Phil Johnson has a second post answering my two-paragraph criticism of him. My schedule does not permit me to make a full reply as I am traveling on business. (All the posts you will see for the next few days were written before I left.) All I will say in reply, therefore, is this:

1. Thank you, Phil, for sounding a much more conciliatory tone and for the acknowledgement that these issues are less important than the core of the Gospel, in which we both continue to delight in being united. You remain my dear friend despite these recent online skirmishes, and I hope we can have coffee again some day!
   
   
2. I think that there is almost nothing in your post which would not evaporate if we did not all learn to follow Paul's command:
   

   ". . . test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22).

If charismatics as a movement remembered the need to follow that Scripture when it came to gifts, I suspect that there would be fewer cessationists who felt the need to exercise their discernment in our direction! I believe that it is the absence of discernment rather than the doctrine itself that causes the problems we all see only too clearly. But then I would say that, wouldn't I?

That Scripture is surely our authoritative word on the discernment issue—we must remember to both hold onto what we see that is good in other Christians and avoid what is evil.

As a charismatic, I cannot resist the temptation to be a good biblical scholar and put those words into their context. Paul says immediately before them, "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies . . ." For me, the fact that there are phony prophecies around is not enough to make me feel I can simply ignore that text or claim it does not apply to me today. I know Phil will, of course, see that differently, but I am proud to still be able to call him my friend and brother.

UPDATE—November 3, 2007
Phil has now written part two of his reply, and I have responded with a post entitled, "Of Tone, Discernment, and the Charismatic Question."

UPDATE—October 29, 2007
Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs and I have been debating the issues raised by my criticism of him in the comments section of his original post. Just search for "Adrian" using the "find in page" function if you want to follow our specific debate. Phil has also written a new post, "If you can't say something nice," and we are debating in the comments on that post.

I will leave this post at the top of my blog for a couple more days as I want to give you all a chance to read it. If you are interested in some of my related thoughts on this subject, you could read the following posts:

• My Visit to the Billy Graham Center
  
• I Don't Want Balance, I Want It All!
  
• My Comments Policy
  
• Blogging Principles for Christians

---

Those of you with an eagle-eye will have already noticed that I am publicizing Tim Challies' forthcoming book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. I doubt that many are surprised that I should want to encourage you to read his book, and I will show in this post why that is the case.

To begin with, however, I want to be very open and honest with you. When I first heard that Tim was writing a book I was actually a little concerned. This may surprise those regular readers who know how much I respect Tim and enjoy his blog. But I still had in my mind an old paradigm where those who are in some way "approved" as trained experts are the ones who should write books. Tim, like me, has no theological degrees. I also know that, just like me concerning this blog, he has been rather surprised by the way in which his readership has grown to an extent he never predicted (and, I should say, to a substantially larger figure than my own). So I was surprised that Tim put his neck on the line still further by taking on the challenge of writing a book.

Tim and I have both been riding a wave—the wave of blogging. In both the secular field and the Christian field, it seems that the most successful bloggers almost all seem to have something in common; they are not "officially trained" recognized global experts in their chosen fields. Perhaps this is because the real experts are too busy to write on a daily basis, or perhaps this is because of a new phenomena in our culture—one with which I'm not particularly thrilled, to be honest. In our 21st century culture there is a growing mistrust of any form of authority and of academics. It is actually rather sad to me that this now seems to be spilling over into the Church, and that it might seem, at first glance, to also include the Christian blogosphere.

One of the most influential early articles discussing the Christian blogging phenomenon was titled, "We Know More Than Our Pastors," and it embodied this trend. It concerned me immensely. David Wayne summarized this piece and sounded some very valid concerns about it. For me, I wanted almost nothing to do with the concepts outlined therein.

Even as I have enjoyed the way that I have been able to be buffeted in this hurricane called blogging, I have also been somewhat concerned about some of the implications of this new marketplace of ideas. I suppose that, despite these reservations, I remain in the blogosphere because I am drawn to it as surely as a bee is to a flower in bloom, and as the Apostle Paul was to the debating spots of ancient Athens.

I am also here because somebody has to be. I am certainly not here because I imagine myself to be at the vanguard of some modern reformation that will sweep away the "old guard" in the way some bloggers (usually not Christian ones) speak about. I am here because, ironically enough, I see this new media as a way that we can proclaim the old, old message. I am here because, in some small way, I can act as a signpost to direct passing traffic to wiser heads than mine. The more readers I find visiting here, the more I feel the need to both quote and link to others. Whatever the size of your blog readership, that filtering process is the single best gift you can give both to your readers and to the writers of even the biggest blogs. I am pleased that the headlines from several bloggers who deserve to be read more than I do appear in the "Warnie Winners" box in my sidebar.

The blogging community can be thought of as a road system, a library, an ecosystem, or perhaps most aptly of all, a jungle. With no single classification system or map, what is needed are good wise guides. There are precious few of them online.

One such wise guide is surely Tim Challies. I know that he shares many of my concerns about the world of blogs, and has a similar attitude in wanting to support those in positions of authority in the Church rather than tearing them down. I know that he is submissive to others. I like that he respects those, like me, who might differ with him on secondary issues, but firmly join hands on the Gospel. I have also met a godly man called Paul Martin who pastors him wisely. The more I came to know Tim, the more my concerns about the concept of a non-expert writing a book began to evaporate. If the modern world needs non-experts to grapple with the words of the experts and make them more accessible to the rest of us, then those who have been given that gift should be encouraged to find an appropriate outlet, even if that looks a bit different from previous models.

Writing a book is very different from writing a blog, even though the number of words involved in a blog over the years may be just as numerous. With a blog, there is instant feedback, and a chance to easily go back and reword or retract an argument. With a book, not only is it more permanent, it is somehow expected to be more accurate, so the responsibility feels greater. James 3 is ever present in the mind of a preacher, and should be in the mind of a blogger as well. Speaking personally, I have applied it even more strongly to the concept of writing a book, which quite frankly has always terrified me rather than attracted me.

