Joel Willits over at Euangelion had an interesting post yesterday regarding the presence of God and charismatic theology. I was simply going to leave a comment, but it was going to be too long, hence this post. He starts by asking the question: “How much of the modern charismatic movement’s stress on the ‘tangible presence’ of God in the form of signs, wonders and individual manifestations is the result of a non-sacramental theology?”
For those who aren’t familiar with the term “sacramental theology,” Dr Willits is referring to those Christian traditions who believe that Christ is, in some sense, present in the sacraments (Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, and Anglican- though they all nuance it differently). There should probably be more to this definition, but for the sake of this discussion we’ll start with that. He observes that charismatic churches tend not to emphasize the sacraments in terms of Christ’s presence, and I think he’s probably right. Most charismatic/pentecostal churches tend to be “non-sacramental,” along with Baptists and a few other groups (Nazarenes?, Congregationalists?, not sure).
He also relays a conversation he had with a friend who is part of a “supernatural boot camp” (Willits’ term). This friend expressed a desire to feel the presence of God and experience intimacy with God, giving a couple examples of this happening, such as feeling a warm sensation in his hands.
I encourage you to read Willits’ entire post, because he discusses a couple other things that provoke good thought, but I wanted to focus on his original question: is the desire to experience the presence of God a result of a non-sacramental theology?
There are probably a number of factors that are at work in the desire for the tangible presence of God, some good and some bad. Some have a desire for something new or cool. Some have seen the faithful lives of those who seek after these things and want whatever it is that those people have experienced. And, as Willits suggests, they may be seeking the tangible presence of God because they don’t have any other room in their theology to have that experience (that is, being non-sacramental).
But I think there is something more crucial here that Willits does not mention, and does not crop up in the comments (at least not yet). Once again, I appeal to what Gordon Fee has emphasized on many occasions: in the earliest churches, the Holy Spirit was an experienced reality. Many of us charismatics read 1 Corinthians 12-14, Galatians 3 and the entire book of Acts and note there was something about the presence of the Spirit that manifested itself in the community, and, with maybe a couple exceptions (Acts 2:42?), those passages are not connected with sacraments (or ordinances, as my inner Baptist prefers to call them). That, of course, doesn’t mean that those holding to a more sacramental theology are wrong to do so (they do have biblical justification in the gospels); it simply means that the presence of God can be manifested apart from them.
To be sure, charismatics hardly have the monopoly on experiencing the presence of God. I’ve written a bit about this before. Needless to say, a warm feeling in the hands may indeed be from God, but it most certainly does not exhaust what the NT has to say about God’s presence through the indwelling Holy Spirit. In fact, I’d say it barely touches on the amazing things we see in Scripture. My point here, though, is simply to note that there is a biblical and theological justification for the charismatic’s desire to “feel the presence of God,” even if that can be awfully hard to define.
bmarchio
danny
Interesting post.
Do you think the charismatic desire to “feel the presence of God” supersedes “sacramental theology”, visa versa, or are both – in your opinion – equally legitimate expressions of the “presence of God”?
Hi Derek, thanks so much for commenting. You ask a good question, and my answer will obviously be colored by my theology. I’m very Zwinglian in my understanding of the sacraments, specifically the Lord’s Supper. Thus, I don’t place any special presence of God in the Lord’s Supper, at least no more so than other times. Brian, my co-blogger, may disagree with me here, so he might chime in. I don’t want to get into a sacramental debate here, and I haven’t done any reading on it in a few years, to be honest.
But I want to stress that “feeling the presence of God” is not the point, and I think that desire has distracted the church, specifically charismatics, from the whole purpose of being “charismatic.” This is what I try to get at in the post I link to in the final paragraph.
So, the presence of God is not tied to a feeling, nor (in my opinion) is it specifically tied to the sacraments. The presence of God is the indwelling Holy Spirit, who is an experienced reality of the church (again, stealing from Fee). I think those who hold to a special presence of God in the sacraments de-emphasize the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer and the believing community. That, of course, is my opinion and I don’t state it too strongly.
