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 7A C7 Per1i""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"

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. Her doctor 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 have grave problems with the prosperity message and the positive confession movement. #uffering! as much as faith! is an integral part of the Christian life )1hil. 1+2-.. % also share the general disgust that most Christians have for those television evangelists who are simply money2grubbers. 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 alleged 5healings5 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 charismatic or 1entecostal movements that(s balanced! 4iblical! and mature. 'acArthur! moreover! rarely admits that the 1entecostal7charismatic movement 2 now over 899 million strong 2 has borne tremendous fruit for the "ingdom of *od. He simply does not permit himself to ac"nowledge positive contributions by this 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 everything he 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 4iblical viewpoints other than one(s own! or he believes that he has received some special revelation regarding what is the truth 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 was raised from the dead is hardly a national religious phenomenon. Consumer centered 5Christianity5 is!

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan < however! a ma=or problem for the church in the -9s )%% Tim. 8+<.. >inally! by way of introduction! 'acArthur doesn(t rebu"e charismatics as a person would rebu"e a member of one(s own family. The boo" reads li"e hostile fire shot by an outsider. The tone! as will be seen by the numerous pe=orative ad=ectives that 'acArthur uses to describe charismatics! is anything but familial or irenic. %t is one thing to have your child span"ed by your spouse. %t is $uite another thing to have your child span"ed by a stranger. Charismatics understandably react to being span"ed by someone who intentionally positions himself as a stranger and not as a 5dear friend! fellow wor"er... and ?brother@5 )1hilem. 1! 2.. I. Ar,uin, A,ain"t Stra8 Men Throughout this entire boo"! 'acArthur has chosen to e/aggerate the wea"nesses of the charismatic viewpoint by selecting e/amples of the worst or the wea"est of charismatic proponents rather than the best. :/amples of this techni$ue! fighting against the wea"est of his opponents! are too numerous to e/haustively catalogue )since this flaw repeatedly runs through the entirety of Charismatic Chaos.. However! % will! for the sa"e of fairness! mention =ust five e/amples to prove my point. A. :o ;in!er,arten Sun!ay Schoo& 1ateria&" *air&y re#re"ent the chari"1atic 1o<e1ent= %n his chapter titled! 5%s the *ift of Tongues for Today!5 'acArthur begins with a $uote from charismatic #unday school literature designed to teach "indergarten children to spea" in tongues. He writes! ?This literature designed for "indergarten children@ is titled 5%(ve been filled with the Holy #piritAAA5 and is an eight page coloring boo". Bne page has a caricature of a smiling weight2lifter with a T2shirt that says! 5#pirit 'an.5 nder him is printed 51 Corinthians 18+8 2 He that spea"s in an un"nown tongue builds himself up.5 Another page features a boy that loo"s li"e Howdy Coody with his hands lifted up. A dotted outline pictures where his lungs would be. )This evidently represents his spirit.. %nside the lung2shaped diagram is printed! 54ah2le odma ta lah2se ta no2mo.5 After describing this "indergarten boo" for children! 'acArthur summari6es his view of the matter saying! "That expresses the typical charismatic perspective" )emphasis added.. %t hardly needs stating that a comic boo" designed for children in "indergarten is not the best or most sophisticated theological thin"ing on a sub=ect. Bbviously! a thorough study of #unday school literature for "indergartners in noncharismatic churches might similarly find unsophisticated e/planations of a whole range of doctrines dear to most Christians. The only conceivable reason for using this "ind of e/ample is to portray charismatics as moronic. Dhy did he not! rather! tac"le more scholarly e/positions of the phenomenon of tongues by such people as Russell #pittler! *ordon >ee! Eillian 'cConald! or Eevin Ranaghan; %t certainly is not to 'acArthur(s credit to argue against #unday school material rather than serious scholarly wor". B. Are chari"1atic anti61e!icine= %n his chapter on healing titled 5Coes *od #till Heal;5 'acArthur opens with the tragedy of Hobart >reeman(s 5*lory 4arn.5 He describes >reeman(s e/treme belief that submitting to a doctor(s remedy was to e/pose oneself to demonic influence. He then mentions that over the years! 5at least ninety church members died as a result of ailments that would have been easily treatable5 )p. 1-8.. His use of >reeman as an opening e/ample seems to imply that >reeman is somehow representative of mainstream charismatic or 1entecostal teaching about healing. 'acArthur ought to "now that this is absolutely

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 8 untrue. %nstead of beginning his chapter with Hobart >reeman! )giving the impression that this is mainstream thin"ing in the charismatic movement. why not! rather! open with the more thoughtful proponents of divine healing such as &ohn Dimber! >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 1entecostal proponent of healing subscribes to the antimedicine views populari6ed by Hobart >reeman. %ndeed! >reeman(s severest critics have come from within the charismatic campA C. :o chari"1atic" +ui&! "hrine" to torti&&a"= %n his chapter titled 5Coes *od Co '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 one of 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 Ceptforth 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 the church(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 post2apostolic miracles. :. :o chari"1atic" !eny the authority o* Scri#ture= %n his chapter titled! 51rophets! >anatics! or Heretics;5 'acArthur goes beyond portraying charismatics as 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 1entecostal or charismatic movement spea" for itself! preferring rather to pretend that high views of #cripture(s authority are non2e/istent in the movement. He even asserts that 5charismatic celebrities barely even give lip service to 4iblical authority5 )p. 1F.. 1erhaps celebrities )% don(t "now to whom he is 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. <+1G21FH 1 Thess. 2+1<H 2 1eter 1+21..5 Noteworthy is the conservative belief in #cripture(s 5verbal inspiration.5 %ndeed! the Assemblies of *od church became the largest member church of the National Association of :vangelicals shortly after the NA:(s founding in 1-82. An Assemblies pastor was chosen president of the NA: in 1-I9. %ts conservative evangelical pedigree should thus be assured to all but the most suspicious critics. To preserve conformity with this #tatement of >aith and historic orthodo/y! the Assemblies of *od set up a Commission on Coctrinal 1urity to review possibly deviant teachings of individual ministries. %n e/amining the movement as a whole! Russell #pittler! a New Testament professor at >uller Theological #eminary and a recogni6ed scholar regarding 1entecostal spirituality! calls belief in the 4ible(s ultimate authority one of the most significant traits of 1entecostal and charismatic spirituality. &. Rodman Dilliams in the introduction of volume one of his Renewal Theology affirms 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. Cr. Dilliams is a credible voice for the charismatic point of view regarding the authority of the #cripture. He writes!

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 #piritH 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*od2breathed5 )which means 5*od #pirited5. or #pirit given! it is the same Holy #pirit at wor" in both #cripture and community. 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 of 1entecostal preaching. Hughes( first ma=or point is that true 1entecostal preaching centers on the Dord of *od. He states+ 1entecostals 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 1entecostalism has always been strict adherence! first and foremost! to the 4ible. >or one properly to understand the role of 1entecostal preaching! this basic first principle 2 the centrality of the Dord of *od 2 will have to be "ept in mind... >or 1entecostals today the Dord is central in all life practices 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 1entecostalism from any other perspective! is erroneous. Hughes goes on to state that 1entecostal preaching must always e/alt &esus Christ. He states that preaching that e/tols anything 5other than the grace manifested in the person and wor" of &esus Christ is not 1entecostal preaching no matter how it is labeled.5 E. :o chari"1atic" +e&ie<e 7>a##in,7 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! usually spea"ing in tongues. The term actually used by some charismatics is 56apped.5 %t accurately describes the way most charismatics view sanctification. 1eople 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 person would say! 5Dell! may &esus 6ap youA5 % have been around thousands of charismatics and 1entecostals in my life and % have never met anyone who has ever said! 5'ay &esus 6ap youA5 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 best proponents of post2salvation e/periences of the Holy #pirit such as Cr. 'artin 0loyd2&ones! C.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 non2tongue spea"ers. have believed in subse$uent e/periences of 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.

