response to charismatic chaos by rich natha

8/13/2019 Response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Natha

1/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 1

A RESPONSE TO

CHARISMATIC

CHAOS

The Book Written By

John F. MacArthur, Jr

RICH NATHAN

ineyar! Po"ition Pa#er $%

A#ri& '(()

A RESPONSE TO

CHARISMATIC

CHAOS

ineyar! Po"ition Pa#er $%

A!!itiona& co#ie" o* thi" +ook&et can +e o+taine! +y "en!in -'. #er co#y re/ue"te! to0

The A""ociation O* ineyar! Churche"

Po"ition Pa#er $%

Re"#on"e to Chari"1atic Chao"

P.O. Bo2'3%4

Anahei1, CA (54'363%4

Make your check" out to 7AC7Per1i""ion i" here+y rante! to anyone 8ho 8i"he" to re#ro!uce thi" +ook&et in any *or1.

9A#ri& '(() By The A""ociation O* ineyar! Churche"


2/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 2

There is a woman in our church who was diagnosed as having heart problems about five years ago. Herdoctor prescribed heart medication for her condition. nfortunately! the woman got sic"er and sic"er.

#he began to retain water! her s"in began to crac"! she was fre$uently depressed! and there were days

when she could not get out of bed. Her physician tried a variety of medications! but the woman grew

steadily worse.After four years of being treated for a heart problem! the woman went to another physician who flatly

stated that she had no heart problem at all. %n fact! the woman was a diabetic and needed insulin for her

diabetes. After a very short time of ta"ing insulin! the woman felt remar"ably better. #he was no longer

depressed! she did not retain water! her s"in cleared up! and she had a normal energy level again.

This story! though true! serves as a parable for &ohn 'acArthur(s Charismatic Chaos)*rand Rapids+

,ondervan 1--2. 'acArthur is li"e the first physician as he e/amines the charismatic movement. %t(s

clear to him that something is wrong with the charismatic movement. He sees some of the symptoms of

illness! but he completely misdiagnoses the reasons for the illness. And his prescription is! fran"ly!designed to "ill the patient.

% personally agree with a number of points in 'acArthur(s boo". 0i"e many Christians! % too havegrave problems with the prosperity message and the positive confession movement. #uffering! as much

as faith! is an integral part of the Christian life )hil. 1+2-. % also share the general disgust that mostChristians have for those television evangelists who are simply moneygrubbers. 0i"e my colleagues in

the 3ineyard! % oppose a view of spirituality that eliminates the maturing effect of traditional means of

sanctification! such as 4ible study! prayer and fellowship. And % hate the hyped testimonies of alleged5healings5 that evaporate upon honest investigation.

This boo"! however! is particularly difficult to read for a number of reasons. 'acArthur has the

unfortunate wea"ness of e/aggerating his opponents( faults. Not only is the bi6arre and the $uir"y

repeatedly emphasi6ed! but 'acArthur rarely ac"nowledges a mainstream view within the charismaticor entecostal movements that(s balanced! 4iblical! and mature. 'acArthur! moreover! rarely admits

that the entecostal7charismatic movement now over 899 million strong has borne tremendous fruitfor the "ingdom of *od. He simply does not permit himself to ac"nowledge positive contributions bythis enormous and varied movement.

:/cessive dogmatism is another fault of 'acArthur(s boo". He lumps heresies! such as the view that

human beings can share the deity of Christ! together with $uestions that should be open for discussion!

such as 5does the gift of tongues e/ist today;5 #ince 'acArthur is dogmatic about virtually everythinghe says )something is either 54iblical5 or 5patently unbiblical5 in 'acArthur(s boo"! he leaves

absolutely no room for the reader to disagree and yet still be viewed as orthodo/.

%ndeed! in 'acArthur(s world! there does not seem to be any legitimate debate about almost any

theological issue within Christian orthodo/y. This leads to the troubling conclusion that either

'acArthur is unaware of most of the church(s history and the legitimacy of differing 4iblicalviewpoints other than one(s own! or he believes that he has received some special revelation regarding

what is thetruth about all matters. %n either case! who can fault the reader for being turned off by

'acArthur(s e/cessive dogmatism;

There(s another problem of lumping heresies together with matters that should be regarded as debatable

by orthodo/ Christians+ by shooting at every rabbit! 'acArthur fails to ever bag the really big game.

The big game involves the pac"aging of Christianity to suit the taste and appetites of the American

consumer or the necessities of the television medium. A person in 'issouri who believes a chic"en wasraised from the dead is hardly a national religious phenomenon. Consumer centered 5Christianity5 is!


