Concerned asked me a couple of questions in my post Speaking of Church Polity. I think the content of the question and the corresponding answer needs its own treatment.
Here is what she asked:
John, in reading some things about the various forms of church government, it seems most “truly” reformed churches adhere to either a congregational or presbyterian form of church government. However, the SGM model is episcopalian it seems (heirarchy: power flows from the top down only)
So here is my question – why do you think SGM tries to pass themselves off as Reformed simply because they are Calvinistic when none of their other beliefs remotely resemble historical reformed theology?
Is is fair to say SGM is Calvinistic but not reformed, even though they call themselves reformed?
* * *
I LOVE these questions. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THESE QUESTIONS. LOVE IT. LOVE IT. LOVE IT. That means you all are catching on. These questions show forth that people are actually looking at the content of what the Hair Club for Men claim. And if you are looking at the content, it becomes very easy to see that the Arena of Ideas they fancy themselves in is NOT as neat and tidy and unarguable as Sovereign Grace Ministries would like to pretend.
Concerned, the heart of your question is WHY? Why does SGM do what they do? Why do they call themselves Reformed when in fact they don’t conform to the content of the Reformed Practice? It is always a bold undertaking to answer about someone else’s motive. But I’m up to the challenge.
The short answer to why does Sovereign Grace Ministries claim Reformed Status is fear.
No… let me amend. The short answer to why does Sovereign Grace Ministries claim Reformed Status is stone cold, stark terror.
What are they afraid of? They are afraid that they are not truly authorized to preach, that they really may not be in charge, that they might not have anything to offer, that at the end of the day that they (CJ) might be wrong.
I know… that is a rather bold, generalizing explanation, but given the time and space, I’m pretty sure that I can lay out the parts and pieces of their overriding preoccupation.
But Exhibit A is embedded in Eric “Phenomenal” Simmons’ comments about bloggers. Well, not about bloggers specifically but his overarching need to discredit those folks on the Internet as irrelevant post-adolescents with nothing but heresy to talk about. His comments are pure demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of his CLC audience to warn them away from ideas: ideas he cannot compete with.
The mindset of fear is endemic within the Sovereign Grace Ministries’ culture.
Exhibit B is their history. Long before SGM was… SGM, they were GOB and PDI/CLC. Their foray into shepherding is part and parcel of the same preoccupation: who is authorized to be in charge, and preach, and arbitrate God stuff. CJ and Larry Tomczak, et al were authoritarian LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG before they read Piper, and Spurgeon, and Packer.
Exhibit C is how they use the doctrines of Reformed Theology. I want to expand on this last point so I need to illustrate some Sovereign Grace Ministries algebra.
“watch your life and your doctrine” = mentally reflecting + Good Theology = Sound Doctrine = a specific Theological system = Orthodoxy = Authentic Christianity.
Orthodoxy = Reformed Theology
Ergo
Authentic Christianity = Reformed Theology
AND
Reformed Theology = Calvinism
With me so far? Okay… good.
Now I need to add the last part of the SGM equation.
Passioned Orthodoxy = PDI Passion + Orthodoxy
The last part of the equation is most important to your original question “How can SGM claim to be REFORMED when they really don’t adhere to the totality of REFORMED TRADITION?”
See, Sovereign Grace Ministries wants to play both sides of the intellectual fence. They use “Reformed Theology” to deflect criticism. Object to the content of their doctrine and they immediately say, “But we are Orthodox, how can you object? We believe what all right-thinking historic Christians have always believed. How can you object to what Paul himself preached ‘Christ and him crucified’?” Upon criticism, the critic places himself unsound doctrine camp eliminating his disparagement from consideration.
But as PDI/CLC were making the transition from the charismatic-ish movement to the Reformed Tradition, they ran square into their first and second departure from Orthodox teaching. Reformed doctrine is the home of cessationist teaching… meaning the gifts of the spirit–tongues, healing, et al.–passed away. Many of the churches of the reformed tradition prohibited music and musical instruments from worship.
What to do? We are a bunch of ’60s throwbacks that like to jump around at a rock concert in our tie dyes. Bob Kauflin isn’t going to stop playing the electric piano. And we’re not going to suddenly disavow speaking in tongues for the last 20 years.
