During those years, a radio preacher got interested in the theories of Social Credit. He lobbied the government to adopt these policies, but when rebuffed formed the Social Credit party and became Premier of the province in 1935. He was Premier for eight years, but died suddenly, to be replaced by his right hand man.

The preacher’s name was William Aberhart. He was a complicated individual, very insecure as a person in some ways, and very eclectic in his theology, although we would probably think of him as basically orthodox.

When I say eclectic, I mean that he would pick up new theology as he went along, becoming an enthusiast for some new quirk as it came to his attention. He mostly served as a lay preacher, but at one point he led a Baptist church in Calgary to designate him as its “apostle”. Under him, there served a pastor, but he was the “apostle.”

What do you think of that?

What do you think of anyone today who would have such an office?

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit… odd?

Apparently it doesn’t strike some people as odd. Consider this:

Our polity stands upon three principles: plurality among elders, the senior pastor, and partnership with apostolic ministry. We practice plurality of church leadership for the simple but compelling reason that the churches represented in the New Testament were governed by more than one leader. We call this plurality “team ministry.” It is the strength and unity of team ministry that provide the foundation from which elders serve the church and stand accountable for their lives and doctrine. The role of senior pastor is based upon the foundation of plurality, which prevents a drift towards autocracy. The Old Testament offers a gallery of names that remind us of God’s practice of using one to influence many. In the gospels, we are told that Christ chose the Twelve, but ordained Peter to fill a uniquely prominent role. In New Testament times, the Jewish synagogues were ruled by a council of elders, but each council had a chairman, or “ruler of the synagogue.” In like manner, Paul led a growing team of apostolic men. In the Trinity there is a head, in the church there is a head, and in the home there is a head. These examples, and many others, illustrate the notion that biblical leadership, though shared, is most frequently organized and facilitated by a central figure. The senior pastor is therefore called to build a team, not a personal ministry. His effectiveness should be measured by the maturity of his plurality. With regard to the principle of apostolic ministry, we want to be clear that the men identified as apostles within ________ _______ ________ are understood by all to hold a position decidedly and radically inferior to that of the original twelve Apostles. But the label is retained because Scripture appears to offer another type of apostle – one that neither writes Scripture, nor is counted among the twelve. In fact, there appear to be at least eight others, apart from Paul himself, who graced the pages of the New Testament in apostolic ministry. In our view, apostolic ministry can exist today without comparing its authority or impact to Paul or the twelve. Briefly stated, the role of the apostle is to ensure that the gospel is preached and applied in the daily life of the church. Concentrating attention on the writings of Luke and Paul, one might conclude that apostles are devoted to church planting, being set apart for the gospel and sent forth with the gospel, that they might protect the gospel and build with the gospel. They are called to serve churches as spiritual fathers, with primary responsibility during a formative season in a local church (much as earthly fathers do with the formative years of their children), a pattern that eventually transforms into a partnership with mature local churches. [emphasis added]

What do you think about that?

This is another aspect of Sovereign Grace Ministries and C. J. Mahaney that I find astonishing and disturbing, besides the tongues and prophecy.¹

Why would conservative evangelicals, much less fundamentalists, want to enter into ministry partnership with … “apostles”?

1. Section of web page quoted is about half-way down, under the question, “How do you govern your churches?”

There is another kind of push for emotionalism that finds expression in terms like these, “intensely”, “intentional”, “relentless”, “passionate”, “saturated.”

What drives this desire for experience? I am not advocating that we become as expressionless as Heimie the robot on the old Get Smart series (my all-time favorite which seriously dates me…), but why do we see such a desire for emotion in religion? Has it always been this way?

If we look back in history, we see the rise of charismatism since the 1970s, the Pentecostal movement in the 60 years preceding that, the camp-meeting/revivalist emphasis (especially rural) in the 19th century, and the Pietist movement before that. I wonder if what we are seeing today is an increase in the desire for experience or if it is the norm. I wonder if it is the product of popular culture: music, movies, television, video games, etc. or if it is simply the natural expression of most humans (stick-in-the-muds like me as exceptions).

I wonder if it is good or bad. I kinda think bad, but, then, maybe that’s just me.

I  have never heard of this church or this pastor heretofore. I don’t know how the pastor or church would classify themselves in the ecclesiastical spectrum.

