In the blogosphere and elsewhere, I often come across something like this:
Charismatics let their experiences define their theology…yada, yada, yada.
To which, I can only answer, “Well, duh!”
I fail, however, to see how this is a real criticism. Moreover, I fail to see how non-charismatic, acharismatic, or anti-charismatic theology is any less defined by experience (or lack thereof).
Can someone help me out here?
Advertisement
#1 by R. Eric Sawyer on August 24, 2009 - 7:01 pm
Interesting.
I’ve sometimes heard “theology” defined as “experience seeking understanding,” and I think there is something to it. Most Christians I know (not serious theologians, just thoughtful, well read people) would agree that our faith is principally known through revelation. It is “top-down” not “bottom-up.”
I can, on my own steam, get no closer to understanding God than Hamlet can understand Shakespeare.
Of course, if Shakespeare should put it into Hamlet’s head to think about the author, he could do so, but that’s another meditation!
Charismatics and cessationist may disagree about the vehicle of that experience, whether the Bible is the sole reliable vehicle, or can God speak in other ways? But both agree that God Speaks. All on our part is a derivative of that Fact.
My roots involve a great deal of ties to the charismatic experience that attended several Episcopal churches in the 1970’s. I have witnessed, and sometimes felt blessed with some of the more “unusual” manifestations of the Holy Spirit. I often pray in tongues. But I have very little theology to hang on such facts. I think that some of the criticism in your quote comes from the unsaid extension: “Charismatics let their experience define their theology –in superiority to their Bibles” or “in disregard for 2000 years of the apostles teaching” and I think both of these criticisms have been earned somewhat. There is a strain that says
“I don’t care about ‘doctrine’ (by which I understand ‘sound teaching’), give me the free wind of the Spirit doing a new thing.”
This makes it almost impossible to “test the spirits” and has, at least in my experience both in my home denomination and my former home parish, allowed all sorts of things to filter in masquerading as light, and “a new thing.”
But the cessationists I know are sometimes letting their “lack of experience” define their theology.
If some otherwise reasonable people proclaim that these “gifts” happen, and they are not happening for me, there must be some explanation! Maybe I’m not worthy (no!) maybe God likes those people more than He likes me (no!) maybe those people are deluded (Yeah, that could be!!) Nothing about God is sovereign, and can do what he will.
But in either case, we need to start with the idea that God reveals himself as He will, but that He is consistent.
That means that all is to be submitted to his revealed Word, and to the united voice of the brethren – what have christens across the world said about this for 2000 years? – then my own thoughts. If I come up with something truly novel, I am almost certainly wrong.
We have a way (both charismatics and sessetionists) of trusting in our own understanding of God, and leaving very little trust for God himself.
(Sorry for the rambling response, the hazard of writing while I’m pretending to work)
Blessings!
-R. Eric Sawyer
#2 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 2:04 pm
No need to apologize, I appreciate your response. Well said.
#3 by Joel on August 24, 2009 - 11:05 pm
I was going to say something cool, but looks like Eric said it all.
#4 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 2:04 pm
Indeed.
#5 by apprentice2jesus on August 25, 2009 - 11:13 am
Eric beat me, too. LACK of experience is still experience and can inform our theology.
#6 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 2:04 pm
Agreed.
#7 by Michael Metts on August 25, 2009 - 11:35 am
Pete, if it is anthropological experience or sensation, then the critique is saying there really is no theology at all — or perhaps, an anemic one, despite exterior appearances. Sensation has subverted God. Experience and feeling have dethroned him. If a similar critique existed of my denominational leanings, it would strike me as very troubling. Theology needs less anthropology. God exists outside ourselves and our emotions. One says, “me.” The other says, “God.” It’s a threatening critique at the highest level. It’s a sure statement attempting to call a perceived bluff in Charismatics.
This is not to suggest theology should be an armchair activity. God is active in history and with men, and we should be active in knowing him.
That is how I understand it.