How do we justify departures from the very orthodoxy that we use to validate our doctrine?
Well… in reality, they just ignore the implications. But their PR machine went into full gear and decided their doctrinal deviations were the product of Passion. Well… who can argue with that?
Their use of Reformed Theology is a smokescreen to insulate themselves from criticism of the content of their practice. Their deviations from the Reformed Tradition are justified as modern expressions of their unique Sovereign Grace Ministries passion.
As for their use of Calvinism … well … if there was ever a body of teaching that absolved a man of the outcomes of his doctrine … this is it. If you pray for the sick and folks don’t get well, what is the reason? God is sovereign. Ergo, the content of your life is the product of Divine will. You preach endlessly that folks should not sin but yet they do. This is living proof of the doctrine of Pervasive Depravity. You pray for the unbeliever to get saved but yet they don’t respond. That is a function of Limited Atonement. You preach the hard truth of the Gospel, but folks leave your church and call you a cult. No mystery here, this is the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints in action. If one cannot persevere in the hard truth, those who leave are living God’s necessarily appointed deception.
As a pastor, how can you be held accountable to ANY outcome within the body? Logically, you can’t and practically you won’t because the doctrine exempts outcomes from your preview.
As for their polity … in practice, SGM are papists. Charles Joseph is the Vicar.
Hey Concerned,
No… you are not losing your mind. Calvinism is at a polar opposite to the broader body of Charismatic thought.
My comments weren’t really designed to address the disparity. Your original questions were about polity, the nature of Reformed Theology, and Sovereign Grace Ministries’ use of Calvinism.
But I do understand the frustration you have. Part of the problem is Charismatic thought has really never had an academic body or a formal doctrinal statement to give it a certain form. The reason for this is twofold. Most Charismatic/Pentecostal/word of faith churches are started by men who think themselves called and so they put out a shingle. Just like in my random quote … Ed Deufresne says: “God didn’t call me cause I’m eloquent, he called me cause I was available.” Ed’s commentary is axiomatic of most Charismatic style church leaders. They didn’t come into Christianity through seminary. They came into Christianity because God worked in their heart and said, “I pick you… go preach.” That coupled with a profound anti-intellectual undercurrent in the charismatic churches, most intellectuals are left with little place to participate in the Body.
So they go where they are appreciated, the American scholastic tradition that is predominantly Reformed Theology, unless you want to become Catholic… But that whole celibacy thing puts a damper on most men’s interest in Catholic doctrine.
Reformation Theology was born in an age where EVERYTHING was an academic and scholastic preoccupation. Luther’s famous or infamous thesis was called Disputation Against Scholastic Theology. The body of academic thought that has been developed over the last 500 years is an almost insurmountable body of thought for some good ol boys from BFE to have to address.
Add to the academic body of thought the vaunted title of “Orthodoxy,” and who can argue the content of thought without being dismissed as a heretic?
Most intellectuals just decide that if it was good enough for everybody else to believe, who am I to say otherwise? Viva la Reformation!
As for the theological house of cards… I’d like to offer this thought. You have just come from a group of people where EVERYTHING is a doctrinal statement filtered through a very specific theological system. You have learned patterns of thinking that will take a while to unravel. Give yourself some time and as I said before… go read the Red and pray for power. Just go see how Jesus did what he did and said and let your mind soak of those details and don’t worry about much else. It really isn’t as vaporous as it seems right now. The certainties and affirmations really are there. God will get them to you. Truth has a profound capacity to bear itself out regardless of doctrinal pedigree.
John, there is a “Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research,” which publishes peer-reviewed articles:
http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/
The website lists a number of C/P academic groups:
http://www.pctii.org/academic.html
So, the C/P world is not as anti-intellectual as it may seem.
Hey Keepinstep… thanks for the links. I’m always interested in good resources and places of interest.
The anti-intellectualism I’m talking about… is inside the walls of the local congregations. I know there are thinking folk—like yourself—out there. What I am identifying is the attitude of the local church. Modern American Chariscostal piety has been hijacked by a bunch of bible school dropouts who openly disparage thinking man’s Christianity.