But for some people there comes a time when a book finds them and demands to be written. That is what has happened to the man I am glad to call my friend, Tim Challies. He is painfully aware of the cacophony of voices available online, and the need to discriminate between them. The average member of your congregation might well be either theologically illiterate or have imbibed a watered-down, overly simplistic doctrinal system which he has heard away from your church pulpit. Blogs, mp3s, books, magazines, TV programs, conferences, and radio all compete for the minds of modern Christians. The battle has never been stronger. How should we respond to this?

There are a number of different approaches that could be taken. We could just ignore what is going on around us, which would not be wise. We could, instead, become great experts in the different types of false teaching that are being purveyed. There are some bloggers who seem to have the goal of ferreting out everything that is less than perfect. These are often termed "watch blogs." The temptation is to take some kind of perverse gratification out of proving others wrong. As the years have gone on, by God's grace, that temptation has increasingly looked less appealing to me, although there was a time when I frequently delighted in giving in to it.

Sometimes even bloggers with good intentions can fall into the trap of being over zealous in their discernment. I am sure I have fallen into that trap myself at times. But this past week, in reading a post by Phil Johnson, I thought I saw a classic example of someone who had over-reached himself in reacting to some things he had discerned. Now, don't get me wrong. I share many of Phil's concerns. I am indeed concerned about some aspects of Willow Creek's ministry philosophy. Personally, I am not sure how to interpret their recent "repentance," and certainly was VERY worried to see that they have invited Brian McLaren to speak at one of their conferences. BUT it bothers me that Phil seemed (at least to me) to be implying that Willow Creek has absolutely nothing to teach us. I am sure that if we fail to recognize something as being good and helpful and true, we fail in our discernment as much as if we blindly accepted everything in a naive way. I know it sounds cliched, but we really must be looking for the good in people, especially in those who have not denied important aspects of the Gospel. It is quite correct to say, "I like what this person says about the following subject, and have learned from them, although I disagree strongly with them on another subject." If, instead, we lump people and whole movements together into an amorphous lump of theological rejects, surely we risk alienating them and, ironically, driving some further away from the truth of the Gospel that I know Phil and I both love.

But if Phil was harsh on Willow Creek, he went on in the same post to be even harder on the charismatics. I mention this because this kind of over-zealous discernment is sadly quite common. Again, quite rightly, he was pointing out the sin in a specific charismatic minister. Also, quite rightly, he was pointing out that due to an absence of discernment this kind of error is all too common in the charismatic movement, and sadly is often covered up. So far so good. And, despite his claim that his charismatic friends would be angry at these comments, I agree! What I struggle with, however, is that he then makes plain that he believes that charismatic doctrine itself is to blame for these sins and the lack of discernment that allows them to continue unchallenged. Phil applies the red card of his disapproval to the entire movement that, despite all its acknowledged weaknesses, I am thrilled to have been part of for decades. Should we use discernment with such a broad brush stroke?

My dear friend, Jesse Phillips, took Phil to task admirably in the comments section and repeated this on his own blog. No one seemed able to answer his arguments that while it is true that some second-order implications which people draw from core charismatic doctrine do encourage gullibility and an absence of discernment, the core doctrines themselves do not need to do so. Phil, in reply, claimed that reformed charismatics were a new breed, and only caused by alien influences on the movement. This is not true. Men like Terry Virgo and C. J. Mahaney and the groups of churches they lead have been around for many decades now. Perhaps these groups are not as visible as they could be, but I know they are also not alone in being committed to a firm grasp on reality and the wisdom of the Bible.

To simply dismiss the entire charismatic movement in just one sentence does not seem a wise response to the fastest growing segment of Christianity. It is not, of course, wrong to disagree with charismatic theology (some of my best friends online are cessationists, like Tim himself, of course), but Phil does not seem to recognize any good that has come out of the movement. It would be like me refusing to acknowledge the fantastic work being produced by cessationists. Much as I disagree with some of the positions cessationists take, I am willing to go so far as to state I learn as much and perhaps even more helpful theology from their teachers as I do from fellow charismatic teachers. Doesn't discernment require that we identify helpful material even when it comes from those we disagree with on relatively minor points?

There is surely another way to respond to the marketplace of ideas to which we are exposed in today's church. The single best approach to discerning truth from error is to focus on understanding and proclaiming the truth more (while remaining aware of what is being taught around us). We need to learn to recognize the truth for ourselves by studying the Bible. But we must recognize that we ourselves are not immune to error. We need to ask God for humility wherein we submit ourselves to the views of others and are willing to be taught by them. Indeed, we should be willing to use our discernment as a sieve to strain out the good bits from a mixture of error in order to do so. None of us has a monopoly on truth, or for that matter, error. Some may grasp certain aspects of the truth with remarkable ease, while others of us may struggle to understand it for years. There is, in my view, often much truth in the very ministries of those who we eagerly criticize. We can learn from more people than we like to think we can—provided we have discernment. I am frequently provoked when I read the writings or listen to the teachings of others who come from different parts of the Church than I. This must be done with caution, of course, and requires that I have studied the Bible for myself first. The more we understand the biblical truth for ourselves the better skilled we will become at testing everything and holding onto the good. I love the way Tim says it in his book:

"We can best know what is wrong by first knowing what is right. Experts on counterfeit currency know this as well. They train others first to know the traits of genuine currency because such knowledge will make apparent what is fraudulent. Christians need to dedicate themselves to learning and knowing truth so that what is evil and abnormal will appear obvious. For this reason the Apostle writes, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). He encourages us to think first and foremost about what is right and true and pure and lovely. In Romans 16:19b he says this as well, exhorting the Roman church “to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.” Never does the Bible tell us to dwell primarily or repeatedly upon what is false.