3/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan rancis 'acNutt! or even 1-th century proponents

of divine healing such as A.&. *ordon! Andrew 'urray! or A.4. #impson; No mainstream charismatic

or entecostal proponent of healing subscribes to the antimedicine views populari6ed by Hobart>reeman. %ndeed! >reeman(s severest critics have come from within the charismatic camp

C. :o chari"1atic" +ui&! "hrine" to torti&&a"=

%n his chapter titled 5oes *od o 'iracles Today5! 'acArthur begins with the bi6arre story of 'aria

Rubio of 0a"e Arthur! New 'e/ico! who was frying tortillas in her "itchen when she noticed that oneof them seemed to have the li"eness of a face etched in burn mar"s. #he concluded that it was &esus

and even built a crude shrine for the tortilla. Thousands of people visited the 5#hrine of the &esus of the

Holy Tortilla5 and concluded that it was! indeed! a modern day miracle. 5% do not "now why this

happened to me!5 'rs. Rubio said! 5but *od has come into my life through this tortilla5 )p. 19F.'acArthur goes on to record another bi6arre story of a man who discovered an image of &esus on the

side of a pi66eria in eptforth Township! New &ersey. %n considering whether *od performs miracles

after the apostolic era closed! why not! rather! interact with a long line of defenders of miracles in thechurch(s history going bac" to &ustin 'artyr! The #hepherd of Hermas! %renaeus! or even #t. Augustine

in his 5Retractions;5 The reader searches in vain for any meaningful interaction in this boo" with the

best proponents of postapostolic miracles.

:. :o chari"1atic" !eny the authority o* Scri#ture=

%n his chapter titled! 5rophets! >anatics! or Heretics;5 'acArthur goes beyond portraying charismaticsas fools to lumping them together with cult leaders such as #un 'yung 'oon! &oseph #mith! 'ary

4a"er :ddy! :dgar Cayce! and 0. Ron Hubbard. 'acArthur! again! never lets the mainstream of the

entecostal or charismatic movement spea" for itself! preferring rather to pretend that high views of#cripture(s authority are none/istent in the movement. He even asserts that 5charismatic celebrities

barely even give lip service to 4iblical authority5 )p. 1F. erhaps celebrities )% don(t "now to whom heis referring have not given lip service. The mainstream certainly has spo"en volumes.

The mainstream is well represented by the Assemblies of *od statement on #cripture that reads+ 5The#criptures! both the Bld and New Testaments! are verbally inspired of *od and are the revelation of

*od to man! the infallible authoritative rule of faith and conduct )2 Tim. uller Theological

#eminary and a recogni6ed scholar regarding entecostal spirituality! calls belief in the 4ible(s ultimate

authority one of the most significant traits of entecostal and charismatic spirituality.

&. Rodman Dilliams in the introduction of volume one of hisRenewal Theologyaffirms the #criptures

of the Bld and New Testaments as the ob=ective rule of Christian truth. As a professor of theology at

Regent niversity )a charismatic institution r. Dilliams is a credible voice for the charismatic point

of view regarding the authority of the #cripture. He writes!


5/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan G

To be sure! the Holy #pirit guides into all truth! and the Christian community profoundly"nows the things of *od through the indwelling #pirit however! there is the continuing

need for the authority of Holy #cripture. Dithout such! because of human fallibility!

truth soon becomes compounded with error. 5Dhat does the #cripture say;5 is the

critical $uestion that must undergird all theological wor".%t should be immediately added that there can be no basic difference between the truth

the Christian community "nows through the indwelling of the Holy #pirit and what is

set forth in #cripture. #ince all #cripture is 5*odbreathed5 )which means 5*od

#pirited5 or #pirit given! it is the same Holy #pirit at wor" in both #cripture andcommunity. However! in terms of that which is authorative and therefore normative!

what is written in #cripture always has the primacy. %t tests and =udges every affirmation

of faith and doctrine.

%n the boo" titled!Pentecostal Preaching! by R.H. Hughes! Hughes sets forth several of the basics ofentecostal preaching. Hughes( first ma=or point is that true entecostal preaching centers on the Dord

of *od. He states+

entecostals have been so identified by an emphasis on the wor" of the Holy #pirit that

some observers overloo" the fact that a cardinal principle of entecostalism has alwaysbeen strict adherence! first and foremost! to the 4ible. >or one properly to understand

the role of entecostal preaching! this basic first principle the centrality of the Dord of

*od will have to be "ept in mind... >or entecostals today the Dord is central in all lifepractices as well as to all doctrine. %t is both the manual by which to operate and the

standard by which to =udge. To thin" otherwise! or to try to understand entecostalism

from any other perspective! is erroneous.

Hughes goes on to state that entecostal preaching must always e/alt &esus Christ. He states thatpreaching that e/tols anything 5other than the grace manifested in the person and wor" of &esus Christ

is not entecostal preaching no matter how it is labeled.5

E. :o chari"1atic" +e&iea##in7 re"u&t" in in"tant "ancti*ication=

%n his chapter 5Dhat is True #pirituality;5 'acArthur states+

>or the typical charismatic! the gateway to spirituality is through an e/perience! usuallyspea"ing in tongues. The term actually used by some charismatics is 56apped.5 %t

accurately describes the way most charismatics view sanctification. eople in my

congregation tell me when they have tal"ed with charismatics about spirituality and

have admitted that they have never had an ecstatic e/perience! the charismatic personwould say! 5Dell! may &esus 6ap you5

% have been around thousands of charismatics and entecostals in my life and % have never met anyonewho has ever said! 5'ay &esus 6ap you5 Dhy did 'acArthur choose to use such ludicrous language in

arguing against a subse$uent e/perience of the Holy #pirit; Dhy not! rather! deal with the bestproponents of postsalvation e/periences of the Holy #pirit such as r. 'artin 0loyd&ones! .0.