#8 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 2:09 pm
I think I understand the nature of the critique, however, I still fail to see the force of that sort of criticism. The sensation doesn’t subvert God, rather, it’s a more dynamic encounter.
#9 by Bryan L on August 25, 2009 - 11:48 am
Michael,
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “anthropological experience or sensation”. It sounds like you have a technical meaning in mind so I’m hoping you can flesh it out more so I can better understand what you’re saying. Thanks.
Bryan L
#10 by Michael Metts on August 25, 2009 - 11:54 am
The sense in which I am using anthropological is simply ‘man’. Anthropology is also a technical term, and a very important aspect of theology. I’m not playing it off against theology in this sense. I simply mean ‘man’ and, at the other pole, ‘God’.
I’m not here to throw dirt at anyone or anyones beliefs. But to help Pete understand what is intended by this critique.
#11 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 2:16 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was being somewhat sarcastic (surprise, surprise) when I was asking the question. I get the criticism, I just don’t see it as a criticism.
#12 by Michael Metts on August 25, 2009 - 5:49 pm
Pete, I didn’t mean to upset you if I have.
#13 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 6:28 pm
Oh, Michael, you haven’t. I very rarely get upset, especially when I’m given the opportunity to discuss God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. Feel free to say (almost) anything you wish. I would hope you and others would challenge what I and others say in love and compassion. I think what unites is much more important that what little may divide us (Christians as a whole, not you and I).
#14 by theepiphany on August 25, 2009 - 12:12 pm
Hi Pete, it’s nice to meet you. You showed up on my blog yesterday and said “nice blog” haha. So I followed you here and I wanted to give my two-cents on this post. Forgive me if I’m missing the point of it, sometimes new visitors just don’t get what you’re trying to say because they haven’t read enough of your posts to learn your character and background much. But anyway, I have not heard that charismatic criticism myself, and, being a southern-baptist girl you can be sure i’ve heard my share of anti-charistmatic statements
My husband grew up in a very charismatic church, however and some of my closest friends are from assemblies of God, church of God, non-denominational churches – my credentials, if you will. I think maybe what the statement means is that charismatics tend to be more feelings-oriented than your more traditional folk, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I definitely believe that as relational people, we are meant to share our experiences and be excited about what we’ve heard and felt and witnessed as believers. Recently, I had a friend ask me some very hard-hitting questions about theology. I used as much scripture and fact-based answers as I could and then, when she said “but what about YOUR faith. Why do you keep on believing?” At that point I had to just say well, this is what i’ve experienced, the profound and illogical changes i’ve seen in people after conversion…the drastic spiritual growth that takes place in someone who has fully surrendered to Christ…the direct and couldn’t-be-coincidental answers to prayer… and on and on. Of course, God is the source of these things, I can’t take credit for them, but I CAN share my point of view and how they serve to increase my faith. That’s what people relate to. That’s what is effective in ministering to others.
#15 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 2:18 pm
I think we pretty well agree. I do understand the criticism, I was just poking a little fun at the nature of the critique and critics. Thanks for stopping by. And, yes, you do have a nice blog.
#16 by TC Robinson on August 25, 2009 - 3:49 pm
Peter M, your questions are quite disarming in themselves. Those who criticize Charismatics on the basis of experience should pay attention to your questions.
It’s simply a case of policing Christianity on their path, that is, the critics.
#17 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 4:44 pm
Agreed. I am disarmed by your wisdom.
#18 by brian on August 25, 2009 - 3:53 pm
I guess it depends on what is meant by theology – and besides, this is pretty much it really – we want our theology to work and for the most part – it does.
#19 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 4:46 pm
Agreed. I think it does.
#20 by Bryan L on August 25, 2009 - 4:11 pm
Michale:
I guess where I have trouble with this is that our revelation (what we count as revelation to Christians) is someone else’s experience. Revelation seems like it must come through experience. What are the other options? It can’t be reason otherwise it would be something we could figure out on our own (not that reason and revelation are opposed). Do you see what I’m getting at? If theology is based on revelation (among other things) then experience plays a part in it. In fact if you have had a born again experience in your life then it seems the only reason you would even care about theology is because of your experience and your experience would necessarily shape your theology from the very beginning of becoming a Christian.