The relationship of truth to error is such that we can best know error by knowing truth. The opposite is not true. People who invest undue effort in concentrating upon what is false will not necessarily be able to identify what is true. By dwelling upon the beautiful truths of Scripture we will subsequently learn discernment. A discerning person will know that he must focus his heart upon what is true and pure and lovely, having confidence that in doing this God will bless Him with the ability to expose darkness."

Tim Challies takes us from the turbulent marketplace of ideas that is the modern western church back into the world of the Scriptures. Sadly, today many people fall into the trap of being naively blown from one wind of teaching to another. Others become so expert at straining out the gnats of what they believe to be error that they are unable to learn from anybody. Instead they believe themselves to be the guardians of "true" doctrine. Tim shows us from the Bible itself how to avoid both errors. Tim's reliance on the Bible is refreshing in an age when doctrinal pillars of our faith are being challenged by prominent preachers, and there is a constant search for novelty in parts of the Church. This book, like no other I have seen, aims to give ordinary Christians like you and me the tools we need to learn how to discern truth from error. I wholeheartedly urge you to get yourself a copy and read it, and then buy one for a friend.

I will close by quoting another passage from Tim's book that expresses well his aim in writing the book:

This book is written for the general reader who wishes to understand discernment, to understand what the Bible teaches us about discernment, and who wishes to equip himself in this discipline. It is not written primarily for people with theological training, though I trust they, too, can benefit from it. Rather, it is written for you and for me—average Christians living in a culture and in a church where it so often seems that anything goes. It is written for those who look at much of what is said and done in the name of Jesus and ask themselves, “How can this be right?” It is written for all those who believe that it is the duty of every Christian to think biblically about all areas of life so that they might act biblically in all areas of life . . .

I do not intend to do the work of discernment for you. There are many books, web sites, and ministries that claim to teach discernment but do so by simply listing all the things you must do and the things you must not do. This book approaches the subject differently and is the result of my studies in Scripture to find the tools of discernment that God provides to us in his Word. And so I will not present a list of ministries you should avoid or endorse, authors whose books you should burn or buy, and music you should not listen to or that you should immediately download to your MP3 player. Rather, I hope to teach biblical wisdom on how you and I can become more discerning. I will present to you the wisdom of the Bible as it teaches us how we can become men and women of discernment. I will present principles you can use as you walk this life distinguishing between what is truth and what is error, what is right and what is wrong.

I'm back, but tired, and as usual, when I simply don't have anything to say myself and it's getting to the end of the week, I turn to one of the greatest living preachers—John Piper. Last Friday I quoted from his first talk in a series on suffering. Today I will quote from the second. It is striking how boldly he states that he believes in healing today, but in a context where this world in which we live is one in which we groan for heaven.

God’s Ordinary Way Today: Partially

Don’t misunderstand: I do believe in divine healing and miraculous rescues. God can today—and he does today—take away sicknesses and rescue miraculously. However, there is good reason to believe that his ordinary way of applying what he bought at the cross is to give it partially now. His normal path is that we arrive in the kingdom along the path of affliction.

A Groaning World—Even for Christians

Let me give you one passage on this: Romans 8:18-25. Paul says that now the whole creation groans. It is a groaning world. And then Paul adds: We ourselves, the ones with the Holy Spirit, groan, waiting for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. Even people filled with the Holy Spirit groan—waiting, waiting, waiting. How long, O Lord, in this wheelchair? With this Alzheimer’s? Sometimes he heals now. But sometimes healing comes at [the] end.

This is a short excerpt from a quote on Challies Dot Com which Tim says is entirely consistent with a cessationist perspective. It sure doesn't sound like the cessationism I love to caricaturise!

". . . My friend knelt down in the middle of a circle of elders. We anointed him with oil, laid lands on him, and began to pray. Since I had started the process, I was appointed to offer the closing prayer.

As soon as we began to pray, I had an overwhelming sense that God was, at the moment, healing my friend. My arms felt what I can only describe as bolts of fire pushing through them. As I grasped my friend's shoulder, heat and energy burned my hand. I felt that my one hand could lift all of his 230 pounds to the ceiling or push him through the floor if I wished.

I knew God was healing him. I wanted to shout, 'We must stop praying that God will heal John and start praising God that He has healed him.' But I was too astonished, too ensure of my sensations, to say a word to anyone that night. For four days, I kept my experience to myself.

Four days later, after church, my friend beckoned me with a wild grin, 'Dan, watch this.' At once, he dashed up a flight of steps. I dashed after him and met him at the top. He smiled, 'And I'm not even breathing hard.'

'I knew it,' I exclaimed, and told him what I had felt a few nights earlier. And he told me, 'I knew it too . . . ."

Over on the Pulpit blog, Nathan Busenitz — who has graciously commented over here — has asked us charismatics to add any further killer arguments to his list of the top 10 charismatic objections to cessationism. I am not sure if he will have time in his seminar itself to address those that I offer below as additions to his very helpful list, but I suspect, given his gracious demeanor, I may find myself debating this issue with him further in the future. If I have worked his comment system right, these may also be appearing over on the Pulpit blog.

1. The argument from church history that men like Huss prophesied, men like Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones spoke of being guided by the Spirit, and dramatic healings are recorded associated with some of the reformers — including the resurrection of the dead.

2. The argument that since Peter in Acts 2 stated that the “last days” prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled, and that this promise was for future generations and all Christians— to then argue that the gifts have ceased is to argue that we are living in days AFTER the last days! (Now where does THAT fit in anyone's eschatology?)