'oody! &ohn Desley! or R.A. Torrey; %ndeed! one can search long and hard in 'acArthur(s boo" and

never discover that many )presumably nontongue spea"ers have believed in subse$uent e/periencesof the Holy #pirit that they labeled the 54aptism with the Holy #pirit.5 And sadly! this demonstrates

'acArthur(s repeated tendency to deal with the wea"est rather than the strongest of his opponents and

their arguments.


6/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan I

'acArthur further shows a profound ignorance of charismatic and entecostal doctrine when hesuggests that 5the charismatic movement has flourished primarily because it promises a shortcut to

spiritual maturity.... %s there really a shortcut to sanctification;.... 'any charismatics insist that once

you get the baptism of the #pirit! spirituality is yours.5 'acArthur clearly does not understand what the

vast ma=ority of charismatics and entecostals teach regarding the 4aptism in the Holy #pirit. Dhilethe holiness variety of entecostalism does teach a second definite wor" a postconversion cleansing

e/perience that enhances personal holiness these holiness churches do not call that the 54aptism in

the Holy #pirit.5 :ven among entecostal holiness churches! the 4aptism in the Holy #pirit is providednot for personal holiness! but for empowerment for Christian service such as missionary evangelism or

pastoral leadership. 4ut apart from the holiness churches! the main body of charismatics and

entecostals view sanctification along Reformed lines! progressing from conversion to death viatraditional means of sanctification such as prayer! 4ible study! fellowship! and service.

%f 'acArthur studied the matter! he could read numerous documents suggesting a Reformed viewpoint

regarding sanctification from the %nternational Church of the >our #$uare *ospel! The Assemblies of

*od churches! and The Bpen 4ible #tandard churches. This Reformed emphasis is also found in

3ineyard churches.

%n sum! 'acArthur is really fighting a paper tiger when he suggests that entecostals or charismatics

believe the 54aptism in the #pirit5 or spea"ing in tongues provides instant spirituality. 'ainstream

entecostals and charismatics teach no such thing. :ven in popular boo"s of entecostal teaching! thereis a clearly noted distinction between spiritual gifts and spiritual fruit. Jet 'acArthur is content to

leave a false and misleading impression among those not familiar with entecostal and charismatic

teaching.

F. Why "hou&! MacArthur "to# *ihtin "tra8 1en=

4ecause Charismatic Chaosis so severely marred by the techni$ue of arguing against straw men!perhaps it would be helpful to suggest three reasons why 'acArthur ought to abandon this

argumentative style )which unfortunately characteri6es nearly all his writings.

1. The same techni$ue can be applied to modern fundamentalism of which 'acArthur is a

representative and to Christianity in general. Bne would not have to search too hard to findfundamentalists who believe in an especially inspired Eing &ames 3ersion! a dictation theory of

inspiration! or who have written fantastic boo"s of prophetic schemes regarding the 'iddle :ast! which

have proven to be absolutely false. 0i"ewise! false and foolish statements from sincerenonfundamentalist Christians abound. Jet! it would be totally unfair to charge the best proponents of

fundamentalism or Christianity with holding the views of their less sophisticated or educated brethren.

2. 4y arguing with the wea"est of your opponents! one proves absolutely nothing. Bne may appear to

win! but the victory is false and hollow. The already convinced will applaud 'acArthur and than" him

for his thoughtful analysis )p. 1


7/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan F

II. The Ten!ency To ?"e Neati


8/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan K

as the only irrefutable verification of true spirituality. To authenticate their claims! somecharismatic leaders resort to fraudulent or simulated (miracles.( #pirituality is viewed as

an e/ternal issue godly character is nonessential to those who believe supernatural

phenomena validate their claims to spea" for *od. #uch a system breeds duplicity!

tric"ery! charlatanism! and fraud..Dhile 'acArthur goes on to say he is not attempting to charge all charismatics with the broad brush of

immorality or charlatanism! clearly he believes there is a causal connection between charismatic beliefs

and se/ual immorality! and fraud.

nfortunately! 'acArthur never demonstrates biblically how belief in tongues or the 54aptism in theHoly #pirit!5 ma"es one more susceptible to immorality or chicanery. No empirical evidence is cited

that charismatic and entecostal pastors or leaders are more susceptible to immorality than non

charismatic leaders and pastors. Televangelists( well publici6ed sins do not necessarily translate down

to the man or woman in the pews or the shepherd caring for those men and women. %n fact! se/ualimmorality is among the most abhorrent sins in the culturally conservative entecostal movement.

%mmorality is! tragically! a phenomenon that seems to "now no denominational boundaries. %ndeed!several very prominent dispensational and fundamentalist leaders have had to step down from radio

ministries! parachurch leadership! and pastorates because of se/ual immorality. Bne might morerealistically point to the se/drenched culture of the modern western world! the cult of se/ual self

e/pression! and the absence of the practice of spiritual disciplines as more li"ely e/planations for the

fall of charismatic pastors than their e/perience of spea"ing in tongues.