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan I 'acArthur further shows a profound ignorance of charismatic and 1entecostal doctrine when he suggests that 5the charismatic movement has flourished primarily because it promises a shortcut to spiritual maturity.... %s there really a short2cut 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 1entecostals teach regarding the 4aptism in the Holy #pirit. Dhile the holiness variety of 1entecostalism does teach a second definite wor" 2 a post2conversion cleansing e/perience that enhances personal holiness 2 these holiness churches do not call that the 54aptism in the Holy #pirit.5 :ven among 1entecostal holiness churches! the 4aptism in the Holy #pirit is provided not 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 1entecostals view sanctification along Reformed lines! progressing from conversion to death via traditional 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 #$uare *ospel! The Assemblies of *od churches! and The Bpen 4ible #tandard churches. This Reformed emphasis is also found in 3ineyard churches. %n sum! 'acArthur is really fighting a paper tiger when he suggests that 1entecostals or charismatics believe the 54aptism in the #pirit5 or spea"ing in tongues provides instant spirituality. 'ainstream 1entecostals and charismatics teach no such thing. :ven in popular boo"s of 1entecostal teaching! there is a clearly noted distinction between spiritual gifts and spiritual fruit. Jet 'acArthur is content to leave a false and misleading impression among those not familiar with 1entecostal and charismatic teaching. F. Why "hou&! MacArthur "to# *i,htin, "tra8 1en= 4ecause Charismatic Chaos is so severely marred by the techni$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$ue can be applied to modern fundamentalism of which 'acArthur is a representative and to Christianity in general. Bne would not have to search too hard to find fundamentalists who believe in an especially inspired Eing &ames 3ersion! a dictation theory of inspiration! or who have written fantastic boo"s of prophetic schemes regarding the 'iddle :ast! which have proven to be absolutely false. 0i"ewise! false and foolish statements from sincere nonfundamentalist Christians abound. Jet! it would be totally unfair to charge the best proponents of fundamentalism or Christianity with holding the views of their less sophisticated or educated brethren. 2. 4y arguing with the wea"est of your opponents! one proves absolutely nothing. Bne may appear to win! but the victory is false and hollow. The already convinced will applaud 'acArthur and than" him for his thoughtful analysis )p. 1<.! but more ob=ective observers watching the battle can rightly conclude that 'acArthur either did not understand his opponents( better arguments or did not have the ammunition to defeat them. <. 1erhaps most serious of all! arguing against straw men is unbefitting of a mature Christian. 'icah I+K says! 5He has shown you! B man! what is good. And what does the 0ord re$uire of you; To act =ustly and to love mercy and to wal" humbly with your *od.5 1inning a position to a Christian brother that he does not hold =ust to ma"e him loo" foolish )or to win a cheap victory. is not =ust! merciful! nor does it display humility before *od. After reading 'acArthur(s boo" it could be as"ed+ Dhat price such a 1yrrhic victory;

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan F II. The Ten!ency To ?"e Ne,ati<e @a+e&" 1erhaps the worst flaw in 'acArthur(s argumentative style is his tendency to label his opponents with e/cessively negative and pe=orative ad=ectives. 'acArthur wonders in his introduction why he has received such strident opposition to his boo"s from charismatics. He suggests! 5The 4iblical challenge is not to avoid truth that is controversial! but to spea" the truth in love ):ph. 8+1G.. % have endeavored to do that.5 %s this! indeed! true; Has 'acArthur endeavored! throughout his boo"! to 5spea" the truth in love;5 He goes on to say that 5most charismatics fall bac" on the all too easy defense that virtually every criti$ue of their movement is unfair and un"ind. Non2charismatics! intimidated by that accusation! are effectively silenced.5 1erhaps 'acArthur would understand why charismatics find it difficult to receive his message if he would go through his boo"! page by page! and simply note the disparaging labels he used and the accusations he made of his opponents( motivations! intelligence! and orthodo/y. %n his chapter on the Third Dave! 'acArthur accuses the Third Dave of 5rolling li"e a destructive tsunami! leaving chaos and confusion in its wa"e5 )p.1<1.H toning down his ?Dimber(s@ claims because he was being observed by ob=ective observers )p. 1<<.H badly corrupting the message of the gospel )p. 1<I.H pragmatism )p. 181.H being un24iblical )p. 182.H not believing in the deity of Christ )p. 18<.H being syncretistic )p. 18K.H and! engaged in a carefully crafted image that is the result of a s"illful mar"eting campaign! attempting to sell the movement to noncharismatic evangelicals )p. 18K.. %n other places in Charismatic Chaos! he accuses charismatics and 1entecostals of being immoral )p. 21.H 5"een but clueless5 )p. 89.H anti2intellectual )p. 89.H not far removed from e/istentialism! humanism! paganism )p.81.H and! being 5perilously close to neo2baalism5 )p.8<.. %t is difficult to dialogue with somebody who is as abusive and caustic as 'acArthur is in his attac"s on charismatics. He e/presses surprise that charismatics become defensive when he simply 5spea"s the truth in love5 to them. 1erhaps if 'acArthur stopped labeling and vilifying charismatics! they might find it easier to listen to him. )0ater on % will devote an entire section to 'acArthur(s charges against &ohn Dimber.. 'oreover! 'acArthur uses terms such as 5neo2orthodo/5 and 5Roman Catholic5 in describing some of the tendencies of the charismatic movement. nfortunately! 'acArthur displays no real appreciation of =ust what neo2orthodo/y or Roman Catholicism is about. His understanding of neo2orthodo/y and Roman Catholicism is superficial and entirely negative. Dhile he may have read a boo" by Earl 4arth or :mil 4runner! no one would believe that after reading his remar"s on neo2orthodo/y. 0i"ewise! he displays no current understanding of Roman Catholicism as treated by men li"e Hans Eung. >or 'acArthur! neo2 orthodo/y and Roman Catholicism are simply negative labels to be pinned to the chests of charismatics. III. Fa&&acie" O* Cau"ation %t is commonplace in philosophy to distinguish between causation and correlation. 4ecause A and 4 happen near each other! does not mean that A caused 4. Thus if the stoc" mar"et goes up the same day the Jan"ees win! it does not mean the Jan"ees( victory caused the stoc" mar"et rise. A. :oe" chari"1atic +e&ie* cau"e i11ora& +eha<ior= Throughout 'acArthur(s boo"! he regularly charges charismatics and 1entecostals with every type of sin imaginable. Thus! in 'acArthur(s first chapter! he mentions the appalling se/ scandals that have occurred among ostensibly #pirit2filled charismatic leaders. %n an especially hysterical paragraph 'acArthur states+ ...such scandals are the legacy of a movement that touts spectacular signs and wonders

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan K as the only irrefutable verification of true spirituality. To authenticate their claims! some charismatic leaders resort to fraudulent or simulated (miracles.( #pirituality is viewed as an e/ternal issueH 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 the Holy #pirit!5 ma"es one more susceptible to immorality or chicanery. No empirical evidence is cited that charismatic and 1entecostal pastors or leaders are more susceptible to immorality than non2 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/ual immorality is among the most abhorrent sins in the culturally conservative 1entecostal 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! para2church leadership! and pastorates because of se/ual immorality. Bne might more realistically point to the se/2drenched culture of the modern western world! the cult of se/ual self2 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 e2e,e"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 her 4ible more sloppily than someone who doesn(t believe in the present e/istence of these gifts. %ndeed! *ordon >ee! the well2"nown 1entecostal 4ible scholar! wrote )with Couglas #tuart. one of the best popular boo"s on 4ible interpretation! How to Read the Bible For All Its orth. Again! there is no empirical evidence cited for more sloppiness in e/egesis among charismatics than among non2 charismatics. A casual survey of Christian boo"stores would yield shelves of boo"s produced by non2 charismatics on topics li"e eschatology! counseling! and men(s and women(s roles based on e/tremely $uestionable e/egetical methods. C.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 non2 charismatic sources. 'acArthur himself falls prey to many of the errors that he claims are the special purview of charismatics. Dhile 'acArthur yielded to the temptation to tar the charismatic movement with poor interpretive methods! sloppy e/egesis 2 li"e se/ual immorality 2 "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 at the 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+