Here is the blurb that accompanies the first message:

If ever there were a jewel of gold in a pig’s snout, charismatic Calvinism is it. What should be a humorous and ridiculous oxymoron, “charismatic Calvinist,” is now a nauseating and repugnant reality. Charismatic Calvinists open the door for false teaching in the Calvinist church; they blemish the reputation of orthodox Calvinists; they expect legitimacy, thinking that their claim to be Calvinists insulates them from the charge of heterodoxy; they denigrate the primary work of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification, ultimately denying the scripture that affirms “of His fulness have we all received”; they inherently and unavoidably align themselves with the most despicable charletains of contemporary fundamentalism; they create a false expectation of sensational spiritual experience for young and naive believers; they are apparently unsatisfied and unsatiated with the primary work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification; they have pirated and defamed the phrase “sovereign grace”; and they are an embarrassment and an annoyance.

I have listened to the first message. I heartily recommend it. I plan to listen to the rest. I hope you will take them in as well.

Pastor Brunson shows more clarity and courage than many wishy-washy Calvinists who talk nice about the Charismatic Calvinist false teachers.

Charismatic Calvinists, Part 1

Charismatic Calvinists, Part 2

Charismatic Calvinists, Part 3

The Most Dangerous Verses in the Bible

Charismatic Calvinists, Part 5

~~~

In the article, he commented on the music at the Together for the Gospel conference he had attended earlier in the year. Among other things he said this:

Although every hymn choice for that conference was in and of itself conservative, and although the accompaniment was simple in theory, a completely different underlying philosophy bled through. The leader of the singing, who led from the piano, was a master at emotional manipulation stimulation. How he accompanied the hymns moved and swayed the audience in certain emotional directions. He constantly shouted out unintelligible exclamations that further roused the audience. And the audience did respond. Hands waving in the air, enthusiastic shouting, vigorous singing, and even some jumping around.

I would recommend you read Scott’s entire article. There is some discussion following, but the article is the main thing. Now, I don’t have the time, the $$$, nor the interest to attend such conferences. I didn’t really have a full picture of what Scott was describing, but I had an idea what it was like. Now you can get a sense of exactly what Scott is describing…

Yes, Together for the Gospel Live! is about to be released. You can listen to clips of some of the singing at the conference. You can even download three of the songs free. That should be more than enough to understand the scene Scott describes here, and analyzes further on his blog.

A few comments from me… not a musician, but a pastor with a desire to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

I think the musician who lead the music in this conference is a sincere Christian man, but badly misguided by false theology (charismatism) and a worldly philosophy of music. (To examine his musical philosophy further, simply check out some of the other Sovereign Grace offerings.)

I think Scott’s word ‘manipulation’ is the correct assessment here. (He has it as a ‘strikethrough’ font on his blog, I can’t seem to produce that on mine…. I underlined it for you.) There seems to be something of emotional self-indulgence in the musical style… both in the piano accompaniment and the ‘unintelligible shouting’ as Scott describes it. There also seems to be a disconnect between the actual tunes sung by the congregation and the accompaniment – a little dissonance for a real pomo feel, eh? It seems that the instrumental accompaniment does not match what the men (mostly men it sounds like) are singing, especially on the more familiar and older pieces.

Speaking of disconnects… What is it with Fundamentalists making a regular practice of attending these meetings? How does this really further their own ministries and the cause of Christ? Should we affirm the goals of the ‘Togetherness Boys’ as fundamentalists? Is the music of SG ministries the direction we want our people heading? If we consistently support ‘Togetherness Gatherings’ won’t our people be open to the musical offerings produced? Is this really where we want to head?

See my earlier articles on Bauder’s lectures. If there is a significant difference between us and the Conservative Evangelicals, shouldn’t there also be a significant distance?

Perhaps the difference isn’t as significant as some would have us believe? Or is it?

It’s all very confusing.

First, consider this lifestyles article from the lakecountrycalendar.com, Keepers of the sacred. The article discusses the decline in Canadian church attendance, among other things. The article comes to no real conclusion, certainly to no conclusion satisfying to me, but it does contain a telling observation concerning the focus of affection in Canadian hearts:

In Canada, the fastest growing religion is “none.” Fifty years ago, less than two per cent of census returns indicated “no religion.” Today, 17 per cent do nationally; in B.C., 35 per cent.

A quotation often attributed to British author G. K. Chesterton says “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they’ll believe in anything.”

So other things become “sacred.”

Lottery sales suggest that many transfer their faith to the almighty dollar. The volume and content of spam e-mail suggests that vast numbers now worship at the altar of sex. A significant number have raised nature to the status of god.

Meanwhile, church membership has plunged.