B. :oe" +e&ie* in a&& the Bi+&ica& i*t" o* the S#irit cau"e "&o##y e2ee"i"=

'acArthur devotes the better part of a chapter to describing e/egetical wea"nesses in charismatic

literature! and suggests that there is a causal connection between belief in charismatic e/periences and

sloppy e/egesis. Jet! in his chapter! he never tells us why someone who believes in the present day

e/istence of all the gifts of the #pirit! including tongues! would be any more li"ely to e/egete his or her4ible more sloppily than someone who doesn(t believe in the present e/istence of these gifts. %ndeed!

*ordon >ee! the well"nown entecostal 4ible scholar! wrote )with ouglas #tuart one of the best

popular boo"s on 4ible interpretation!How to Read the Bible For All Its orth. Again! there is noempirical evidence cited for more sloppiness in e/egesis among charismatics than among non

charismatics. A casual survey of Christian boo"stores would yield shelves of boo"s produced by non

charismatics on topics li"e eschatology! counseling! and men(s and women(s roles based on e/tremely$uestionable e/egetical methods. .A. Carson! a noncharismatic! wrote an entire boo" titled!xegetical

Fallacies)*rand Rapids+ 4a"er! 1-K8! in which he cites e/ample after e/ample of fallacious

arguments made in popular Christian boo"s. 'ost of the e/amples that Carson cites are from non

charismatic sources.

'acArthur himself falls prey to many of the errors that he claims are the special purview ofcharismatics. Dhile 'acArthur yielded to the temptation to tar the charismatic movement with poor

interpretive methods! sloppy e/egesis li"e se/ual immorality "nows no denominational bounds. %t

cannot be laid at the feet of any period in church history )it is found in all periods! nor can it be laid atthe feet of any particular denomination )all the denominations fall short of perfectly interpreting the

scriptures.

C. :o chari"1atic churche" #ro!uce "#iritua& ca"ua&tie"=

'acArthur states+


9/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan -

Charismatic chaos is usually not physically fatal! but the movement is littered with

spiritalcasualties. % received a letter from a Christian man whose wife became

entangled with a fanatic charismatic assembly. He wrote me for counsel! bro"enhearted!

5#he got involved with a group of charismatic women and they convinced her % was not

saved since % didn(t spea" in tongues! etc. as they taught her to do... finally! she left andfiled for divorce two months ago. %t will soon be final.5

Again! no empirical evidence is cited to show either that people who are charismatics are more li"ely

)than noncharismatics to divorce. Nor is there any evidence that the charismatic movement is 5more

littered with spiritual casualties5 than noncharismatics. %ndeed! if the findings of boo"s such as ToxicFaith #nderstanding and $vercoming Religios Addiction)Nashville+ BliverNelson! 1--1 are ta"en

as accurate! fundamentalist churches often produce at least as many spiritual casualties as charismatic

churches. #adly! there are do6ens of >undamentalist Anonymous groups nationwide and the ChristianResearch %nstitute has received many reports of 5casualties5 from noncharismatic churches. %n any

case! there does not appear to be any causal connection between mainstream charismatic beliefs and

becoming a spiritual casualty.

I. Fa&"e Mo!e&" an! Fa&"e ue"tion"

%n chapter -! titled 5oes *od #till Heal;5 'acArthur lays out a si/ pronged test! supposedly derivedfrom the 4ible to evaluate whether someone possesses a true gift of healing. The model includes the

following+

1. &esus )and the Apostles healed with a word or a touch.

2. &esus )and the Apostles healed instantly.

or e/ample! thecriteria for evaluating a healing gift might be+

1. &esus )and the Apostles gave glory to *od whenever a person was healed.

2. &esus )and the Apostles general healed people not to prove anything about themselves! but from a

motive of compassion.


10/28

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan

19

healing! or a third party )e.g.! the paralytic(s friends &airus(s daughter.

8. &esus )and the Apostles were selective in their choice of whom to heal.

:ach of my criteria can easily be derived from scripture.

A decade has passed since the silliness of model ma"ing was pressed home to me while carrying on a

discussion with a 'uslim. A 'uslim! whom % was attempting to evangeli6e! tried to prove to me that

'ohammed! and not &esus! was the rophet spo"en of in euteronomy 1K. %n euteronomy 1K! verse1G! 'oses said! 5The 0ord your *od will raise up for you a prophet li%e mefrom among your own

brothers. Jou must listen to him.5 The 'uslim man said! 5'ohammed is li"e 'oses and is! therefore!

the rophet. 4ut &esus is not li"e 'oses.5 % as"ed! 5Bn what basis do you ma"e this assertion;5 Heanswered! 5Dell! first! 'oses was a political leader and 'ohammed was a political leader. 4ut &esus

was not a political leader. #econdly! 'oses fought military campaigns! 'ohammed fought military

campaigns! but &esus did not fight military campaigns. Third! 'oses was a shepherd. 'ohammed wasa shepherd! but &esus was not a shepherd. >ourth! 'oses spent many years in the desert. 'ohammed

spent many years in the desert! but &esus spent almost no time in the desert.5 To this list he addedseveral other criteria that he felt proved his case almost completed.

'y response to his selfconstructed model was to point out that his criteria were not necessarily theonly criteria to evaluate 5the rophet(s5 li"eness to 'oses. % gave him my own 5offthecuff5 criteria.

>irst! 'oses was a &ew. &esus was a &ew! but 'ohammed was not a &ew. #econd! 'oses had a beard.