I contend that the mavens of Chariscostal thinking haven’t done a good job penetrating the hearts and minds of the folk of like faith, nor have they/we successfully entered into the mainstream of academic or intellectual conversation. Some of that has to do with the fact that there aren’t many of us… and the other part is directly related to what you said on the Refuge: “I’d rather be out praying for the sick than talking about it.” That does seem to be the more expedient path, because it seems like the proof would be success of the healing/miraculous. But the manifestations of the Spirit don’t penetrate the very detailed thinking of theological constructs like Calvinism as proof of the Truth.
There is an entire segment of American Christianity that will never be reached with the message of the Spirit of God on human flesh to remove burdens and destroy yokes, baptize with fire, and confer access to the Blessing of Abraham, by some good ol’ boys from Texas and Louisiana no matter how long they’re on TV and how expensive their suits.
Chariscostal mavens and apologists need to enter the fray and do the job that mavens and apologists have always done: affect mass public opinion. The measure of that success will be apparent when local Chariscostal churches work hard to keep their intellectual capital as part of the body … not chase them out because they’re possessed of the spirit of intellectualism.
Hi John, et al,
Great site! I am really enjoying reading.
I do need clarification, especially in light of my giveaway blogname.
When you say “read the Red,” I assume you mean the words of Christ in red in scripture, yes? In your opinion, are these words of greater import than the rest of the Word? Would there be something in the words of Jesus that would contradict, say, David’s in the Psalms, or Timothy’s?
Thanks for the help.
John, good points about the “CharisCostal” church.
I think the best answer to perplexity about the lack of an intellectual tradition in C/P comes from scripture itself.
Paul, perhaps the greatest intellectual converted to Christ in the early centuries, apparently believed that his intellectualism did not assist him in spreading the gospel and building churches. The three times in Acts that he testified before rulers, he gave his personal testimony of being saved through the vision of the risen Jesus, not lofty statements.
When he spoke with Sergius Paulus (Acts 13), “an intelligent man,” the thing that made Sergius accept Christ was the miraculous sign of Elymas being blinded: “When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.”
The one time we’re told of Paul’s standing before intellectuals (on Mars Hill), however, he gave an “intellectual” message, and wasn’t very effective.
He also did not try to go toe-to-toe with the silver-tongued “super apostles,” preferring a simple gospel presentation, with demonstrations of God’s power, to wise words. (1 Cor 4)
His most intellectually rigorous letter, Romans, appears to draw, for its inspiration, mostly upon the direct revelation of the Spirit being given to the apostles and prophets of his generation (the “all things” Jesus promised in the Upper Room). He combined that with deep personal insights into the mind and spirit, which he derived not from philosophy or psychology texts but, again, from the direct revelation of the Spirit upon his intellect.
He also stated that the foolishness of the gospel caused most, but not all, intellectuals to reject it: “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” became believers (1 Cor 1:26). I think that is why the overwhelming majority of Christians have always been rather simple folk, and why intellectuals find it so difficult to believe and to flourish in the Church.
Finally, I love this: Jesus agreed with Paul’s emphasis on demonstrations of the Spirit’s power – not intellectual arguments – to provide the most authoritative witness of the gospel!
Jesus told both the Word-focused Pharisees, and the unschooled disciples, to look to his miracles as final evidence of his being Messiah:
to the Pharisees he said:
“I told you [I am the Christ], and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me….though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (Jn 10)
to the Twelve he said:
“The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.” (Jn 14)
So, in the New Testament, the gospel of Jesus was authenticated as genuine not by persuasive words (as we do today), but by unmistakable demonstrations of the Spirit’s power that resulted in conversions, healings, deliverance from the devil’s grip.
Even in explaining the deep things of God, the writers deferred to the revelation of the Spirit, working together with the redeemed intellect of Man, rather than build intellectual castles or cite other (non-scriptural) authorities.
It’s said of Thomas Aquinas that, late in life after writing his Summa Theologica, he had direct revelations of Christ. These revelation affected him so deeply, he told his assistant that everything he had written was “straw.” He was moved increasingly to silence, as revelation-meditation overcame intellectual activity.
Woohooo…! Reformed Teacher in the house!