3. The claim that the goal of our salvation appears to be receiving the Spirit, who is a guarantee of our inheritance. If there is no conscious experience of the Spirit to be had today, how can He give us assurance? (cf Ephesians 1:13-14, Galatians 3:14, Philippians 3:8-11)

4. That Jesus promises us an experience of the Spirit that would be better for us than if He Himself were to remain on earth — which of us have plumbed the depths of an experience of God to that extent that we could say we would prefer our experience to meeting Jesus in the flesh? (John 14, 16:7)

5. The claim that biblical prophecy was not always 100 per cent accurate, nor automatically enscripturated (1 Corinthians 13:9; 2 Samuel 7; Acts 21:9; Acts 21:4,10-11, 32-33; Acts 27:10; Acts 27:22; 1 Samuel 10:5, 10, 11, 12, 19:20, 24, 28:6, 15; 1 Kings 18:4, 13, 19, 20; 1 Kings 20:35, 41, 22:6, 10; 2 Kings 2:3, 17:23, 24:2; 2 Chronicles 18:9, 20:20, 24:19; Ezra 5:1; Jeremiah 7:25; Hosea 12:10; Matthew 2:23)

Shepherds' Conference III is a post with a set of notes which my buddy, Tim Challies, made of C.J. Mahaney's gig as stand-in for John Piper. To play stand-in for someone like Piper has to have been slightly off-putting, even for a man like Mahaney! C.J. took the opportunity to talk about humility, and wisely began by talking about just what it means for a reformed charismatic like him to be welcomed back into the fold like that. To see Mahaney and the author of the book Charismatic Chaos sharing the same stage would have been interesting.

There is a part of me, however, that wonders if reformed charismatics becoming part of the evangelical "establishment" is entirely a great thing without any potential drawbacks. It does seem to represent something of a seismic shift and currently reflects an organic unity which I believe is the kind that Jesus prayed for. I am sure that the amazing convergence we are seeing in these days will have effects for a generataion. What I am wondering is — What will the Church look like in another thirty years across America, and for that matter over here?

• Will there still be recognisable groupings that are charismatic and cessationist?


• If those two groupings still exist, will there be greater understanding between them than there has been over the last few decades?


• Will it become as "rude" among Christians to talk about the charismatic issue as speaking about eschatology seems by many to be perceived today?


• Will the charismatics become gradually more respectable and eventually — having lost their cutting edge — totally vanish?


• Will instead the cessationists begin to recognise that Huss isn't the only Christian to have prophecied since Paul, and eventually cede more and more ground to the point of becomming charismatics?


• Will instead some new compromise position become the norm that looks something like charismatic practice and something like more reformed practice?


• Or will we instead return to an official cessationism, but a practical relationship with God and experience of Him guiding us that the Puritans and their successors such as Lloyd-Jones and Spurgeon freely spoke of?


• Will we still see active worship, with hands raised and clapped, and participation of the congregation in sharing spontaneous "words"?


• Will the so-called "New Wineskins" age and then become identical to the "Old"?


• Or can the "Old Wineskins" somehow change sufficiently to hold the active presence of the Holy Spirit?


• In summary, does C.J.'s appearance on the stage at a MacArthur conference as a preacher mark the beginning of a new phase for the whole church or the beginning of the end of the charismatic era for some?

Continued at Shepherds' Conference IV - Lig Duncan on the Book of Numbers

Well, I made it - at least as far as Toronto. I had an eager sense of anticipation as I got off the plane. As I met my now dear friend, Andrew Fountain, it was amazing to me to realize how true it is that being a Christian makes you part of one big family of God. For those of us like Andrew and I, who are also part of newfrontiers, that sense of family is strengthened still further. When we meet, we realize that we all share the same spiritual DNA!

In what seemed like a blur, we were seated in a Keg Steakhouse with two other great blogging buddies - Tim Challies and Paul Martin. There is lots that I could say about the dinner we had together. The first thing is that, in fact, the whole thing was an internet date. Only Paul and Andrew had known each other first in real life - all the other relationships had been formed online. It was a real advertisement for internet "dating" - at least as far as friendships go.

We all shared so much - a love for the Lord, a basically reformed Baptist position (albeit with Andrew and I having a bit of a bonus add-on in the form of a charismatic theology!) and were all part of relatively young churches, none of which had a building they owned between them. Paul and Tim's church is practically a house church!

The other nice thing was the way in which Tim managed to dispel all those myths about him being quiet, reserved, and never smiling. I have photographic evidence that he smiles, and I can assure you that he spoke at least as much as any of the rest of us.

We avoided the whole "Stop saying that I read it on your blog!" by pretending that none of us actually reads the other one's blog at all!

Tim and Andrew broke off into technobabble at one point. In fact, for a moment I thought that they were both speaking in tongues as they discussed the intricacies of the databases that can power websites.

I then chipped in with a few comments about how to be a friend of Google - in particular my bugbear that we should all try and remember (I often forget this myself!) that when we link to other webpages we should try and use appropriate keywords. So, for example, if I wanted to link to Tim's most recent post (and I do!) I should write something like this:

Tim Challies has updated and republished his post ironically enough on the updating and publishing of old Christian hymns.

Rather than what we all (including me!) tend to do, which is this:

Tim Challies has updated and republished his post ironically enough on the updating and publishing of old Christian hymns.

Google already knows that Tim's site includes information about himself - the first example signals to Google that it might want to consider that page as a resource on Christian hymns, too. I have checked and right now Tim's site is nowhere to be found on a search for the phrase "Christian hymns" - it may be that my link alone will change all that once Google indexes this post. What is certain is that if just a few good blogs were to link to him like that, his page would definitely end up appearing in the top ten for such a search.

I want even more people to find Tim's site than already do - don't you?

Anyway, back to our dinner. I banned any theological debates as I felt that it would be unfair to me having just got off a transatlantic flight, but that didn't stop us from a few gentle digs at the areas about which we do disagree. More than that, though, we had a lot of fun and laughter. For example, the waiter took a photo of all of us (which I will share at the end of this post and whilst doing so told us to "look like we like each other and sit closer together" - to which the inevitable "not like we like each other too much!" and "not TOO close!" were the instant retorts and at the time seemed as hilarious as they were predictable with a bunch of us guys eating dinner together.