&esus had a beard! but 'ohammed did not have a beard. Third! 'oses was nearly "illed at birth by an

evil "ing. &esus was nearly "illed at birth by an evil "ing! but 'ohammed was not threatened at birth byan evil "ing. % could go on! but % thin" the point of the foolishness of these "inds of arguments is made

'ore importantly! 'acArthur fails to see that the 4iblical evidence doesn(t even fit his own self

constructed model. >or e/ample! under criterion number 8! 'acArthur states that the Apostles were

able to heal anyone. Jet! aul! who had a 4iblical gift of healing! states in 2 Timothy 8+29! 5...% leftTrophimus sic" in 'iletus.5 Dhy didn(t aul heal Trophimus rather than leave him! presumably to

recuperate! if! as 'acArthur states! the Apostles were able to heal anyone; aul himself claims that the

reason he ended up in *alatia was because of a personal illness )that he apparently he could not healhimself. %n *alatians 8+1


11/28


11

sources reminds me of a conversation % had with a high school student in :ngland in 1-KI. The high

school student remar"ed to me! 5Jou Americans are so cool. Jou get to race around in sports cars and

the women in America are gorgeous. % want to go to America when % get out of high school5 % as"ed

him why he thought that all Americans raced around in sport cars and that all American women weregorgeous. He said he watched 5'iami 3ice5 on television all the time As a result of watching 5'iami

3ice5 this high school student thought he understood America

Rather than watch so many charismatic celebrities on television! 'acArthur might have put his time to

better use reading Russell #pittler(s helpful history of the entecostal movement. #pittler writes+ 5Dhenthe total figures are combined for classical entecostals along with charismatics from Anglican!

Brthodo/! Roman Catholic and mainline rotestant sectors! the sum e/ceeds the si6e of ?non

charismatic@ rotestantism as a whole.5 %f for no other reason than statistical dominance! 'acArthurought to have more carefully analy6ed the movement as a whole. Again! #pittler writes+

%f some varieties of Christians are geographically uniform and predictable! entecostals

are neither. Certain features nearly always occur! yet the variety is astonishing. Dho are

the entecostals! the charismatics; How do the two differ; #ome distinctions are inorder. entecostals and charismatics of every variety are distinguished by their emphasis

on the Holy #pirit and their beliefs in the contemporary relevance of the gifts of the

#pirit. As a whole! they all reflect a conservative Christian orthodo/y. They valuepersonal religious renewal. They value a restorationist impulse! a bent to an often

ideali6ed 5church of the New Testament.5 4ut there the similarities end. >or e/ample!

while entecostals generally insist on spea"ing in tongues as 5the initial physical

evidence of the 4aptism in the Holy #pirit5! not all entecostals around the world do!nor in their origins did teach! that spea"ing in tongues is the necessary physical evidence

of the baptism. %n fact! the vast ma=ority of contemporary charismatics do not affirm the

necessity of tongues indeed! that is an incidence among charismatics as one of the

principle features that distinguishes them from entecostals.

'acArthur seems to be totally unaware of the difference between entecostals and charismatics and

lumps the two together as a monolithic whole. #pittler summari6es the distinctions between the

entecostal and charismatic movement this way+

entecostalism arose in the first half of this century! charismatics in the second half.entecostals formed the classical entecostal denomination charismatics remained in

their own churches! the mainstream ones. 'ost )though not all entecostals insist on

tongues as initial evidence charismatics generally spea" in tongues! but do not ma"e it amatter of necessity. entecostals teach a strict subse$uence of vital Christian e/perience

two! in the case of baptistic entecostals and! three! in Desleyan entecostalism.

Charismatics! on the other hand! find ways to fit charismatic e/perience and renewalinto their e/isting ecclesiastical and theological traditions.

'acArthur also does not ta"e account of cultural differences in the charismatic movement. >or

e/ample! over G9 million charismatics and entecostals live in Africa. Bver I9 million live in :ast

Asia. There are appro/imately K9 million in 0atin America and only K9 million in North America. Thecharismatic and entecostal movements are not North American media phenomena! although one

would have the impression by reading 'acArthur(s boo" that they are a narrow! e/clusively white!

North American phenomena.


12/28


12

Contrary to 'acArthur(s assertion about rampant se/ual immorality! entecostals! at least the North

American varieties! are li"ely to reflect the strict mores rising from their holiness and fundamentalist

origins. %n short! 'acArthur(s entire boo" is devoid of even the more general distinctions that any

"nowledgeable observer of the entecostal and charismatic movements would "now as a matter ofcourse. %ndeed! entecostal or charismatic insiders will not be able to recogni6e themselves in

'acArthur(s mediabased view of the movement.

I. I" There Any Fruit Fro1 the Chari"1atic Mo

the number was conservatively estimated at over G9 million! with some suggesting twice that number.

Two e/pert Chinawatchers suggest that KGL of Chinese believers would be 5phenomenologicalentecostal charismatics.5 #uch ama6ing growth can be observed in much of the rest of the Third

Dorld. As atric" &ohnstone put it+

The harvest of people into the Eingdom of *od in recent years has been unprecedented.