Sorry… I had to keep with the 24-year-old blogger image…
Anyway… to answer your question, “Read the Red” does indeed refer to the red-letter edition bibles…
As for importance… uh… my reason for advocating his words wasn’t about importance in my mind. But since we are on the subject, I’ll say that since Jesus is the fulfillment of what came before and the foundation of what came after … I suppose that qualifies his commentary as more important.
The “read the Red” part isn’t advocating ignoring what comes before and after his words, its just a simplistic way of saying specifically read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as source for how God thinks and acts. We are all familiar with Jesus’ assertion that everything he did was the product of his Father’s direction. Therefore, in my pea brain, it seems reasonable to believe that this is the easiest way to see the heart of God in action and the Kingdom of God expressed.
I advocated that to Concerned because in the middle of the whole Theological big deal related to SGM, sometimes it’s all to easy to lose sight of specifically that: the heart of God in action and the Kingdom of God expressed.
Reformed Teacher said: “Would there be something in the words of Jesus that would contradict, say, David’s in the Psalms, or Timothy’s?”
Actually, I’d advocate that the better question might be “Is there something in the rest of the Word that might contradict Jesus’?” But that’s just me. It’s all about the Anointed Jesus… so the starting hermeneutic is the Anointed Jesus. As for contradictions…. mmmm… since I haven’t talked about contradictions, I’m not sure how to comment.
Glad your out there, Reformed Teacher. Love your comments on http://www.sgmsurviors.com and on http://www.sgmrefuge.com
Keepinstep…
“Paul, perhaps the greatest intellectual converted to Christ in the early centuries, apparently believed that his intellectualism did not assist him in spreading the gospel and building churches. The three times in Acts that he testified before rulers, he gave his personal testimony of being saved through the vision of the risen Jesus, not lofty statements.”
This is sooo true… The power of the Gospel of the Anointed Jesus is not the product of thinking. As Paul’s efforts on Mars Hill illustrate. Amen and so be it…. ; ).
However, think on this. While it is true that Jesus demonstrated his Anointing and the Kingdom of God, he was also able to answer his detractors. We don’t hear the intellectual side of his argument because most people don’t know enough of the Mishna and the historic Midrash to hear how Jesus was addressing his contemporary Theological issues.
(For you silent readers who want more info on what I just said I highly recommend the Jerusalem Perspective and just about anything David Biven writes or recommends.)
And while, as you pointed out, Paul didn’t lead with slick arguments to persuade he did have the ability to answer his intellectual detractors. And look at the legacy. Paul is among the top five most influential thinkers in the Western World. Paul is what I would call a maven: a man who can demonstrate and articulate his body of ideas.
I have as little interest as you do in pointy headed academic debates for the sake of themselves. I have my share of THD and MDIV friends and could sit about and splice up greek roots until we all wanna puke.
Keepinstep—“Finally, I love this: Jesus agreed with Paul’s emphasis on demonstrations of the Spirit’s power – not intellectual arguments – to provide the most authoritative witness of the gospel!”
Yeah baby yeah!
I agree, John! (NOT with the pea brain part, though!!!)
When I am confused about anything, I go back to reading Jesus’ words and they just calm me down.
Julie,
You sure know how to sniff out SGM’s distinct flavor of BS in the blogosphere.
You have a gift.
And, I don’t know which one is worse. The date night piece was priceless. The man gets to decide what will be discussed, huh?
And the open questions for egalitarians? Women and children first like when the Titanic sank? WTH, revisionist history, it was survival of the richest. The women and children in steerage has little chance of survival.
Give these clowns enough bandwidth and they will be hanged with their own words.
Exactly, DB! Especially when the third class gates were locked and guarded.
John, thanks for your answers and ecnoruagement. I am trying not to piece together so many of hte answers anymore. I just want Jesus. So your exhortation ot read the Red was exactly what I needed to hear.
I’m going ot sit at His feet to get any answers He may give, but I am no longer going to go stirring the pot unless He tells me to, and not worry about tomorrow (or answers)
anyway, thanks as always for your pointing me to Christ.
You are very welcome… And for all the mess at the moment … trust me… you will be OK. The answers, the wisdom, the understanding you want and need will come to you.
So peace.
Be blessed, free, and whole
I guess I’m one of those point head guys that make arguments….. I adore Summa, whenever I have a tough question it is the first resource I turn to. It quite commonly opens the gateway to the church fathers.