What do you think?
Bryan L
#21 by Bryan L on August 25, 2009 - 4:12 pm
sorry for misspelling your name Michael.
#22 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 4:47 pm
In fact if you have had a born again experience in your life then it seems the only reason you would even care about theology is because of your experience and your experience would necessarily shape your theology from the very beginning of becoming a Christian.
I like that.
#23 by Michael Metts on August 25, 2009 - 5:58 pm
If I may address your commentators and yourself Pete:
We have mostly talked about ourselves and our experiences above, being quick to defend the things we (rightly) hold dear. But theology is about God — not our experiences. Most of you here I would (and do) consider friends so please allow me the rapport just this once to ask you for a moment of introspection.
In Christ,
MM
#24 by Peter on August 25, 2009 - 6:25 pm
Michael, I appreciate you and your thoughtful comments very much, and I, too, consider you and all of my readers friends. I would only ask back, isn’t theology about our relationship to and with God? Isn’t scripture for our learning, edification, understanding of God? If we are to get to know God through scripture, shouldn’t we also get to know the scripture through our experiences with God.
#25 by Bryan L on August 25, 2009 - 8:18 pm
I value your perspective Michael and appreciate your civilty in discussing your disagreements. I only hoped to show that experience was not opposed to theology but in fact vital to it. I get what you’re trying to say and to an extent I agree. I just think we have to be careful when we start to sound like we believe our experience is absent from our theology especially if we are contrasting ourselves with others based on that.
Blessings,
Bryan L
#26 by Peter on August 26, 2009 - 9:21 am
I agree. I appreciate the discussion. I think it is good for believers to talk through and think through their beliefs. Thanks.
#27 by COLT CARR on August 26, 2009 - 9:40 pm
Some people believe if you base your relationship with God on experience, you can fall into deception. BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT IF THE SCRIPTURES DONT LEAD YOU INTO AN EXPERIENCE WITH GOD, YOU ARE ALREADY DECEIVED!
#28 by Peter on August 27, 2009 - 9:21 am
I couldn’t agree more. Hey, Colt, it’s been a while. We need to get together for dinner. Maybe an evening at Mi Ranchito?
#29 by Robert Jimenez on August 27, 2009 - 12:25 pm
God should be the experienced reality in our lives. At least that is what Gordon Fee has been trying to get across in most of his books
#30 by R. Eric Sawyer on August 27, 2009 - 1:18 pm
Robert, et.al. Enjoyable discussion so far, and I agree with pretty much all that has been said, particularly about the primacy of the experience of God. After all, that was God’s answer to Job (and His ONLY answer to Job—He did not answer Job’s questions, He answered Job.) and Job was answered in that “I have heard about you with my ears, but now my eyes have seen you. Superiority of experience and relationship over theology.
My caution, and this is perhaps the original point, is that leaning on experience has a natural prevailing temptation, as does everything else. That is to exalt experience to the Devine, so that we worship our experience of God, rather than God Himself. We define (I have done it) a “good” worship service as one in which we had a very strong and positive experience, we seek that experience, rather than praying that God would help me worship Him as He deserves, and let my feelings be a (possible but not essential) derivative of that. If I am measuring worship by my experience, then I must obviously *look* at my experience…. I should be looking at our Lord.
Please understand, it is not my intention to chide. I am rolling out the list of errors I have made. You may think I was a chump to fall into such obvious error, and I praise God if I am the only one, but that would surprise me!
Without a strong corrective of doctrine and theology, I am prone to misinterpreting my experience. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but if I think of nothing but my experience, I probably not understand very well what I am experiencing, I just like the way it makes me feel. We can be easily blown around by shifting winds of doctrine, if we are not well anchored to the Rock.