Never in history has such a high percentage of the world(s population been e/posed to

the *ospel! nor the increase of evangelical Christians been so encouraging. Althoughthere are many factors that have combined to produce this growth! among the most

signi&icant according to most observers has been the explosive increase o& Pentecostal

and charismatic movements.

B. The Fruit o* E


13/28


1 HAN# for empowering of the Holy #pirit! for

receiving of gifts of the #pirit! for healing! and for recognition and empowering of those whom *odhas ordained to lead and serve the church. )Acts 1


17/28


1F

29+11! 21+K

11. D: 4:0%:3: in what is termed 5TH: AB#T0:#( CR::5 as embodying fundamental facts of

Christian faith! and endorse the historic orthodo/ creeds of the church.

This #tatement of >aith is the standard to which church plants and adoptions into the 3ineyard

movement must subscribe. :very 3ineyard pastor subscribes to the Association(s #tatement of >aith.&ohn Dimber(sPower Points+ 'even 'teps to Christian )rowth)#an >rancisco+ Harper! l--1! also lays

out his doctrinal convictions in a more e/tended way. No one but the most suspicious critic of

3ineyard! who reads 3ineyard(s #tatement of >aith or &ohn Dimber(s boo"! would conclude that3ineyard is a movement without a set of doctrinal formulations.

B. :oe" the Thir! Wa


18/28


1K

C. What i" Po8er E


19/28


1-

Dhy did 'acArthur stop with Acts 8; Reading ahead five chapters to Acts -! we find an undeniable

connection between the demonstration of powerful signs and wonders and the rapid e/pansion of the

church. >or e/ample! in Acts -+


20/28


29

did eter pray for signs and wonders if! as 'acArthur asserts! 5they are impotent to produce faith or

genuine revival;5

o miracles produce faith; No. *od does. 4ut in the case of the citi6ens of &oppa! #haron! and 0ydda!

miracles clearly provo"e unbelievers by removing barriers to faith and illustrating the truth and powerof the message. %n the case of the harisees! it is recorded 5even after &esus had done all these

miraculous signs in their presence! they still would not believe in him5 )&ohn 12+


21/28


21

driving ot demons5 )'ar" 1+

times in the gospel where &esus doesn(t "now and he has to as" $uestions.( )'acArthurconcludes+ That statement denies the omniscience of Christ.

#everal points can be raised regarding 'acArthur(s use of the unpublished tape as evidence of &ohn

Dimber(s disbelief in the deity of Christ. A minor! but troubling! point is why 'acArthur would use a

tape of some oral remar"s made by Dimber during a conference! rather than his more substantialwritten statements in boo"s such asPower Points; %t is hardly lame reasoning to suggest that many oral

statements! particularly those made during preaching! or in fielding a $uestion! may not be as well


22/28


22

stated or articulate as one would ma"e in written communication. 4eyond the obvious point that one

may say things orally that do not represent a full or complete disclosure of all of a person(s thoughts on

a matter! there seems to be a vindictive motive in 'acArthur(s publishing of old oral material. Dhy did

he not $uote Dimber(s well stated and orthodo/ view of the deity of Christ from Dimber(s ownPowerPoints;

Bne reason 'acArthur may have neglected a lengthy $uotation fromPower Points! is to leave readers

)who would be unac$uainted with Dimber(s writings with the absolutely misleading impression that

Dimber doesn(t believe in the deity of Christ. Again! 'acArthur un=ustly and unlovingly pins aposition to an opponent! that his opponent does not believe. Muoting this oral material! without at least

mentioning Dimber(s written statements! is an obvious attempt to portray Dimber as a heretic.

E. What !oe" John Wi1+er +e&ieully *od.5 %t begins thisway+

Dhat does *od(s Dord say about who &esus is; >irst and foremost it says that &esus isfully *od. This is clearly stated in many passages. &ohn says! 5in the beginning was the

Dord5 )&ohn 1+1 later! in verse 18! &ohn identifies the 5Dord5 as &esus 5and the Dord

was *od! and the ord was )od.5 aul says Christ! 5is *od overall5 )Rom. -+G and

tells us to loo" forward to the 5glorious appearing of ourgreat )od and 'avior. &esusChrist5 )Titus 2+1


23/28


2erm(s boo" called Cooperative !vangelism),ondervan!1-GK in which >erm defended 4illy *raham(s ministry from precisely the same attac" that 'acArthur

levels against Dimber. %n a fascinating summary of ecumenical cooperation in history! >erm cites the

e/amples of Desley! Dhitefield! >inney! 'oody! and 4illy #unday. Regarding &onathan :dwards! >erm

$uotes from &onathan :dwards(s well"nown Thoghts on Revival+

(#piritual pride disposes people to affect separation! to stand at a distance from others! as

better than they! and loves the show and appearance of distinction...but on the contrary!

every humble Christian...delights in the appearance of union with his fellow creatures!and will maintain it as much as he possibly can! without giving open countenance to

ini$uity! or wounding his own soul! and herein he follows the e/ample of his mee" and

blessed redeemer! who did not "eep such separation and distance as the harisees! but

freely ate with publicans and sinners that he might win them.( %ndeed! :dwards insistedthat his decision to wor" with those of differing opinions was deliberate and considered.