The exchange of the truth about God for the lie of the lottery, sex, or any number of other demi-gods is well established in secular society. I was thinking of this the other day and realized that the reason society has so many different gods is that no one of them can satisfy like the One True God. Instead, men and women pursue the little satisfactions that can be hand from the hand of many little gods like lottery and sex as mentioned here, but also including things like glamour, status, worldly prestige, sports (it’s Stanley Cup time here, and the hockey god provides much short-term satisfaction … to a point). The list of little gods is endless.

Scott Aniol addresses the notion of idolatry a little differently, instead of making observations about a secular culture, he makes a comparison of religious cultures in a piece called Leading Music at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory. Some will no doubt be quite critical of Scott’s analysis, but rather than self-righteous self-justification, critics would probably be better to echo the disciples at the last supper and their anguished questions, “Is it I?”

Scott makes this observation near the end of his piece:

The saddest moment for me at that conference was when a good friend of mine, who grew up in conservative churches, told me that he loves the more contemporary style because he’s never worshiped better. We conservatives often get charged with idolizing certain styles of music, but I would suggest that comments like this reveal the real idolizing – people can’t experience what they believe to be worship without that kind of music.

Christians have idols too, you know.

How do you know whether you are idolizing something? When you demand certain feelings instead of walking by faith. When people enter a small Bible-preaching church, for example, they can’t expect the inspiring sound of a swelling choir. But by faith they can worship God in the small Bible-preaching church just as well as they can in the large Bible-preaching church. Why? Because we walk by faith, not by sight. Right? Right???

It seems to me that the animus behind charismatism is a kind of sanitized and Christianized idolatry – I want my feeling so that I can feel I have worshipped God. This desire for feeling infects all kinds of churches, from the charismatic movement to the most right wing fundamentalist independent Baptist with, say, stirring-emotion-manipulating evangelists and story-telling preachers and so on.

Please don’t misunderstand: I am not advocating boring for boring’s sake, but we have to get beyond the need to ‘feel like I’ve worshipped’. We need to worship God in spirit and in truth. This involves faith.

Scott concludes with this line:

The fact of the matter is that the only certain evidence of true affection is holy living. The external feelings may or may not accompany affection, and the feelings can be stimulated apart from affection. Feelings are not certain evidence that affection is present. So the only way to know for sure that someone is rightly responding to truth is by their life, not by the external “enthusiasm.”

I think Scott is right on on these points. You would do well to make his blog a regular stop on your internet pathway.

Many of the terms used in the debate are seen as political framing: terms used to validate one’s own stance while invalidating the opposition’s. For example, the labels “pro-choice” and “pro-life” imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty and freedom, while suggesting that the opposition must be “anti-choice” or “anti-life” (alternatively “pro-coercion” or “pro-death”). Such terms gloss over the underlying issue of which choice or life is being considered and whose choice or what kind of life is deemed most important.[1]

But my topic tonight isn’t what you might suspect. What I want to talk about are these terms: “cessationist” and “non-cessationist”. Here is my question: who is ‘framing’ whom with these terms? Where did they come from and what is the purpose of this terminology?

I don’t have the resources to study the history of the term, but in doing a little searching on the question, I came across this comment on a blog:

The term “cessationist” is, admittedly, loaded. … The term, on its own, is negative. Concerning the much vexed debates about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, “cessationist” gives the impression of what one is against.

I suspect that the terminology is rooted in the increasing acceptability of the charismatic position within evangelicalism. The terms seem to raise the level of discussion from controversy to scholarly debate.

As I understand the history, there was really little controversy until the Asuza Street revival in the early 1900s and the subsequent explosion of Pentecostal doctrines. Pentecostalists were on the ‘outside fringes’ of the evangelical world because their practices were considered a little … weird. [At least, this is my memory of things as I was growing up in the 60s and 70s.]

The Charismatic renewal was a phenomenon of the 1970s, something that made national newscasts as Pentecostal practices began to spread to many non-Pentecostal denominations.

Now we hear the terms, ‘cessationist’ and ‘non-cessationist’. My question: how is this better than calling them ‘charismatics’? If we accept the term ‘cessationist’ for ourselves, are we accepting their framing of the debate?

I am currently studying the writing and teaching of some charismatics. I am hoping to write a lengthy article on the subject sometime in the future. My thoughts for this post are a sort of ‘by the way’ observation. It does seem to me that it is a mistake to grant any ground in this debate, including the use of the terms ‘cessationist’ and ‘non-cessationist’.

[1] Abortion_debate. Reference.com. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Abortion_debate (accessed: May 13, 2008).