I had a great time, and I was left with a sense that as great as online friendships can be, it is no substitute for meeting face-to-face and seeing the whites of each other's eyes, the smile as a slightly cheeky point is made, and feeling the warmth of the friendship and respect mutually held.

We discussed how perceptions can be distorted online. Certainly Tim and Paul were a whole lot funnier than I imagined them to be (at least until our crazy email exchange over arranging this dinner!) I also gave the specific example of Phil Johnson, who I also met a while back. I am sure Phil won't mind me sharing that here. In person, and in his audio messages, his genuine warmth, respect for those with whom he disagrees, and general nice-guy nature is abundantly apparent. Sometimes online, our personalities don't always come across as we want them to, and we can surprise ourselves by the way we are perceived.

Every now and then Phil will say something that, if said face-to-face, the twinkle in his eye would have given the appropriate context to it. I hate to admit it, but there is then a peculiar fascination in watching the wave of indignant reaction that sometimes hits certain corners of the blogosphere after Phil writes something which at the time I guess he had no idea would offend anyone. The wave of anguish is then almost inevitably followed by a genuinely puzzled Phil trying to figure which part of his comment caused the reaction The trouble is that the whole thing is not as funny as all that, as every blogger knows he could be next - and indeed has probably been there himself - I know I have been, and probably will be in the future.

I am not sure that there is any reliable way we can guard against being taken the wrong way from time to time as we write. So for every time in the future some unguarded un-nuanced comment I make here on my blog will offend someone, I apologise up front! I am afraid a few "smileys" definitely cannot take the place of all the non-verbal communication we miss when we read the written word.

What happened last night over a dinner near the Toronto airport was a precious thing - it involved a strengthening of trust. If a relationship is like a bridge, then our bridges were reinforced last night. For me, once a connection has been made face-to-face, it makes electronic communication much more enjoyable and, I guess, even safer in a funny kind of way.

Tim, Andrew, and Paul . . . thanks for a great evening. Thanks for being brothers fighting together on the same side. I commit to never seeing any of you as the enemy as we go about this blogging business and possibly even interact and disagree publicly. You guys have my permission to critique me privately or online.

I pray now that, together with many other bloggers, we will always find ourselves in this online world to be "standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel" which was "once for all delivered to the saints." (Philippians 1:27, Jude 1:3)

UPDATE
Tim Challies and Paul Martin have both posted about our dinner. I just want to point out, that if my memory is correct, it was the Holy Spirit and not cessationism as such that I brought up, but it was only in passing and I could be wrong!

This is a round-up of some of the posts that caught my eye from the last week or so:

First up, on items of clothing. It seems Martyn Lloyd-Jones may win a most peculiar contest over at Pyromaniacs - the things that lot get up to when I am not looking!

Talking of which, the Pyros also talked up a storm about Mark Driscoll. I have to wonder just how unlucky Phil was - is that the first Driscoll sermon he has listened to, or has he been listening for a while looking for something to jump on? In all the aggro that seems to gather around Driscoll, I have yet to see a single referenced example of him actually cussing in the pulpit. I have heard quite a few Driscoll talks and never heard any swearing or anything for that matter that would be significantly offensive to most, as far as I can tell. Not yet having listened to the talk that Johnson cites, I will not comment on his specific problems with it. To be fair, I have wondered a bit about the number of Driscoll's comments about sex - but I suspect he would justify this by the need of his particular congregation to hear "Don't do it!" almost weekly! Anyway, Phil did post a great follow-up post about the need for ALL of us to be more careful about what we say and how to say it.

"People get shot in that neighborhood and cars get car-jacked all the time," he said. Phil is starting his second childhood early - that's what comes of having a cop for a son!

No Bible verses were harmed (or even touched!) in the writing of this sermon. Dan has a great post on the vital place of the Word of God in our preaching.

Dear Abby: Can I wear my swim trunks to church? If you want to understand what this missional thing is really all about, this is the post for you!

How to Prevent a Church Split. Pure church has begun a new series on this vital subject.

"I follow Jesus!" So says my friend Jason who has become a Christian in the last six months and was baptized last Sunday at my church. Pray for him, and go read his blog - his posts about baptism are great! Like my other friends, his headlines will appear in the gray box at the bottom of this page.

"In the New Testament, the Spirit works in three kinds of ways. He is called “the Spirit of Love.” [Rom 15:13, 5:5; Gal 5:22-23] He is called “the Spirit of Truth.” [John 14:17, 15:26, 16:12-14; 1 John 4:6, 5:6] He is called “the Spirit of Power.” [Zech 4:6; Luke 4:14; Acts 10:38; Rom 1:4, 15:19; 1Cor 2:4-5] We find all three together in 2 Tim 1:7: [For God has not given us a Spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.]" Andrew Fountain on the work of the Holy Spirit.

Andrew Fountain Reviews newfrontiers Material (including Terry Virgo's teaching). Andrew is planting a newfrontiers church in Toronto, and shares his view of this year's newfrontiers conference and some other material.

Dan Phillips hasn't managed to find the time yet to answer my latest post in our long running charismatic debate, but he does post a review of a cessationist book which seems to have a single "cascading" argument that I do not find at all convincing.

Also, my friend Rob Wilkerson has certainly been busy this week - he has written Gospel-Driven Prophecy: Understanding the Differences Between OT and NT Prophecy all six parts are now available Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Conclusion

Highlights from this series include the following quotes:

• "[New Testament] prophecy is no longer about a rare individual anointed as a prophet by another prophet. It is about the Holy Spirit anointing all His people to prophesy as His prophets – men and women, sons and daughters, children and adults, young and old, slave and free. None of this is in common with OT prophets."