He made it a point never to =udge the spirituality or even the total orthodo/y of another

minister. At one other time he wrote+ (% am glad that *od has not committed such a

difficult affair to me % can =oyfully leave it wholly in his hands who is definitely fit forit without meddling at all with it myself. % "now of no necessity we are under to

determine whether it be possible for those who are guilty of it )heresy and opposition tobe in a state of grace or not.(

0i"ewise! Dhitefield was critici6ed because of his nonseparation for associating with certain groups!

considered in his day to be unorthodo/. His response was simple and to the point+ he said he re=ects the

views of those who consider that there are 5no others among the 0ord(s people but themselves. ?%f theyare right@ and if others are the devil(s people! then ?these others@ have more need to be preached to. >or

me! all places are ali"e.5

'oody(s view of Roman Catholics is interesting to note. After reporting on 'oody(s crusade in ublin!

%reland! an editorial read+ 5There is not an evening that Roman Catholics! as well as rotestants! havenot found their way to the in$uiry room. robably one reason is that there is no denunciation of Roman

Catholicism. 'en are not addressed by their particular church! but as sinners. Roman Catholics are not

mentioned by name at the evangelistic service and feeling no hurt! and not having opposition forcedupon them! those who go once are pretty sure to return.5

>erm writes that 'oody had a great affection for Roman Catholics even though he did not agree with

the official teachings of their church. Certainly the same could be said about Dimber. %ndeed! 'oody

went beyond &ohn Dimber by contributing money to the Roman Catholic church in an incident


25/28


2G

reported by Heng rummond+

Dith everything in his special career! in his habitual environment! and in the traditions

of his special wor"! to ma"e him intolerant! 'r. 'oody(s sympathies have only

broadened with time. #ome years ago the Roman Catholics of Northfield determined tobuild a church. They went around the township collecting subscriptions! and byandby

approached 'oody(s door. How did he receive them; The narrower evangelical would

have shut the door in their faces! or opened it only to give them a lecture on the

blasphemies of the ope! or the ini$uities of the #carlet Doman. 'r. 'oody gave themone of the handsomest subscriptions on their list. Not content with that! when their little

chapel was finished! he presented them with an organ. (Dhy!( he e/claimed! (if they are

Roman Catholics! it is better that they should be good Roman Catholics than bad. %t issurely better to have a Catholic church than none and as for the organ! if they are to

have music in their church! it is better to have good music.( (4esides!( he added! (these

are my own townspeople.(

:/ample after e/ample of warmhearted tolerance and love of others with whom orthodo/ Christiansmay differ! can be piled on from >erm(s boo". The point is that evangelical luminaries from the past!

display none of the bitter! invective! separatist! fighting spirit that 'acArthur believes stamps someone

as 5biblical.5 Dimber is closer to the irenic spirit of 'oody! :dwards! and Dhitefeld and indeed! to&esus! himself! than are his fundamentalist critics. %f seen in the above light Dimber li"ely ta"es it as

more of a compliment than a criticism to be tarred with the label 5ecumenist.5 And he is not alone.

Chuc" Colson! a conservative #outhern 4aptist seems to have irenic attitudes to the whole 4ody of

Christ in all its e/pressions.

H. Are John Wi1+er" hea&in" un


26/28


2I

respond to 0ewis(s boo" rather than resort to ad hominemattac";

Bn a personal level! % would invite 'acArthur to e/amine a case in our own church involving a young

man who had epilepsy from the time he was five years old. >or over twenty years! this young man

suffered grand mal sei6ures. 4efore he received prayer from &ohn Dimber! he e/perienced at least threegrand mal sei6ures a wee". De attended a conference where &ohn Dimber was present and &ohn agreed

to pray for this man. %n describing the e/perience of prayer! the man reported the feeling of a wind

rushing through his body. Dhile he was prayed for for almost an hour! he said he was entirely

unconscious of time passing! but felt surges of power through his body. Dhatever his sub=ective claims!one startling ob=ective fact remains. After being prayed for by &ohn Dimber! he has had no grand mal

sei6ures in the past three years.

Now 'acArthur may attempt to e/plain away this story )% don(t "now what motive he would have for

doing so. The fact is! that there is one man who can now wor"! who can live a functional life! whomay! very shortly! obtain a driver(s license and who has been spared a radical brain operation simply

because he was physically and verifiably healed through the prayers of &ohn Dimber. % would be happy

to spea" with &ohn 'acArthur about this case personally and other physical healings that % have had thepleasure of both observing and participating in.

I. I" the Thir! Wa


27/28


2F

ministry is an impossibility in the twentieth century. Rather! it fits s$uarely within Dimber(s "ingdom

theology of the 5already and the not yet5 of the present age. Dimber never promises healings )or any

other blessing. Anyone who has listened to him for more than five minutes win see a ma=or difference

between his teachings and beliefs and the beliefs of the positive confession movement. Dimberemphasi6es suffering as a ma=or means of spiritual growth in the Christian life. He is not shy about

tal"ing about his own suffering and the suffering of close friends. Nor is he bashful about his

promotion of 4iblical preaching! sound e/egesis! and the need for pure doctrine in the movement thathe leads. >inally! Dimber promotes ecumenical cooperation! not out of pragmatism! but as a matter of

4iblical conviction regarding the spiritual unity of all true believers in the 0ord &esus Christ.