I’m not sure I understand what a sacrament even is, but it seems to me that there are either a lot more of them than most people who talk about sacraments would include, or there’s really no such thing.
First of all, there is a distinct difference between Charismatics and Pentecostals. Gordon Fee, by the way, is a Pentecostal I believe. I think you will find Pentecostals more Bilbically centered while Charismatics (I know I am generalizing) are more revelation-oriented. So, you probably see why I tend to reject the Charismatic doctrines in favor of a more Pentecostal one. There are several of us Pentecostals and scads of Charismatics (i.e. Sovereign Grace ministries (Mahaney) here in the U.S.A; Frontier Ministries (Adrian Warnock) in the UK) that are either tending toward the Reformation side or are very much Calvinistic Charismatics. And the sacraments are probably much more meaningful to these than to the regular Pentecostals/Charismatics.
I always thought the difference was that Pentecostals derive from churches that originated with the 1906 Azusa Street Revival, and charismatics have pretty much the same range of beliefs and practices but stem from mainline churches that have a charismatic movement within the church (or have split off to form a separate church). Newer churches that form that don’t specifically come from the Azusa tradition usually call themselves charismatic.
A brief look at the Wikipedia entry on Pentecostalism (which has a section on the charismatic movement) suggests that I’m not far off.
Hey guys, thanks for commenting. Sure, there’s a difference between Pentecostal and Charismatic, though I’m not sure it matters too much for the discussion in this post (sacraments).
As for the difference, I suppose you can look at it historically or theologically, and those overlap. Historically, Jeremy’s right: Pentecostals are more tied to the Asuza St Revivial, and Charmismatics tend to pop up in various denominations, though if you accept Peter Wagner’s “Three Waves” breakdown, the third wave (or the 2nd wave of charismatics) would be less likely to be found in mainline denominations.
Theologically, I would say that Charismatics and Pentecostals differ on two major points: the baptism of the Spirit and the sign of tongues. Classical Pentecostalism would argue that a person does not receive the Spirit at conversion (or something along those lines), but in a “baptism of the Spirit,” which manifests itself in the gift of tongues. Charismatics (especially Third Wavers, the category I’d probably belong to if we want to speak in these terms) would be less likely to use the term “baptism in the Spirit” (though some still do), believing that a person fully receives the Spirit at conversion, but may have multiple “experiences.” Tongues may be given, but not necessarily; other gifts are emphasized more.
So, naturally I’d disagree with Diane’s statement that Pentecostals are more biblically centered. After all, I’d say that the Charismatics provide a much needed corrective precisely in those areas of distinction. But that’s what makes me a Charismatic and not a Pentecostal, so I expect a Pentecostal to disagree.
It interesting you bring up Fee, who is a self-proclaimed Pentecostal, because he, on these matters, would disagree with Pentecostalism. So if we were to define the movements purely theologically, he probably wouldn’t be considered Pentecostal.
Anyway, in reality, all of this becomes muddled. The groups can become so mixed, so I actually don’t worry too much about it all.
Well said Danny.
One thought of correction if I may (though it is highly incidental):
You comment that “Classical Pentecostalism would argue that a person does not receive the Spirit at conversion (or something along those lines), but in a “baptism of the Spirit,” which manifests itself in the gift of tongue”
You are half correct. Pentecostals believe in two receptions of the Spirit. 1. When someone gets saved. 2. When they are “Baptised” – the second is evidenced by the Tongues.
Hi Derek. I’m not sure that what you’re describing is true of Classical Pentecostalism, but I could be wrong. I think most Pentecostals today would agree with what you wrote, but I don’t think that was the position back when Pentecostalism got its start. Again, I could be wrong on this, and I don’t have time at the moment to look up the sources. At any rate, I’ve known a few Pentecostals who would say you can be a believer without having the Spirit, like the Ephesians at the beginning of Acts 19 who haven’t received the Spirit though they’ve been baptized (I don’t agree with this position).
[…] want to be clear. I’m not down on the so-called ‘sacraments,’ or as I state here, my inner Baptist prefers to use the term ‘ordinance.’ In fact, I’d argue […]