• "...a plain reading of 2 Samuel 7:1-17 winds up the not-necessarily 100% accuracy track record for even OT prophets as necessary to remain alive or even maintain one’s position as an OT prophet. In this text we read of David telling Nathan of his heart’s desire to build a temple for the Lord. Nathan’s response seemed fitting: “And Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you’” (v. 3). At this point our minds are called to attention again with the rule of exegesis regarding context. The very next verse begins with a conjunction which contrasts verse 4 and what follows there with verse 3. “But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan…” In verses 5 and following, the Word of the Lord to Nathan differs completely from what Nathan the prophet told David to do. Yet strangely for our cessationists friends, Nathan still lives and retains his position as prophet of God."

• "Cessationism claims that if one has received and given a prophetic word he or she believes has come from God, then that prophetic word should be considered equal to the words of Scripture and therefore ought to be recorded in the Bible. To this a simple question would seem to resolve this dispute. Was every prophecy of every NT prophet enscripturated? How about every prophecy of every OT prophet?

• "The fact that some NT prophets had their messages recorded as Scripture does not necessitate that all NT prophets’ messages must also be recorded there. God’s sovereignty is the determining factor here, so that only He can explain why Agabus’ prophecies are recorded and not the prophecies of Philip’s three daughters, for example. A prophecy was recorded in Scripture when God sovereignly determined that it should be."
  

Well, I've just about caught my breath from the conference posts, but thought it might be an idea to just list a few things some of us might have missed whilst we have all been away. No pretty pictures in this post, I am sorry, but lots of lovely links to take up all the room instead!

This week, I will not be as available as normal to interact with email and comments since I am traveling with work and will not have time in the evenings to blog, and then when I get back I have a sermon to prepare for next Sunday. I have a couple of articles already written that should get published whilst I am away, though, thanks to my ever-patient editorial assistant! There will, however, be no MLJ Monday today, and possibly not next Monday either.

Make sure you DON'T miss the posts from the DGM conference whatever you do - just follow my headline links and get reading. But for those of us who have been consumed with that conference, what did we all miss?

The ESV Bible Reaches Five-Year Milestone. Five years ago on 1st October 2001 the ESV was released. Three million copies later, J. I. Packer believes it could be one of the most significant things with which he has ever been involved. I wonder if this will be the version that finally replaces the KJV, which is still (bizarrely) the best seller as far as I know. To celebrate there were, of course, a couple of blog potshots taken against it!

• ESV person and number changes. Better Bibles Blog reports two times where the ESV has changed her to you or they. The good news is that, unlike some translations, they tell us in the footnote that the context of the verses seems to demand the change, and it's 2, not over 3,000.


• Singular "they" in ESV 1 John 3:24. Wayne thinks that he has found another inconsistency in the ESV with its own translation principles. We are up to three so far! In this specific example, it is simply not possible in English to say "He in Him," so I understand why they did it.

"God’s purpose in ordering marriage is peace. One takes the husband’s role, one takes the wife’s role, one in guiding, one in supporting. If both had the very same roles, there would be no peace." Over on T4G, they are quoting Chrysostom as a complemenatrian.

The marginalization of evangelical feminism. Dave Warnock sits on the other side of the fence from me on a whole host of different issues. What I love about blogging is that I get to actually hear what people like Dave think of people like me and hopefully understand his perspectives.

David Field: Roasts Anglican Bishops. Despite being a lecturer at Oak Hill, he suggests a new test for bishops - "If I heard that X were to be my successor as pastor-teacher of the congregation I've cared for over the last ten years, would I be thrilled, content, mildly concerned, or dismayed?"

An assault on our friends the Pyromaniacs. "In the middle of a serious exposition of Scripture or analysis of a deadly error within the Church of Jesus Christ, one’s sense of sobriety is assaulted by a cartoonish parody usually involving the ubiquitous Pyromaniacs label. It appears to the non-fans like gamesmanship. Gamesmanship about matters of doctrines that have split churches, turned homes upside down, divided families, and have consequences of such importance that agonized prayer and thought must be invested in the imbibing of them is simply unfunny."

Tim Keller. Articles and audio by Tim Keller.

Guiseppi's Ramblings: Non-Cessationism and John Piper. More quotes from Dr. Piper on the charismatic issue.

Heavy Dluxe journey towards charismaticism. Seven careful posts on the Spirit later, this blogger feels he has become a reformed charismatic. This whole series is well worth reading and interacting with.

The Perfect and the Prophets. Eddie Beal weighs in with some heavy logic regarding Dan Phillips' view that the perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 "most likely refers to the completed result of the process of revelation."

"Perfect" - Canon or Christ, Part 2. Mathew Sims' continuing discussion regarding the meaning of the "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. He references several other bloggers' arguments, and then lays out the evidence to support his own view, including a fantastic table which identifies usage in the Old Testament, inter-Testament, and New Testament. For those of you who may have missed part 1, you can access it here. Sims will have one more post on this topic, which will be written from an historical perspective.

Exhibiting The Value of Knowing God: has some great quotes from one of the panel discussions.

Piper on studying for his new book:

"A devastating thing to submit yourself to the 500 imperatives of Jesus in the Gospels. He is always pressing deep. Eleven weeks of having my heart exposed. Then clamoring for the second impression of the offerings of mercy for the sinner. Desolation and hope. The personal effect was to intensify my desire to be in the face of a post-modern world with the power of Jesus Christ. There is so much mealy-mouthed hesitancy to preach righteousness."

Driscoll on culture:

"The two problems are syncretism and sectarianism. Be with the people in this world, but with Him – tethered to Him through His Word. Relevant orthodoxy is our goal. As missionaries, how do we incarnate into these cultures? Jesus was in culture, never went too far. . ."