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan Charismatic chaos is usually not physically fatal! but the movement is littered with spirit"al casualties. % 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 and filed 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 non2charismatics. to divorce. Nor is there any evidence that the charismatic movement is 5more littered with spiritual casualties5 than non2charismatics. %ndeed! if the findings of boo"s such as Toxic Faith #nderstanding and $vercoming Religio"s Addiction )Nashville+ Bliver2Nelson! 1--1. are ta"en as accurate! fundamentalist churches often produce at least as many spiritual casualties as charismatic churches. #adly! there are do6ens of >undamentalist Anonymous groups nationwide and the Christian Research %nstitute has received many reports of 5casualties5 from non2charismatic churches. %n any case! there does not appear to be any causal connection between mainstream charismatic beliefs and becoming a spiritual casualty. I . Fa&"e Mo!e&" an! Fa&"e Aue"tion" %n chapter -! titled 5Coes *od #till Heal;5 'acArthur lays out a si/ pronged test! supposedly derived from the 4ible to evaluate whether someone possesses a true gift of healing. The model includes the following+ 1. &esus )and the Apostles. healed with a word or a touch. 2. &esus )and the Apostles. healed instantly. <. &esus )and the Apostles. healed totally. 8. &esus )and the Apostles. healed everyone. G. &esus )and the Apostles. healed organic diseases. I. &esus )and the Apostles. raised the dead. To this list! 'acArthur added a seventh point &esus )and the Apostles. could use their miraculous gifts at will. As 'acArthur applies his supposedly biblically derived model he finds )not surprisingly. that modern healers do not meet the 4iblical tests as outlined above. 'any modern healings are delayed or are partial. 4eyond that! no one heals everyone and there are few verified reports of raisings from the dead. Therefore! 'acArthur concludes! whatever the source of the so called modern gift of healing! it cannot be of *od. 'acArthur(s use of a self2constructed model to prove his case may indicate the contrived nature of this form of argumentation. 4eyond this! model construction is a game that anyone can play. There is no necessary )or 4iblical. re$uirement to use the criteria for healing that 'acArthur supposedly distilled from the scriptures. %ndeed! one could $uite reasonably construct a 54iblical5 model that would embrace! or would validate the current claim of healing gifts. >or e/ample! the criteria for evaluating a healing gift might be+ 1. &esus )and the Apostles. gave glory to *od whenever a person was healed. 2. &esus )and the Apostles. general healed people not to prove anything about themselves! but from a motive of compassion. <. %n every healing faith is re$uired either in the person being healed or in the person praying for the

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 19 healing! or a third party )e.g.! the paralytic(s friendsH &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 1rophet spo"en of in Ceuteronomy 1K. %n Ceuteronomy 1K! verse 1G! 'oses said! 5The 0ord your *od will raise up for you a prophet li%e me from among your own brothers. Jou must listen to him.5 The 'uslim man said! 5'ohammed is li"e 'oses and is! therefore! the 1rophet. 4ut &esus is not li"e 'oses.5 % as"ed! 5Bn what basis do you ma"e this assertion;5 He answered! 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 was a 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 added several other criteria that he felt proved his case almost completed. 'y response to his self2constructed model was to point out that his criteria were not necessarily the only criteria to evaluate 5the 1rophet(s5 li"eness to 'oses. % gave him my own 5off2the2cuff5 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 by an evil "ing. % could go on! but % thin" the point of the foolishness of these "inds of arguments is madeA 'ore importantly! 'acArthur fails to see that the 4iblical evidence doesn(t even fit his own self2 constructed model. >or e/ample! under criterion number 8! 'acArthur states that the Apostles were able to heal anyone. Jet! 1aul! who had a 4iblical gift of healing! states in 2 Timothy 8+29! 5...% left Trophimus sic" in 'iletus.5 Dhy didn(t 1aul heal Trophimus rather than leave him! presumably to recuperate! if! as 'acArthur states! the Apostles were able to heal anyone; 1aul himself claims that the reason he ended up in *alatia was because of a personal illness )that he apparently he could not heal himself.. %n *alatians 8+1<218! 1aul writes! 5As you "now! it was because of an illness that % first preached the gospel to you. :ven though my illness was a trial to you! you did not treat me with contempt or scorn.5 >inally! 'acArthur seems to po"e fun at &ohn Dimber for claiming to have the gift of healing while having to ac"nowledge his own personal heart condition. The same embarrassment can apparently be laid at the feet of 1aul. . :o Chari"1atic Me!ia Per"ona&itie" Fair&y Re#re"ent the Main"trea1 Mo<e1ent= A person does not have to read 'acArthur(s boo" too long before coming to the conclusion that 'acArthur(s understanding of the 1entecostal and charismatic movements is an outsider(s viewpoint that has been chiefly informed by over2 e/posure to charismatic media. %n short! 'acArthur displays the characteristics of a man who understands American culture only through the lens of Hollywood media. &ust as Hollywood is not representative of America! charismatic media stars! The Trinity 4roadcasting Networ"! and Charisma maga6ine do not represent the 899 million 1entecostals and charismatic Christian believers worldwide. Reading 'acArthur(s e/amples of charismatic foolishness )ta"en chiefly from television and maga6ine

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 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 schoolA5 % as"ed him why he thought that all Americans raced around in sport cars and that all American women were gorgeous. He said he watched 5'iami 3ice5 on television all the timeA As a result of watching 5'iami 3ice5 this high school student thought he understood AmericaA 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 1entecostal movement. #pittler writes+ 5Dhen the total figures are combined for classical 1entecostals along with charismatics from Anglican! Brthodo/! Roman Catholic and mainline 1rotestant sectors! the sum e/ceeds the si6e of ?non2 charismatic@ 1rotestantism as a whole.5 %f for no other reason than statistical dominance! 'acArthur ought to have more carefully analy6ed the movement as a whole. Again! #pittler writes+ %f some varieties of Christians are geographically uniform and predictable! 1entecostals are neither. Certain features nearly always occur! yet the variety is astonishing. Dho are the 1entecostals! the charismatics; How do the two differ; #ome distinctions are in order. 1entecostals 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 value personal 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 1entecostals generally insist on spea"ing in tongues as 5the initial physical evidence of the 4aptism in the Holy #pirit5! not all 1entecostals 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 tonguesH indeed! that is an incidence among charismatics as one of the principle features that distinguishes them from 1entecostals. 'acArthur seems to be totally unaware of the difference between 1entecostals and charismatics and lumps the two together as a monolithic whole. #pittler summari6es the distinctions between the 1entecostal and charismatic movement this way+ 1entecostalism arose in the first half of this century! charismatics in the second half. 1entecostals formed the classical 1entecostal denominationH charismatics remained in their own churches! the mainstream ones. 'ost )though not all. 1entecostals insist on tongues as initial evidenceH charismatics generally spea" in tongues! but do not ma"e it a matter of necessity. 1entecostals teach a strict subse$uence of vital Christian e/perienceH two! in the case of baptistic 1entecostalsH and! three! in Desleyan 1entecostalism. Charismatics! on the other hand! find ways to fit charismatic e/perience and renewal into 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 1entecostals 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. The charismatic and 1entecostal 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.