Finally, as a bit of personal testimony, Like many of us, my conversion was during my ‘teen years, culminating with my baptism age 20. For years before that, I would “walk the aisle” at many a youth group meeting. I sang in travelling youth choirs, and had a genuine love for God. I knew and believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But my connection to that Gospel was based on my feelings, which were not at all stable. It was a street-evangelist I met when I was 18 (he was button-holing people at a Boat show in Dallas) who set me straight; my security in God did not rest on what I had or had not done, nor on my failures or successes, or how I felt about Him. My security rested on His work alone, as was testified to in the Bible. My security rested on that unchangeable theological and doctrinal truth. It took me a year or two to work that through, but it was the end of my doubts and fears, and was the beginning of the experience that can only come with true trust and true intimacy. It has set the tone for the rest of my life, that God wants to guide us into an actual experienced relationship with Him, which can be understood and guided by what He has said to us in his word.
Experience and theology, hand in hand. Cut the cord between them, and we risk the other becoming an idol, or risk it drying up and dying. Just like “knowing” one’s spouse includes physical intimacy and experience, but deep contemplation of that person, so as to better understand them, it is not either-or.
As the doctrinal statement of the Westminster Confession puts it, the Chief end of man is to “Glorify God, and enjoy Him forever.”
Blessings!
-R. Eric Sawyer
#31 by Peter on August 27, 2009 - 1:26 pm
Robert, Eric, I agree.
#32 by Robert Jimenez on August 27, 2009 - 2:33 pm
Eric,
I think I agree pretty much with what you are saying, but I don’t experience God through theology, that is how I come to understand who, and what He is like. I experince and come to know him pretty much the way I do with any other relationship – ok, maybe not exactly the same but I hope you understand.
It can be equally said that “we worship our theology, rather than God“. But I think that you summarize it well when you say:
AMEN!
I am completely understand that your intent was not to chide me, I truly appreciate your kindness and your thoughts.
#33 by Peter on August 27, 2009 - 3:19 pm
Ditto.
#34 by R. Eric Sawyer on August 27, 2009 - 10:26 pm
As you say, theology makes a perfectly serviceable idol itself. Interestingly, the more anything is like God, the easier it is to put it in the place of God. The more accurately a mirror reflects that which we wish to see, the easier it is to mistake the image for the reality. Accordingly, good theology is much more likely to become an idol than is bad. Joyous celebratory worship fully glorifying the Father and the risen Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit can itself be worshiped much more easily than the standard old 20 minute message, 2 stale hymns and two unnoticed verses of “Just as I am” Remember, it was a fallen angel that became Satan. A flee could never have fallen so far.
My wife also finds theology and doctrine musty and dull, even if necessary. But for me, the beauty of contemplating the Holy Trinity, and teasing out a few glimpses (it’s like looking at the sun through your fingers) of what that means for us and this creation, God’s plans for our future, why sin exists, and how we are to live with one another in the Church and especially in our marriages is a beauty to great to describe. The only like would be what I have experienced in a whole congregation singing “in the spirit” together, “lost in glory, love, and praise”
I love the metaphors that have been brought up about relationships, especially marital. At the risk of seeming crude, I think one of the best analogies for worship is marital sex. Or rather, sexual union and bliss is a pale foretaste of the glories of the worship around the throne. The horrible error of using sex as (usually) pagan worship is a sin-warped recognition that this is so.
On the other hand, listening to my wife, learning to understand her, wanting to know more, is theology. Wanting to have one, particularly the first joy without the second, proves me a scoundrel and cad, or worse.
Blessings!
-R. Eric Sawyer
#35 by Peter on August 28, 2009 - 10:22 am
Excellent analysis. I agree. It’s an underdeveloped metaphor because Christians are, too often, afraid to talk in those terms. Thanks.
#36 by Robert Jimenez on August 28, 2009 - 1:39 pm
Peter, you raise an interesting topic here. Why are Christians afraid to speak in those terms? I wanted to say something similar to your wife’s posting (obviously it would not have been so elegant), but I thought I should be more analytical as I know that my every words will be critic.
Maybe worth starting a new topic on this???
