and doctrine of the movement.

I was privileged to spiritually grow up in churches that were not part of the charlatan practices rife in the financial echelons of the movement. And to my best knowledge, the people I admired in my old fellowship condemned these people and their practices as much (if not as strongly) as I had.

Because of wonderful and diverse people setting examples of sincerity in worship, completeness of devotion, and absolute passion, I would not give critics the time of day. For a long time, I would listen to the Dividing Line podcast by James White cheering where we agreed and kicking hard against the points of contention.

I was, however, not pushed from the Charismatic movement, but rather drawn away from it.

I’ve always had a high view of the Word of God, after all, it is what it says it is. Therefore, it irked me when I heard my Bible College instructors answer my scriptural objections by saying: “that is a poor translation”.

No one in Bible College who ever said this to me could read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. They were not qualified to give instruction on what the original languages said and yet this was exactly how they dismissed objections to what they taught.

Keep in mind how little it means to say: “This is what the Greek word actually means …” when the person saying it had no idea what the Greek word even was until they looked it up. They have no idea how to use the Greek context, subtleties, or nuances, not to mention grammar and structure!

So, when I finally heard exposition of the text, that remained true to the context, and refused to deviate from the harmony of the text even in the face of hard questions… well that drew my attention. It resonated with my spirit, and it made life very difficult; because suddenly I had to face the fact that my learned objections were not based on scripture, but rather on tradition.

I started attending a new Seminary, consisting of two Professors: Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White. Occasional guest lecturers included Ravi Zacharias, Ray Comfort and once-in-a-blue-moon Todd Friel (though I found him a bit abrasive in the beginning).

None of these made it their mission to speak against Charismatic or Pentecostal beliefs. In fact, the strongest argument against the movement was an in-house critique by Dr. Brown; one of the leading figures of the Brownsville Revival at Pensacola, Florida, U.S.A. I bought his book, Playing With Holy Fire, and it was my first and only foray into a critique of the Charismatic movement. And it was a mild, gentle critique at best.

As I attended this self-imposed seminary I became more and more convinced of the reformed position.

“But are there not major objections on both sides?”

Yes, but this is what I’ve found: Where the controversial charismatic theology required obscure and difficult passages to prove, the controversial reformed theology required difficult and obscure passages to disprove.

And that drew me away: correct, concise handling of scripture. Why? Because correct, concise handling of scripture did not support much of what my charismatic traditions taught. The path forward was clear: Let every man be a liar, yet God be true. I had to change.

As I finally discovered the “five solas” of the reformation (something on which there was little to no emphasis in Bible College), I came to the startling revelation that I’ve held strongly to Sola Scriptura all my Christian life. That is why I objected to the following ideas:

“Eve never sinned, she was only deceived,” or “Tithes was established pre-law and that is why it is still valid today,” or “God wants to heal everyone,” or “Prophesies can be wrong with no repercussions.”

These are but a few statements among many that some of you may recognize from sermons you have heard.

You see, for me, the difference is between the Word bearing evidence of what the Preacher is saying or the Preacher telling me what the Word is evidence of. One of those bear a striking similarity to Catholicism, doesn’t it? These two issues encapsulate most of the questions and concerns people have had.

I do not write this lightly. I do it with the hope that you would engage me in this. I welcome it and I do not see it as a waste of time, it is something worth arguing over, worth changing over.

Bring your bible to the comments section and let’s sit down and have a discussion… nay, let’s have a good old-fashioned “Bible Study.”