Piper on culture:

"I think I am weak and would fall if I plunged into culture."

Justin Taylor:

"The two hottest theologies are reformed and emergent. Mark, why are these rockers listening to Keller and Piper?"

Mark Driscoll's reply:

"Grudem’s systematic. Mahaney’s non-cessationism. Keller’s urban missional engagement. Piper’s passion and emphasis on supremacy of Christ. These things are drawing young men."

John Piper:

"Why not ask for fifteen minutes to speak of Jesus in the mosque."

John Piper on Andrew Fuller:

“John Owen saved his life.”

Today, over on TeamPyro, Dan Phillips has written an interesting post entitled, "Worship Feelings and What If?" For me the whole post brought to my mind an illustration. Imagine that two teams are climbing a mountain on opposite sides. If they are near the bottom, they could be miles apart. They will have a very clear view of the side of the mountain they are on, but no clue whatsoever what the team on the other side is facing. As they climb the mountain they will need to focus on their side, but the closer to the top of the mountain they get, the closer together they become.

I feel that on this issue of the experience of Christian life it is a bit like that for us – especially now since the excesses of the charismatic have caused a reaction that has created the excesses of extreme cessationism. I fear that we are so far away from a true biblical experience of God that, like the climbers on that mountain, we have no real clue of what those on the opposite side are facing.

This comes across even in Dan's brilliant humor – you got to love a guy who can say something like this –

"This is a crucial point where some of the emphases of Adrian Warnock and John Piper just lose me. Whenever I say that I think emotion in the Christian life can be a fine thing, my brother Adrian gets all giddy and surprised, and seems to think I'm ready to start babbling incoherently, dancing, and turning expectantly to the blank pages at the back of my Bible."

Dan asks, "What do we do if we don’t feel emotion?" almost as though this is an issue us paid-up charismatics don’t wrestle with. Actually I can say amen to Dan's post almost in its entirety. We have to learn to wrestle through what the Puritans used to call the "dark night of the soul" when God feels distant. The psalms are full of this. My difference with Dan is probably simply this – if emotions are absent, we should still continue to trust, worship, and pray – we should also be fighting and yearning for appropriate emotions to return. Many Psalms describe this process well.

To use his illustration, it would be a strange marriage indeed that did not seek for happiness and romantic feelings to be present in it. The Christian husband or wife does not, however, have a right to divorce their spouse simply because the warm feelings are absent. Instead, they act as though they loved – making the CHOICE of love – and pray and hope for the feelings to return. What Christian pastor would hold up an emotionless marriage as an ideal example of a Christian marriage for others to emulate?

All I am really calling for is that we would have a higher expectation of what the "normal Christian life" can look like, even if that is not our experience, rather than being content to do our duty without any hope of a passionate experience of God.

SUMMARY

A friendly debate continues in this post with me first explaining why I hope I'm not your typical charismatic. I then explain why I believe Ephesians 4 demonstrates that these kinds of conversations are vitally important before engaging with a meandering list of issues. You can blame me for the disorganisation in this post since, although I am following Dan, he was following a staccato post I rattled off quickly one evening! The whole series demonstrates it really is possible to disagree violently and still have a warm friendship with a Christian brother. This post addresses tongues and other charismatic phenomena, and puts them in a context of a genuine experiential Christianity where the Bible is our only source of authority and we do not hang up our brains on the way into church!

---

This will be the final post in my series responding to a set of four Dan Phillips articles, which were themselves penned in response to my response to one of his articles! Blogging sure can get convoluted, but if you haven’t read these posts, it is probably worth your while if you'd like to see how two people committed to the Bible can disagree so fundamentally on these issues whilst growing in respect for one another in the process.

In my first post I dealt with Dan's final one, and challenged us all — charismatic and cessationist alike — to pursue knowing God experientially. My second post addressed points raised in Dan Phillips' first, and this final one will address the second and third. After this, the ball will be firmly back in Dan's court — I look forward to reading his response!

Dan begins his second post with some bluster, followed by a light-hearted introduction to me. One thing on a personal front which has given me some cause for reflection is my own internal reaction to a comment Dan made about my preaching. Dan said, "Warning: he kinda preaches like a charismatic." What interested me was the way I immediately felt about that comment. Whilst I understood the humorous tone, my pride sinfully responded. It suddenly struck me how thoroughly I wanted to dissociate myself from certain charismatics — possibly even the majority of them! The last thing I wanted myself to be described as when it came to preaching was a "typical charismatic!" Since I am unashamedly charismatic, why should this be?

The answer to that question is fairly straightforward. Many, or perhaps even the majority of charismatics — and this is especially true of those who get on to TV or radio — seem to teach all kinds of doctrines that I would want to be dissociated with totally. I am much more likely to listen to preaching from any of the speakers at the recent Together for the Gospel conference and say "amen" than I am to a randomly selected charismatic.

I am not, however, going to list all the charismatic ministries with whom I have theological differences and repudiate them in detail because to do so would take weeks worth of blog posts! Suffice it to say, if as a reformed cessationist you listen to a charismatic preacher and disagree with them (and it is not on the one issue of continuationism) the chances are quite high that I, too, will disagree with them in just the same way.

Thus, I guess my desire to, in some senses, dissociate myself from some charismatics is firstly because I am a reformed charismatic, but it is also because of some of the excesses in whipping up an emotional frenzy by some. I certainly do not aim to do that, either.

Dan then goes on to make the point that both he and I are happy for you to disagree with us publicly. I, for one, have never been of the opinion that Matthew 18 applies to theological discourse carried out respectfully. In fact, blogging as a format is well-suited to this. I can read a book by a theological opponent and disagree with it in my head violently. The chances are I will win that argument as the book cannot answer back. With the debate Dan and I have started, if I misunderstand his position and respond with my own straw-man version of it, he can defend himself and say, "But, I never meant that!"