#37 by Peter on August 28, 2009 - 1:47 pm
I just might do that. I think it would be an interesting topic. I’m sure it would generate a lot of comments.
#38 by Lorin Lopez on August 27, 2009 - 3:33 pm
Hi love!! I believe it all comes down to this. If you don’t have a relationship with Jesus than what’s the point. What’s the point in studying the Bible to find who God was (is) and what God was (is) about. We are meant to have an intimate relationship with Jesus. We are His bride!! Hello bride–that is pretty intimate there. We were created by Him and for Him. He gave us our emotions, feeling, and senses to experience Him in a more personal way. Who wouldn’t want to talk to our Lord, feel when His presence comes—-instead of just hoping He showed up, but knowing He showed up because you felt His presence and you saw His glory fall. Yes, we can experience Him through His word no doubt. But wouldn’t you also want to experience what God is doing today!! Jesus is alive!!! He is with us today!!! He is moving today!!!
Well, you know me love–I’m sure I missed the point, but I feel good!! Isn’t that what it’s all about–our feelings. Just kidding.
#39 by Peter on August 27, 2009 - 3:42 pm
No, honey, I don’t think you missed the point at all. I think you nailed it. I agree, we should want to experience Him, my lovely bride.
#40 by Robert Jimenez on August 27, 2009 - 4:06 pm
Lori, well said. He is alive, and further he has given us His Spirit to dwell within us, and with us as we gather together as a community of believers.
#41 by Peter on August 27, 2009 - 4:10 pm
Yeah, she’s pretty cool…and she’s the best kids’ pastor around.
#42 by Acidri on October 29, 2009 - 2:32 pm
Very thought provoking post there. Thank you for highlighting very pertinent issues. I have always been proud to call my self charismatic in private but in public i prefer being called an evangelical christian. It just seems each time a the word “pentecostal” or “charismatic” is mentioned every one even the strongest of believers wants to run for the hills. The unbridled excesses of prosperity gospel in this time and age have bordered coveteousness and flirted with greed. Healing ministries have turned into institutions causing grievious bodily harm and profaned a once gracious gift and brought much disdain to the name of the Lord. Its with great sadness that i say this but i hope we charismatics are not delving into a different gospel. We have faith in faith rather than faith in Gods word…we name and claim…loose and bind but rarely inquire of the Lord first if it be his will. We are sripturally illiterate. Yet do not acknowlege our need; as the zeal for our fathers “earthly blessings” has consumed us.I use the pronoun “we” with great humility.My frustrations are well chronicled in my blog. Feel free to cast a stone or write in the sand.
#43 by Peter on October 30, 2009 - 9:48 am
I agree with you, on the whole, and I appreciate you stopping by. I will check out your blog.
#44 by EBUBE G. on May 10, 2011 - 9:13 am
Annointing always makes the difference, but the devil is smart immitator of God to produce fakes of God’s work. Therefore there must be a criterion for discernment. As for me as a Catholic, the Catholic doctrine and theology is my criterion in discerning my charismatic experience. Elijah was not carried away with the eartquake and fire that Heralded the coming of God in a gentle breeze as some of us today will hastely settle for the fire or the earth and snub the real coming of God.
Also our Savior was not carried away with the sensations the devil was offering him in the desert during his temptations and at Getsamane. He rather chose the cross since that is the will of the Father for Him. But today we opt for gospel without cross in the name of annointing.
I will advise we humbly submit ourselves for scrutiny especially when our annointing seems to direct us against instituted authorities as Jesus instructed the cleansed lepers to present themselves to the priest, Paul endeavoured to meet Peter after his experience.
And more over let us trace the route of Paul to Rome and acknowledge the Primacy of Peter in the Pope, the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and the need to hold in Honour Mary the mother of Jesus and the saints for this is perilious time – THE TIME OF FINAL SEPARATION – since 16th century The Catholic Church has been moving in one direction and others under uncountable sects are moving in different directions as against Jesus’ earnest prayer of UNITY in Jn.17.