That being said…. I think experiential religion is vital. I don’t see a conflict between them anymore than running and doing math conflict. One can compute properties of jogging but that doesn’t provide any exercise and one can run to a math class but the running doesn’t teach anything about math.
As for Paul not being an intellectual I’d dispute that strongly. What Paul was not however was a philosopher he was a theologian. He could argue from within a system but not abstractly. It was left to the 2nd century Christians to argue outside the system.
Churches, particularly protestant churches are impoverished from their lack of mysticism and spirituality. This was the point on Jim’s blog. Experience God, believe theology don’t try and experience theology.
Mysticism and spiritualism are terms that need defining, I fear when those are words people conjure up various perspectives and understandings. So I’d rather not even address those terms unless I understand where someone is coming from. As for Summa, never heard of it.
Myself, I turn to God in prayer and HIs Word when I come across questions I have. That, and creation, offer all the answers I need. (Romans 1,2 has been a tremendous help to me in this regard)
I think churches are improverished not because of their lack of mysticism and spirituality (however defined) but because of their lack of personal faith, it’s that simple to me. When you don’t have personal faith, church is just religion and practice. Works stemming from everything BUT faith. And so there is no saving faith.
Hey CD—
I love the way you think…. I learn something every time I read something you’ve written.
“I guess I’m one of those point head guys that make arguments….. I adore Summa, whenever I have a tough question it is the first resource I turn to. It quite commonly opens the gateway to the church fathers.”
You know… I love what you love. I think God ideas are a riot. I love how humans think and why they arrive at those thoughts. I love finding out how others have solved the intellectual problems that have plagued men. I am unapologetic when I stand on the shoulders of giants. Man’s mind is a profound tool. I love exploiting the one I’ve been given.
But here is the thing. Most humans do not live their life out of their head. This is not a bad thing… it is just a fundamental reality of existence: some don’t have the time, some don’t have the inclination, some don’t have the ability. Fine and all right.
What ALL human beings do … uh… do is seek effective knowledge. I define effective knowledge as ideas that improve any pursuit in life. The light bulb, sliced bread, spaghetti sauce are all manifestations of effective knowledge. But someone had to do the thinking work to bring those things into existence.
Sitting around thinking pointy-headed thoughts is not the bad thing. Somebody had to think those thoughts when they decided to weigh the pros and cons of sliced bread. Somebody had to come to grips with the historic traditions of breaking bread. Someone had to decide if it was a serious cultural violation to cut bread with a knife. Then they had to extrapolate how that particular evolution of thought could be used to advance the palate of eaters in the castle.
But think of this. How about if the pointy-headed thing never left the ivory towers? What if scholars were still debating which knives were the most appropriate to cutting bread? Or if some 15th century thinker somehow managed to corner the market on which condiments could be added to the bread and titled it Mayo Orthodoxy? Why that is what everybody has always put on bread and to do anything else is … is… inconceivable. And think of the hue and cry of the Reformers as they sought to add some bacon, lettuce, and Tomato.
This is my criticism of the pointy-head pursuit, intellectual inquiry for the sake of itself is useless. Whatever the perfect doctrine for making the perfect sandwich might be those who think the thoughts have an obligation to teach others the reason for those thoughts … to improve their lives.
Sandwich mavens are those who master both sandwich-making with sandwich-teaching … to the masses.
Intellectuals/philosophers/theologians have the obligation to explain why some ideas are better than others—and more importantly, how they arrived at those conclusions—to show forth the effective knowledge that better people’s lives.
I think we are in agreement… This is not an either-or… this is a matter of emphasis and outcome. The endgame of Christianity has always been experiential religion. God has always been interested in thriving relationships with individuals, so individuals need to learn what it is to experience God. Some ideas in that pursuit are better than others. Some ideas are more effective than others. The only way to get those better ideas to the folk who will thrive with them is to come out of the tower and get on the street.
Hey all you readers … did you catch this in CD’s comment above? He is referring to an ongoing conversation here (you’ll have to read through the entire post to get the flavor of the issue) This statement is sooo true.
CD-Host said: “This was the point on Jim’s blog. Experience God, believe theology; don’t try and experience theology.”
I absolutely love this.