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 12 Contrary to 'acArthur(s assertion about rampant se/ual immorality! 1entecostals! 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 1entecostal and charismatic movements would "now as a matter of course. %ndeed! 1entecostal or charismatic insiders will not be able to recogni6e themselves in 'acArthur(s media2based view of the movement. I. I" There Any Fruit Fro1 the Chari"1atic Mo<e1ent= %mplicit in 'acArthur(s wholesale attac" on the charismatic movement is that it is not derived from the Holy #pirit and therefore! has borne only bad fruit. He suggests that the fruit of the charismatic movement is entirely negative and! among other things! has 5created divisions5 )p. 2-<.! 5encourages mysticism5 )p. 2-2.! 5denigrates reason5 )p. 2-2.! 5leads to spiritual casualties5 etc. %s there any fruit in the charismatic movement; 5#urely! if the movement is of *od!5 'acArthur as"s! 5we ought to find abundant fruit.5 Jet! 'acArthur loo"s about him and sees no fruit at all. 1erhaps the lens that he loo"s at the charismatics through is less than clear. A Christian approaching the charismatic movement without a clouded lens! might see the following. A. The Fruit o* Re1arka+&e Bro8th Wor&!8i!e. According to Cavid 4arrett 1entecostals numbered appro/imately 1.2 million in the year 1-99. 4y 1--9! that number had grown to over 899 million. As a percentage of worldwide Christianity! the 1entecostal and charismatic movements represented something less than .GL in 1-99. That number has grown to almost 2GL in 1--9. The number of 1entecostal churches has grown from 1G!999 in 1-99 to 1.G million in 1--9. *iving among charismatics and 1entecostals to Christian causes has grown from < million dollars in 1-99 to <F billion dollars in 1--9. Charismatic church organi6ations have grown from 129 in 1-99 to 1<!K99 in 1--9. The ma=ority of the fifty or so mega2churches the world(s largest single congregations! each with over G9!999 members 2 are 1entecostal7charismatic. 1articularly impressive is the church growth rate among Third Dorld believers. The growth of Christianity in China! particularly since 1-FI! has been a phenomenon unmatched in Christian history. Dhen Destern missionaries were driven out of China in 1-8-21-G9! they left about one million 1rotestant believers. #ince the Communist ta"eover in 1-8-! Christians multiplied. 4y the mid21-K9s! the number was conservatively estimated at over G9 million! with some suggesting twice that number. Two e/pert China2watchers suggest that KGL of Chinese believers would be 5phenomenological 1entecostal2 charismatics.5 #uch ama6ing growth can be observed in much of the rest of the Third Dorld. As 1atric" &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. Although there 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<an,e&i"1. :vangelism has been a priority among 1entecostals throughout their history. The historical self2image of the ma=or 1entecostal church bodies is that they were raised up to be an instrument of evangelism in the world. Traditionally! therefore! it has been felt that to be a 1entecostal is to be an evangelistic

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 1< witness. 1entecostals see aggressive evangelism in the pages of the New Testament and due to their high regard for their 4ible and their literal interpretation of #cripture! they interpret the 1entecostal e/perience as a mandate for evangelism in its various forms and methods. 1entecostals believe that redemption is the central purpose of *od in #cripture and evangelism as the comprehensive method for fulfilling that purpose. 1entecostals( 4iblical literalism has caused them to be aggressively obedient to the *reat Commission passages in the gospel. 1entecostal understanding of the 4aptism of the Holy #pirit connects it with the evangelistic tas" and suggests that evangelism is the primary result of the Holy #pirit(s baptism )Acts 1+K.. Contrary to 'acArthur(s contention that tongues is central to the 4aptism in the Holy #pirit! evangelism occ"pies the central place in thin%ing among Pentecostals regarding the 'pirit(s baptism. %n his classic boo" Concerning 'pirit"al )i&ts! first published in 1-8-! Conald *ee contends that evangelism was a natural e/pression of the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12. The evangelism of 1entecostals centers on the gospel or *ood News. 1entecostals believe that evangelism is the act of proclaiming the *ood News of &esus Christ in the power and anointing of the Holy #pirit with the intention that men and women will come to put their trust in Christ for salvation and serve him in the fellowship of his church. 1entecostals suggest that the telling in 1entecostal evangelism can involve more than verbal proclamation but is never a substitute for verbal proclamation. 1entecostals and charismatics understand that divine healing can be an evangelistic door opener! but is in no way a substitute for the gospel message of the death! burial and resurrection of &esus Christ. % am unaware of any responsible 1entecostals who suggest that the *ood News is replaced by! or made subservient to! supernatural signs and wonders. Rather! supernatural signs and wonders are claimed only to open the door for or accompany the gospel message. The 1entecostal and charismatic movement has borne the fruit of evangelism. C. The Fruit o* Wor&! Mi""ion". 1entecostals from the beginning have been "nown as 5doers.5 1entecostal mission theology has tended to be a theology on the move. :schatological urgency is at the heart of understanding the missionary fervor of 1entecostalism. 5:schatology!5 says Canboriena! 5belongs to the essence of 1entecostalism.5 1entecostals from the outset have been involved in a variety of strategies that have contributed to the astonishing world mission growth. These strategies include+ 1. %ndigenous churches. 1entecostal missions have sought from their inception to develop indigenous churches. %ndeed! 1entecostal missionary 'elvin Hodges( boo"! The Indigeno"s Ch"rch )#pringfield! 'o.+ *ospel 1ublishing House! 1-G<.! has become a standard on the sub=ect in evangelical circles. His numerous other boo"s have further earned him respect in missiological circles. 2. Church planting. 1entecostals stress the importance of planting responsible reproducing congregations as the abiding fruit of world evangeli6ation and generally measure their progress by the number of new congregations put in order. <. rban strategy. 1entecostal growth and urbani6ation have developed side by side. 8. 0iterature distribution. &ohn Thomas Nichol in his boo"! Pentecostalism )1lainfield! &.&.+ 0ogos %nternational! 1-F1.! lists among some fifteen causes for the initial success of 1entecostalism the strong

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 18 emphasis given to tabloid si6e newspapers and other early publications. 1ublishing ministries are a high priority in all ma=or 1entecostal groups. G. 'ission stewardship. 1entecostals have given generously to the cause of world missions since the early days of the movement. %n the pioneering years! whole families sold their possessions and started for the field or supported others who went. %n the classic 1entecostal denominations! mission budgets continue to receive the largest share of donations. 'ission stewardship has received number one priority from the outset. :. The Practice o* the Prie"thoo! o* E<ery Be&ie<er. Dhile the priesthood of every believer was doctrinally recovered during the Reformation! 1entecostalism especially put the believer(s priesthood into practice in the modern world. #ociological and historical studies have reflected on the humble social origin of the 1entecostals and the development of preachers from the common people of the poorer classes. #ince they have not had a long history of formal theological training for professional clergy! the 1entecostals have emphasi6ed that all in the body o& Christ are ministers and everyone is a preacher. C. 1eter Dagner(s study of 0atin American 1entecostalism found aggressive layministry as a "ey factor in 1entecostal growth. >urther! a large part of the dynamic world wide growth of the 1entecostal movement has been due to the higher percentage of women ministers and missionaries in 1entecostal groups per capita than in their evangelical counterparts. Dhile maintaining a conservative view of male leadership! 1aul Jonggi Cho has espoused the leadership and involvement of women as a "ey ingredient in the successful growth of the Joido >ull *ospel Church in #eoul! Eorea. %n &ohn Dimber(s teaching on spiritual gifts! in general! and healing in particular! e$uipping all the saints for the wor" of ministry is the predominant theme. %ndeed! the maga6ine of &ohn Dimber(s vineyard ministry is titled !*"ipping the 'aints. ):phesians 8+1121< is one of the most fre$uently commented upon verses in popular charismatic and 1entecostal boo"s.. No movement in Christianity today! affirms the role and ministry of the individual non2clergy as does the charismatic movement. E. The Ro&e o* Wo1en. Domen have had e/tremely important leadership roles in the 1entecostal and charismatic movements! as has happened in most awa"enings and spiritually vital movements throughout Christian history. 'any 1entecostal pioneers were women including >lorence 0. Crawford! founder of the Apostolic >aith movement in the 1acific NorthwestH 'arie 4urges 4rown! who founded *lad Tidings Tabernacle in New Jor" City! and Aimee #emple 'c1herson! founder of the %nternational Church of the >our #$uare *ospel. Bther ma=or figures in the 1entecostal movement in North America include the following+ Carrie &udd 'ontgomery! a woman who was miraculously healed in 1KF-. #he became a healing evangelist of considerable promise and her boo"! The Prayer o& Faith! 1KK9! gained widespread circulation. Carrie &udd 'ontgomery became a founding member of A.4. #impson(s Christian and 'issionary Alliance Church. 'aria Doodworth2:tter was a woman involved in the holiness movement before she rose to prominence as an early 1entecostal leader. %n 1KKG she began to receive widespread attention for her teaching ministry and began preaching about divine healing. %n the ne/t four years she was 5responsible for starting about a do6en churches! adding a thousand members! erecting si/ churches! and starting several #unday schools. %n addition twelve preachers were licensed as a result of her ministry.5 Doodworth2 :tter was a regular spea"er in the early 1entecostal movements and reportedly saw many converts during her evangelistic revival meetings.