Bn a more personal note! % have spo"en with! and heard &ohn Dimber teach on more than one hundred

occasions now. His public image is no different from the private person that % have come to "now andrespect. He firmly holds to conservative evangelical beliefs regarding the trinity! the deity of Christ! the

substitutionary atonement! Christ(s physical resurrection! the inerrancy of the scriptures! both Bld and

New Testaments! and the personal! visible return of our 0ord &esus Christ. His theology has been

heavily influenced by the conservative evangelical theologian! *eorge :ldon 0add. He is unabashed inhis indebtedness to 0add. Anyone who reads any of &ohn(s conference notes! listens to him spea"! or

reads any of his boo"s will see &ohn(s debt to *eorge 0add.

Dimber is not a man who is shy or secretive about his own views or his own theology. He went so faras to write an article in Charismamaga6ine! declaring that he personally re=ects the view that healing is

5in the atonement.5 His article was a dear line of demarcation! distinguishing his understanding from

traditional entecostal teaching regarding healing. &ohn has also! both privately and publicly! affirmed

his own belief that the so called 54aptism in the Holy #pirit5 is not a postconversion e/perience! butoccurs as part of the initial conversion e/perience. &ohn has also denied the octrine of subse$uent

evidence5 taught by some entecostals.

To sum up! 'acArthur(s charge of mar"eting deception! and intentional semantic diversion! especiallywhen applied to Dimber! is $uite unfair and inappropriate. %t is a personal attac". %t is an attac" onDimber(s motivations and personal integrity. &ohn 'acArthur! fran"ly! owes &ohn Dimber a personal

and public apology regarding these statements.

#ha"espeare! in $thello! describes the wrongfulness of in=uring another(s reputation! when he says!

*ood name in man and woman...is the immediate ?most valuable@ =ewel of their souls.Dho steals my purse steals trash (tis something! nothing! (twas mine! (tis his! and has

been the slave to thousands 4ut he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that

which not enriches him And ma"es me poor indeed.

Conc&u"ion

%n 1-GF Carl Henry! the :ditor of Christianity Todaymaga6ine wrote a criti$ue of fundamentalism thataccurately summari6es my own criti$ue of the central problem with &ohn 'acArthur(s Charismatic

Chaos. Henry wrote+

The real ban"ruptcy of fundamentalism has resulted not so much from a reactionary

spirit lamentable as this was as from a harsh temperament! a spirit of lovelessness andstrife contributed by much of its leadership in the recent past. Bne of the ironies of

contemporary church history is that the more fundamentalists stress separation from

apostasy as a theme in their churches! the more a spirit of lovelessness seems to prevail.


28/28


2K

The theological conflict with liberalism deteriorated into an attac" upon organi6ations

and personalities. This condemnation! in turn! grew to include conservative churchmen

and churches not ready to align with separatist movements. %t widens still further! to

abusive evangelicals unhappy with the spirit of independency in such groups as theAmerican Council of Churches and the %nternational Council of Christian Churches.

Then came internal debate and division among separatist fundamentalism within the

American Council. 'ore recently! the evangelistic ministry of 4illy *raham and ?the@efforts of other evangelical leaders! whose disapproval of liberalism and advocacy of

conservative Christianity are beyond dispute! have become the target of bitter volubility.

This character of fundamentalism as a temperamentand not primarily fundamentalismas a theology! has brought the movement into contemporary discredit... Historically!

fundamentalism was a theological position only gradually did the movement come to

signify a mood and disposition as well. %n its early ?years@ leadership reflected ballast!

and less of bombast and battle... %f modernism stands discredited as a perversion of thescriptural theology! certainly fundamentalism in this contemporary e/pression stands

discredited as a perversion of the 4iblical spirit.

ltimately it is 'acArthur(s rancorous! bombastic style that undermines his ob=ectivity and any value

this boo" may have had as a necessary corrective to e/cesses or errors in the charismatic! entecostaland Third Dave movements. Rabid anticharismatics will love this boo". %t provides wonderful sermon

illustrations for the already convinced. >or those not so 6ealously anticharismatic! this boo" serves

only as a painful reminder of the lovelessness that characteri6es too much of contemporary Christianity.

Bn a personal note! % have en=oyed &ohn 'acArthur(s radio ministry on the occasions that % have beenable to listen to it. Charismatic Chaos! % am afraid! is unworthy of the teaching gift that *od has given

to &ohn 'acArthur and to the grace that has been so richly displayed in his church(s life.

A+out the AuthorRichard Nathan is senior pastor of 3ineyard Christian >ellowship of Columbus! Bhio. After beingconverted in 1-F8 at age 1K! Rich =oined %nter3arsity Christian >ellowship. He became the chapter

president and later served as the %nter3arsity faculty advisor for five years at Bhio #tate niversity.

Rich graduated hi 4eta Eappa from Case Destern Reserve niversity with a 4A in Religion and

History in 1-FF. He holds a &uris octorate with honors from the Bhio #tate niversity #chool of 0aw.After teaching at Bhio #tate niversity for five years! Rich began pastoring at the Columbus 3ineyard.

response to charismatic chaos by rich natha

Documents