So, in short, take this post as your invitation to dissect my arguments and put me, and for that matter, Dan, straight. I genuinely believe that one thing he and I have in common is a desire to follow the Bible in all our doctrine.

I am perhaps naïve enough to believe that continued examination of the Bible's teaching will eventually lead to agreement among humble-thinking Christians about this and other vital issues for the church. The early church had church councils. We have blogging. Perhaps as greater minds than mine begin to engage in this medium, we will see some real progress in mutual understanding, and even some progress in the work of constructing a systematic theology on which we can all agree. I do believe in the restoration of the church, and that there really will come a time when

". . . we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ." (Ephesians 4:13-15)

It is in this hope that I continue to engage in spirited discussion with those like Dan who I recognise as a Christian brother who shares the same view of the Bible I do. I hope that people who read both sides of these debates will see the increasing esteem with which we hold each other. Dan says in his post:

I'd be very saddened, however, if anyone misinterpreted my, erm, spirited disagreement with Adrian's words on this one topic, and this one specific position he has adopted, to translate to general overall disagreement, or specific animosity for him as a brother in Christ. I honestly have no doubt that, in personal conversation, we'd hit it off well, and that we'd find a host of shared truths we'd gladly proclaim and defend shoulder to shoulder.

Well, I don’t think I am breaking any confidences by saying that since this post Dan and I have connected via GoogleTalk and have "met" each other via PC microphones and speakers. Dan was right; we did get along, and what is more, we found a whole lot to agree on! You can see an example of this in my recent post on proverbs in which I quote Dan extensively.

After his introduction, Dan launches straight in with the crux of his original post which sparked all this. I think there is actually little more for me to say about tongues. I think that the lines are well drawn. Dan feels that tongues in the Bible were always human languages. I have shown that there are at least hints that this may not be the case. Dan feels that there are absolutely no reliable cases of modern tongues being recognised to be a specific human language. I have linked to one documented example, but acknowledge that this is rare.

Funnily enough, in common with most people sitting on this side of the charismatic divide, I am not overly concerned with discovering precisely what tongues are. Tongues themselves seem to flow out of a certain kind of experience of the love of God being poured out into our hearts and an experiential connection with God. For many of us, the real issue is not precisely what is happening to our mouths, but rather what is happening in our hearts and how that then affects our lives.

I don’t tend to worry too much about defining and pigeon-holing spiritual experiences. When I wrote on the Toronto Blessing, I surveyed the history of some of the more bizarre apparent manifestations of the Spirit. Like Jonathan Edwards in Religious Affections, I am convinced that the appropriate way to judge spiritual experiences is by their fruits in terms of changes in doctrine believed and life style.

If speaking in tongues makes me more inclined to read my Bible, helps me to feel closer to God, brings life into our prayer meetings, gives me passion to preach, inspires me to love God and my neighbour more, and leads to an increase in the fruit and gifts of the Spirit being seen in my life, isn’t that enough for me to judge that, at least in my case, it is harmless and, on the surface of things, quite likely to be of God?

If there was one verse that directly forbade tongues speaking I would think differently, of course, but there isn’t. In fact, as we have seen, quite the opposite is said. Paul tells us to desire the gifts and not to forbid speaking in tongues. I believe in the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture, and I simply cannot believe that someone reading the Bible without preconceived notions would come to a cessationist position.

So, to summarise, tongues to me are not the most important thing. They are for many the natural outflow of what is happening in our hearts experientially when we receive the Spirit. It is that experience of God that I do believe we should seek passionately. Tongues are something of a by-product, and I do think it is very possible to over-emphasise them.

Dan then accuses us charismatics of wanting to "give up control" of mind and body to a spiritual power. Well, for me, I have to say it doesn’t work like that! I am constantly alert to the possibility that my mind could deceive me, and I test every impression by the infallible Scriptures. I do not empty my mind, but fill it. I do not "give up control," but, in fact, make a decision with my mind to seek God for gifts, and am at all times able to stop or start what I am doing. I know that for many this invalidates our experiences automatically — they are expecting more of a sense of being overpowered. I do not believe that Paul could make the regulatory commands concerning gifts that he does if it was the case that people are carried along outside of their control. The Corinthians could have answered, "How can we stop ourselves . . . if the spirit moves me, I have to speak in tongues or prophesy." Paul clearly assumed that they could stop and start at will, or else why would he have told them how he wanted them to use the gifts? In the context of the rest of 1 Corinthians 14, I am sure that verse 32, which says "the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets," means that Christians are by no means meant to relinquish control and be passive.

So to be clear, I do NOT advocate some kind of mystical style of meditation where we empty our minds and try to achieve an altered state of consciousness or be out of control. We should instead fill our minds. I know, for me, whenever I am experiencing the Spirit, my mind is always full of thoughts like, "Wow! How much God loves us!" or other biblical doctrinal content.

I certainly do agree that we should test the spirits. Dan quotes 1 John 4:1 and rightly asks us to ask the spirit we are experiencing what he makes of Jesus. I am not quite clear why he makes the jump to claim that, for charismatics, the answer our spirit has given us has been "maybe." I have yet to meet a single charismatic who has received revelation that undermines the claims of Christ - which is not, of course, to say that doesn't ever happen. But for most of us the reality is quite the opposite. Certainly for me, I find that the Spirit reminds me of the words of Christ and leads me to value Him and recognise Him as my Lord more and more. Let me be clear — it simply is not true that everyone who has received modern gifts of the Spirit is, as a result, unclear about their Christology. To imply such a thing is nothing short of slander!

Dan then explains that he, too, has experienced tongues in the past. He concluded that it wasn’t biblical and stopped. I commend him for that as I like it when people act true to their biblical convictions. As well, I want to commend him for his frank admission that it "felt good" and "came out of love for the Lord." I would