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 1G 'any women who were pioneers of the 1entecostal movement served as itinerant evangelists and missionaries. Bthers wor"ed as spea"ers! authors and evangelists! including Rita 4ennett! Ann *imene6! and Corrie ten 4oom. As in other periods of revival! women have historically en=oyed greater freedom in 1entecostal circles! as opposed to non2charismatic circles. A revival atmosphere usually includes an emphasis on evangelism! missions and a sense of the urgency of the times. 4ecause the times are urgent! all available personnel are mobili6ed whether men or women! laity or clergy! within biblically appropriate role designations )see e.g.! 1 Cor. 11+221I.. II. John Wi1+er 'acArthur directs some of his most derisory and virulent attac"s against &ohn Dimber whom he arbitrarily lumps into the Third Dave. Not only is 'acArthur(s tone un$uestionably pe=orative and unloving! but his chapter on the Third Dave is filled with factual and 4iblical errors. Cavid 4arrett the preeminent demographer of worldwide Christianity! used this definition of 5third2 waver5 for his statistical analysis+ These are :vangelicals and other Christians who! unrelated to 1entecostalism or the charismatic 'ovement! have recently become filled with the #pirit! or empowered or energi6ed by the #pirit and e/periencing the #pirit(s supernatural and miraculous ministry )though usually without recogni6ing a baptism in the #pirit separate from conversion.! who e/ercise gifts of the #pirit )with much less emphasis on tongues! as optional or even absent or unnecessary.! and emphasi6e signs and wonders supernatural miracles and power encounters! but who remain within their mainline nonpentecostal denominations and who do not identify themselves as either 1entecostals or charismatics. %t is the fastest growing sector of what 4arrett terms 5the 29th century 1entecostal7charismatic renewal in the Holy #pirit.5 4arrett estimated Third Dave Christians as amounting to << million in the year 1--9. A. :oe" the ineyar! ha<e a State1ent o* Faith= Bn page 18F 'acArthur writes! 0istening to the claims of Third Dave leaders! one might conclude their movement is essentially composed of conservative evangelicals who remain strongly committed to traditional 4iblical theology. The facts do not bear this out. 'uch of the Third Dave is difficult to classify doctrinally. #tatements of >aiths and Creeds simply are not an earmar" of the Third Dave. Dimber(s 3ineyard is typical. Another disturbing aspect of the 3ineyard ministry is their lac" of any written #tatement of >aith. 4ecause 3ineyard members come from a variety of denominational bac"grounds! the leadership has avoided setting strong doctrinal standards. This deemphasis of doctrine is also consistent with the leadership of &ohn Dimber and 4ob >ulton! )pastor of the 3ineyard in Jorba 0inda! California. whose bac"grounds theologically include associations with Mua"ers! who typically e/press the inner e/perience of *od and minimi6e the need for doctrinal e/pressions of one(s understanding of *od. 'acArthur is correct in the first sentence. The Third Dave movement is essentially composed of conservative evangelicals who remain strongly committed to traditional 4iblical theology. The only accurate statement in the rest of the $uote is that &ohn Dimber had twenty years ago pastored a large

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 1I conservative evangelical Mua"er church. Had 'acArthur simply called the Association of 3ineyard Churches and as"ed for the Association(s doctrinal statement! or spo"en to &ohn Dimber personally! he would have been given this statement! )adopted in 1-KI and currently under revision. that reads in part+ I. Our Con<iction" 1. D: 4:0%:3: that there is BN: 0%3%N* ANC TR : *BC! eternally e/isting in three persons! the >ather! the #on and the Holy #pirit! e$ual in power and glory that this triune *od created all! upholds all! and governs all. )'att. 2K+1-! %sa. 89+1222I! %sa. 8I+K211. 2. D: 4:0%:3: that the #CR%1T R:# of the Bld and New Testaments are the Dord of *od! fully inspired! and the infallible rule of faith and practiceH and that they are to be interpreted according to their conte/t and purpose and in reverent obedience to the 0ord who spea"s through them in living power. )2 Tim. <+1821F! Rom. 1G+8! &ames 1+22. <. D: 4:0%:3: in *BC TH: >ATH:R! an infinite! personal #pirit! perfect in holiness! wisdom! power! and loveH that He concerns Himself merciful in the affairs of menH that He hears and answers prayer! and that He saves from sin and death and all who come to Him through &esus Christ. )'att. I+-! %sa. I+<! Rom. 11+<<2<-! 1salms 1<K+G2I! 'att. F+11! %sa. GG+I2F. 8. D: 4:0%:3: in &:# # CHR%#T! *od(s only begotten #on! conceived by the Holy #pirit. De believe in His virgin birth! sinless life! miracles and teachings! His substitutionary atoning death! bodily resurrection! ascension into heaven! perpetual intercession for His people and personal! visible return to earth. De believe that in His first coming &esus inaugurated the fulfillment of the Eingdom of *od. )&ohn 1+1821K! 0u"e 1+1K229! Heb. 8+1G! Rom. G+K! 1 Cor. 1G+12K! :ph. 1+29! 1 Thess. 8+1I! 'ar" 1+1821G. G. D: 4:0%:3: in the HB0J #1%R%T! who came forth from the >ather and #on to convict the world of sin! righteousness! and =udgment! and to regenerate! sanctify and empower for ministry all who believe in ChristH we believe the Holy spirit indwells every believer in &esus Christ and that He is an abiding helper! Teacher! and *uide. De believe in the present ministry of the Holy #pirit and in the e/ercise of all the biblical gifts of the #pirit. )&ohn 1G+2I! 1I+K! Titus <+G! Acts 1+K! Rom. K+-! :ph. 1+1<! &ohn 18+1I! 1 Cor. 12+8211. I. D: 4:0%:3: that all ':N are sinners by nature and choice and are therefore under condemnation! that *od regenerates and bapti6es by the Holy #pirit those who repent of their sins and confess &esus Christ as 0ord. ):ph. 2+1219! Acts 2+<K! :6e". <I+2I! &ohn 1+1221<! &ohn 29+-. F. D: 4:0%:3: in the universal CH RCH! the living spiritual body! of which Christ is the Head and all regenerated persons are members. )1 Cor. 12+1221<! :ph 2+1-222! 1 1eter 2+82G. K. D: 4:0%:3: that the 0ord &esus Christ committed two BRC%NANC:# to the church+ baptismH and the 0ord(s #upper. De believe in water baptism and communion open to all believers. )Acts 2+<K! 1 Cor. 11+2<2<9! 0u"e <+<. -. D: 4:0%:3: also in the 0AJ%N* BN B> HANC# for empowering of the Holy #pirit! for receiving of gifts of the #pirit! for healing! and for recognition and empowering of those whom *od has ordained to lead and serve the church. )Acts 1<+<! 'ar" I+G! 1 Tim. 8+18! 2 Tim. 1+I. 19. D: 4:0%:3: in the personal! visible A11:AR%N* B> CHR%#T to earth and the consummation of His EingdomH in the resurrection of the body! the final =udgment and eternal blessing of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wic"ed. )Acts 1+11! 'att. 2G+<1! 1 Cor. 1G+29228! Rev.

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 1F 29+11! 21+K. 11. D: 4:0%:3: in what is termed 5TH: A1B#T0:#( CR::C5 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(s Power 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 that 3ineyard is a movement without a set of doctrinal formulations. B. :oe" the Thir! Wa<e un!ere1#ha"i>e tra!itiona& 1ean" o* "#iritua& ,ro8th= Bn page 1<9 'acArthur writes! 0i"e 1entecostals and charismatics! common Third Dave adherents aggressively pursue ecstatic e/periences! mystical phenomena! miraculous powers! and supernatural wonders 2 while tending to "nder,emphasi-e the traditional means o& spirit"al growth+ prayer. Bible st"dy. the teaching o& the ord. persevering in obedience and &ellowship o& other believers )emphasis added.. Again! had 'acArthur ta"en time to e/amine the Association 3ineyard Churches #tatement of 1riorities or had he spo"en to &ohn Dimber personally! he would have discovered that fundamental 3ineyard priorities include+ 1. 2. <. 8. G. I. F. Dorship The teaching of the 4ible 1rayer >ellowship 'inistry Training :vangelism and Dorld 'issions

Bur first leadership re$uirement is 5a sincere love and pursuit of &esus Christ demonstrated in regular personal worship! meditation on *od(s Dord! and prayer.5 :ven a casual visit to a 3ineyard church will disclose a significant emphasis on fellowship as demonstrated by the numerous small groups in the church! an emphasis on intercessory prayer! an emphasis on the teaching of the 4ible! and an emphasis on obedience to *od(s word. As a 3ineyard pastor whose church numbers appro/imated 1299 on #unday mornings! our 3ineyard church has about IG small groups that are designed specifically for fellowship! prayer! worship! and 4ible study. )&ohn Dimber(s Anaheim 3ineyard has over 199 small groups designed for similar purposes.. Bn #unday morning at our church we ta"e about 89 minutes for 4iblical e/position. Bur Tuesday evening Training Center for adults in the 3ineyard regularly has several classes on basic Christian doctrine! Bld and New Testaments surveys! and various boo"s of the 4ible. Bur particular church also has numerous intercessory prayer meetings. 'y e/perience of the 3ineyard movement as a whole indicates that prayer and fellowship are certainly strongly emphasi6ed.

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 1K C. What i" Po8er E<an,e&i"1= &ohn 'acArthur claims+ 5The underlying assumption that drives the whole Third Dave movement is wrong. 'iracles! signs and wonders are impotent to produce either faith or genuine revival.5 To =ustify this! 'acArthur claims that nowhere in the boo" of Acts do we see power evangelism practiced. And! he claims that &esus! himself! did not practice 5power evangelism.5 Dhat is 5power evangelism;5 0et(s be clear about what &ohn Dimber means )and e/plicitly wrote. about his coined e/pression 5power evangelism.5 %n his boo" titled! Power !vangelism! Dimber writes+ 4y power evangelism % mean a presentation of the gospel that is rational! but that also transcends the rational )though it is in no way (irrational( or anti2rational.. The e/planation of the gospel 2 the clear proclamation of the finished wor" of Christ on the cross 2 comes with a demonstration of *od(s power through signs and wonders. 1ower evangelism is a spontaneous! #pirit2inspired! empowered presentation of the gospel. 1ower evangelism is preceded and undergirded by demonstrations of *od(s presence! and fre$uently results in groups of people being saved. #igns and wonders do not saveH only &esus and substitutionary wor" on the cross saves. Through these supernatural encounters people e/perience the presence and power of *od. sually this ta"es the norm of words of "nowledge...healing! prophecy! and deliverance from evil spirits. Nowhere does this definition diminish the gospel message of the good news of &esus Christ(s life! death and resurrection preached with the intention that men and women will come to put their trust in Christ for salvation and serve Him in the fellowship of His church. &ohn Dimber believes that the gospel message presented without signs and wonders can save+ 4efore e/ploring power evangelism further! however! a healthy word of clarification and caution is needed. The 4ible does not teach that evangelism apart from signs and wonders is invalid! or that the addition of signs and wonders somehow changes the gospel message. The heart and so"l o& evangelism is proclamation o& the gospel. Healings and 5words of "nowledge5 are simply a 5door opener5 for the preached message. Dimber(s entire purpose in presenting 5power evangelism5 is to suggest to modern conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists! such as &ohn 'acArthur! that eliminating signs and wonders as a 5door opener5 is 5patently unbiblical5 )to use 'acArthur(s phrase in Charismatic Chaos.. 'acArthur claims that biblically 5miracles do not produce a real faith in an unbelieving heart! 5'iracles! signs and wonders are impotent to produce either faith or genuine revival.5 To bolster this claim 'acArthur cites the story of the healing of the lame man in Acts 8. He says the &ewish religious leaders did not deny that a miracle occurred )Acts 8+1I.. 4ut the response was far from saving faith. There is truth in the assertion that miracles do not 5produce5 saving faith. 4ut nowhere does &ohn Dimber assert that they do. %ndeed only the Holy #pirit can 5produce5 saving faith! that comes as a gift. Rather! signs and wonders accredit the message and messenger of salvation. They provo"e the unbeliever to consider the truth claims presented by the messenger. 1ut another way! they help to open the door and remove roadbloc"s to faith and so function as an apologetic for the message. #igns! wonders! miracles! and spiritual gifts illustrate the reality of the presence and power of *od to save. %t is unnecessarily narrow to restrict the mode of the gospel presentation to =ust preaching. *od spea"s through boo"s! maga6ines! film! and miracles.

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 1Dhy 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 -+<22<G! 0u"e writes+ As 1eter traveled about the country! he went to visit the saints in 0ydda. There he found a man named Aeneas! a paralytic who had been bedridden for eight years. (Aeneas!( 1eter said to him! (&esus Christ heals you. *et up and ta"e care of your mat.( %mmediately Aeneas got up. All those who lived in /ydda and 'haron saw him and t"rned to the /ord. Dhat is it that provo"ed the response of faith and the turning to the 0ord by the residents of 0ydda and #haron; 'acArthur asserts that miracles cannot biblically produce faith in observers nor by implication can they serve as a 5door opener5 to the gospel. The residents of 0ydda and #haron who are now 5at home with the 0ord5 would li"ely be pu66led by 'acArthur(s anti2 supernatural assertions. The ne/t incident recorded in Acts - further demonstrates power evangelism at wor". 0u"e goes on to write about a woman named Corcas who had died. 0u"e writes+ 1eter sent them all out of the nomH then he got down on his "nees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman! he said! (Tabitha! get up.( #he opened her eyes! and seeing 1eter she sat up. He too" her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive. This became %nown all over 0oppa. and many people believed in the /ord5 )Acts -+8928<.. Again! what was it that removed barriers to belief in the 0ord other than the raising of Tabitha from the dead; This is power evangelism in its most e/plicit form. The Apostle 1aul also practiced power evangelism. %n Acts 1< 1aul met a &ewish sorcerer and false prophet named 4ar2&esus! whom the scripture recorded+ ...was an attendant of the proconsul! #ergius 1aulus. The proconsul! an intelligent man! sent for 4arnabas and #aul because he wanted to hear the word of *od. 4ut :lymas the sorcerer )for that is what his name means. opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. Then #aul! who was also called 1aul! filled with the Holy #pirit! loo"ed straight at :lymas and said! (Jou are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is rightA Jou are full of all "inds of deceit and tric"ery. Dill you never stop perverting the right ways of the 0ord; Now the hand of the 0ord is against you. Jou are going to be blind! and for a time you will be unable to see the light of the sun.( %mmediately mist and dar"ness came over him! and he groped about! see"ing someone to lead him by the hand. Dhen the proconsul saw what had happened. he believed. &or he was ama-ed at the teaching abo"t the /ord )Acts 1<+F212.. Dhat is it that opened the proconsul(s heart to trusting in the saving message of the gospel; The scripture is $uite e/plicit. He saw the miracle wrought by the hands of the Apostle 1aul! and was ama6ed at the authority of the teaching. Again! 'acArthur selectively ignored this clear teaching of power evangelism in the boo" of Acts. 1aul(s methodology of evangelism generally included a coupling of the gospel message with 5a demonstration of the #pirit(s power5 )1 Cor. 2+8.. %t would have been a surprise to people in the early church to uncouple signs and wonders from preaching for they generally prayed li"e 1eter 5(Now 0ord! consider their threats and enable your servants to spea" your Dord with great boldness. #tretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant! &esus. (After they prayed! the place where they were meeting was sha"en. And they were all filled with the Holy #pirit and spo"e the Dord of *od boldly5 )Acts 8+2-2<1.. Dhy

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 29 did 1eter pray for signs and wonders if! as 'acArthur asserts! 5they are impotent to produce faith or genuine revival;5 Co 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 power of the message. %n the case of the 1harisees! it is recorded 5even after &esus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence! they still would not believe in him5 )&ohn 12+<F.. The difference obviously depends on the responsiveness o& the h"man heart. not any de&iciency in miracles to provo%e &aith. 'acArthur may wish to reread Bld Testament passages such as :/odus 8+12I regarding the ability *od to wor" through miracles to produce faith. That te/t reads+ 'oses answered! 5Dhat if they do not believe me or listen to me and say! (The 0ord did not appear to you;5 Then the 0ord said to him! 5Dhat is that in your hand;5 5A staff!5 he replied. The 0ord said! 5Throw it on the ground.5 'oses threw it on the ground and it became a sna"e! and he ran from it. Then the 0ord said to him! Reach out your hand and ta"e it by the tail.5 #o 'oses reached out and too" hold of the sna"e and it turned bac" into a staff in his hand. 5This!5 said the 0ord! 5is so that they may believe that the 0ord! the *od of their fathers 2 the *od of Abraham! the *od of %saac and the *od of &acob 2 has appeared to you.5 1haraoh refused to believe! not because the miracles could not lead to faith 2 they could 2 but because his heart was hard. %n contrast when Aaron performed signs before the people! 5they believed5 ):/od. 8+<1.. %ndeed! &esus invited his disciples to believe based on his miracles. %n &ohn 18+11! &esus said! 54elieve me when % say that % am in the >ather and the >ather is in meH or at least believe on the evidence o& the miracles themselves15 He condemned the 1harisees because they did not believe that he and the >ather were one! based on his miracles. )&ohn 19+<K. >ar from emphasi6ing the ineffectiveness of miracles to provo"e belief! )as 'acArthur asserts.! &esus( point in &ohn 19+<K is that some &ews willfully disbelieved even when faced with the overwhelming evidence of miracles. As &esus said later in &ohn 1G! 5%f % had not done among them what no one else did! they would not be guilty of sin. 4ut now they have seen these miracles! and yet they have hated both me and my >ather. 4ut this is to fulfill what is written in their law (They hated me without reason.(5 'acArthur is wrongA The 1harisees were condemned because they had reason to believe &esus and re=ected the obvious evidence staring them in the face+ the miraculous power of the #on of *odA Dhen the messengers of &ohn the 4aptist as"ed &esus if he was the one to come! )i.e.! the 'essiah. or should they e/pect someone else! 0u"e records &esus( answer as! 5go bac" and report bac" to &ohn what you have seen and heard+ the blind receive sight! the lame wal"! those who have leprosy are cured! the deaf hear! the dead are raised! and the good news is preached to the poor. 4lessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.5 )0u"e F+1K22<. &esus does not simply point to the preaching of the Dord of *od as the reason to believe. He points! chiefly! to his miracles. 'acArthur is so strident in his opposition to the miraculous element in &esus( ministry that he goes so far as to say! 5>or &esus! preaching the Dord was more important than performing signs and wonders. The emphasis of &esus( ministry was not miracles! but preaching. He often preached without doing signs and wonders.5 To bolster his claim! 'acArthur refers to 'ar" 1+<K! 50et us go somewhere else! to the nearby villages! so % can preach there also. That is why % have come.5 However! he fails to add the ne/t verse! which reads! 5#o he traveled throughout *alilee! preaching in their synagogues and

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 21 driving o"t demons5 )'ar" 1+<-! emphasis added.. Dhy does 'acArthur "ic" so hard against the goads; No responsible interpreter of scripture can fail to note the general coupling of the proclamation of the gospel with the demonstration of signs and wonders. 'atthew 8+2<228 is one of many summary statements of &esus( ministry in the gospel of 'atthew. 'atthew records+ &esus went through *alilee! teaching in their synagogues! preaching the good news of the "ingdom! and healing every disease and sic"ness among the people. News about him spread all over #yria! and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases! those suffering severe pain! the demon2possessed! those having sei6ures! and the paraly6ed! and he healed them. A similar summary statement of &esus( ministry is found in 'atthew -+<G which reads! 5&esus went through all the towns and villages! teaching in their synagogues! preaching the good news of the "ingdom and healing every disease and sic"ness.5 %n the first post21entecost sermon! 1eter addresses the crowd who have witnessed the receipt of the Holy #pirit saying! 5'en of %srael! listen to this+ &esus of Na6areth was a man accredited by *od to you by miracles! wonders and signs! which *od did among you through him5 )Acts 2+22.. %n a later sermon! again at a pivotal moment in the e/pansion of the gospel! 1eter spea"s to the gentile household of Cornelius saying! 5Jou "now what has happened throughout &udea! beginning in *alilee after the baptism that &ohn preached 2 how *od anointed &esus of Na6areth with the Holy #pirit and power! and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil! because *od was with him5 )Acts 19+<F!<K.. >urthermore! the writer of Hebrews e/plicitly states that the salvation message announced by the 0ord was first announced by the 0ord! 5was confirmed to us by those who heard him. *od also testified to it by signs! wonders and various miracles! and gifts of the Holy #pirit distributed according to his will5 )Heb. 2+<b28.. Clearly *od confirmed the life and message of &esus through miracles. There is no opposition in the gospels or the boo" of Acts between the demonstration of power through healings and the proclamation of the evangel. Nor does the 4ible support 'acArthur(s diminution of signs and wonders as an evangelistic 5door opener.5 1roclamation and demonstration were the normal way that the gospel proceeded in &esus( ministry and in the ministry of the New Testament church as recorded in the boo" of Acts. That is &ohn Dimber(s simple! but profound! point in his boo" Power !vangelism. :. :oe" John Wi1+er +e&ie<e in the !eity o* Je"u" Chri"t= 'acArthur writes on page 18<! Dimber(s teaching regarding the person of &esus Christ is careless at best! blasphemous at worst! but in any case! clearly contradictory to scripture. %n his taped healing seminar! Dimber says (Haven(t you been taught that &esus "nows all things; There are many times in the gospel where &esus doesn(t "now and he has to as" $uestions.( )'acArthur concludes.+ 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 substantial written statements in boo"s such as Power 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

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 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 own Power Points; Bne reason 'acArthur may have neglected a lengthy $uotation from Power Points! is to leave readers )who would be unac$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 a position 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&ie<e a+out the !eity o* Chri"t= #ince 'acArthur chose not to $uote Dimber(s own written statements on the matter! we will! for the sa"e of simple fairness and =ustice! redress this omission. %n Power Points! Dimber devotes an entire chapter to the deity of &esus Christ. Chapter 1F of Power Points is titled! 5>ully *od.5 %t begins this way+ Dhat does *od(s Dord say about who &esus is; >irst and foremost it says that &esus is fully *od. This is clearly stated in many passages. &ohn says! 5in the beginning was the Dord5 )&ohn 1+1. 2 later! in verse 18! &ohn identifies the 5Dord5 as &esus 5and the Dord was *od! and the ord was )od.5 1aul says Christ! 5is *od overall5 )Rom. -+G. and tells us to loo" forward to the 5glorious appearing of our great )od and 'avior. &esus Christ5 )Titus 2+1<.. He says that in Christ! 5all the &"llness o& the deity lives in bodily &orm5 )Col. 2+-.. Dimber goes on to write+ 5&esus not only claimed to be *od! he acted li"e *od....Dhen he received Thomas( worship! he implicitly claimed deity.5 %ndeed! Dimber is careful to e/plicitly deny the %enosis theory of the person of Christ when he writes+ (...?the phrase in 1hilippians 2+F@ made himself nothing( can also be translated (emptied himself.( The *ree" word from which (emptied( is translated is %enosis. %ts precise meaning is unclear. #ome theologians interpret %enosis as meaning Christ completely emptied himself of deity while on earth! so he was limited to the "nowledge and abilities of an ordinary man. This interpretation comes dangerously close to denying Christ(s deity. Bthers interpret %enosis as meaning &esus retained his divine nature but emptied himsel& o& his divine prerogatives 2 the high position and glory of his deity. This interpretation is probably closer to the tr"th. &esus did not give up his deity! but he did lay aside his glory )&ohn 1F+G. and submit to the humiliation of becoming a man )2 Corinthians K+-.. The idea behind %enosis is not that &esus too" on humanity and too" off deity as though they were coats that could be changedH it is that he too" on humanity while remaining fully *od. De read here nothing that is outside a fully orthodo/ view of the person and deity of Christ. 0ater! Dimber e/plicitly affirms his own personal faith in the Chalcedonian definition )which he actually $uotes. and states &esus was 5at once complete in *od2hood and complete in manhood! truly *od and truly man...coming together to form one person in subsistence! not as parted or separated into two persons! but one and the same #on and Bnly2begotten *od! the Dord! 0ord &esus Christ.5 Dhat is it

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 2< that 'acArthur detects in Dimber(s e/plicit statements that leads him to believe that Dimber is anything other than an orthodo/ Christian; %ndeed! Dimber(s oral statement regarding the omniscience of Christ can easily be read as touching on &esus( human nature. The 4ible itself says in 'ar" 1<+<2+ 54ut of that day or that hour! no one "nows! not even the angels in heaven! nor the #on! but only the >ather.5 #imilarly! 0u"e 2+G2 tells us that 5&esus increased in wisdom.5 Reading Dimber(s oral statements without a heresy2hunting perspective! might lead to the conclusion that Dimber was simply referring to &esus( human nature without denying the omniscience that he possessed in his divine nature. %n any case! Dimber does not hold the heretical view that 'acArthur is so desperately attempting to pin on him with a brief oral statement from a 1-K1 tape. F. Ho8 "ha&& 8e a""e"" John Wi1+erC" ecu1eni"1= As has been historically common among fundamentalists! 'acArthur views an ecumenical spirit in an almost entirely negative fashion. He uses a Dimber $uote about the 1ope as an e/ample of Dimber(s dangerous drift away from 4iblical orthodo/. The $uote that 'acArthur used )again! from an unpublished tape. is as follows+ The 1ope...by the way is very responsive to the charismatic movement and is! himself a born2again evangelical. %f you have read any of his te/t concerning salvation! you(d "now he was preaching the gospel as clear as anybody is preaching it in the world today. Dhether Dimber would reassert this off2hand oral statement twelve years later is impossible to say. 4ut! a more positive reading of the statement would suggest that Dimber was personally glad that the 1ope was ma"ing a call to all Roman Catholics to personally assert their faith in Christ. %ndeed! the 1ope has on numerous occasions called for a personal choice of faith in Christ. The 1ope has also called for a massive evangelistic campaign beginning with the Roman Catholic Ch"rch in the decade of the nineties. Celebrating the 1ope(s statements hardly ma"es Dimber guild of heresy. The broader $uestion! however! concerns 'acArthur(s uniformly negative views of ecumenism. He sums up his entire boo" by suggesting that 5charismatic ecumenism is steadily eroding any claim the charismatic movement ever had to 4iblical orthodo/y.5 %n sounding the alarm against ecumenism! 'acArthur is echoing a theme that has characteri6ed fundamentalism in this country for the past seventy2five years. 4illy *raham(s ministry! li"ewise! has repeatedly been assailed from the fundamentalist right. As early as 1-GF the publication! 5The #word of the 0ord!5 contained numerous articles detailing *raham(s supposed misguided inclusion of liberals in his meetings. >undamentalist rage increased during *raham(s New Jor" crusade. Bne critic charged that of the 189 people on the general crusade committee at least 129 were 5reputed to be modernists! liberals! infidels! or something other than fundamental.5 &ohn R. Rice intoned that 5Cr. *raham is one of the spo"esman! and perhaps! the principle spar"plug of a great drift away from strict 4ible fundamentalism and strict defense of the faith.5 %n a later section! % will more pointedly draw a connection between 'acArthur(s writings and the fundamentalist fighting spirit that so thoroughly characteri6es Charismatic Chaos. >or now % will simply ma"e a few comments about ecumenism. B. Ecu1enica& coo#eration an! John Wi1+erC" #er"#ecti<e" re,ar!in, coo#eration. &ohn Dimber has never accepted an invitation in which he was re$uired to water down his conservative

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 28 evangelical beliefs. Nor has he ever toned down his ministry to accommodate himself to a church organi6ation that invited him to minister. 'uch li"e 4illy *raham! Dimber has been willing to spea" and minister in a variety of church settings including the Roman Catholic church! the Anglican church! the 0utheran church! etc.! that Dimber may personally differ with on a variety of doctrinal points. Dimber doesn(t accept invitations to spea" and minister in such places because he agrees on all points with Roman Catholic! or Anglican! or 0utheran doctrine. Nor is it because he thin"s that differences are irrelevant. Nor is it because he is an utter pragmatist! as 'acArthur asserts! and cares nothing for truth. %t is! rather! because Dimber sees a huge need for the message and ministry that *od has given him and is willing to declare that message wherever and whenever *od gives him an opportunity so long as he can do so without conditions or compromise. 'acArthur would do well to read Robert >erm(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 $uotes from &onathan :dwards(s well2"nown Tho"ghts on Revival+ (#piritual pride disposes people to affect separation! to stand at a distance from others! as better than they! and loves the show and appearance of distinction...but on the contrary! every humble Christian...delights in the appearance of union with his fellow creatures! and will maintain it as much as he possibly can! without giving open countenance to ini$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 1harisees! but freely ate with publicans and sinners that he might win them.( %ndeed! :dwards insisted that 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 meH % can =oyfully leave it wholly in his hands who is definitely fit for it 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. to be in a state of grace or not.( 0i"ewise! Dhitefield was critici6ed because of his non2separation 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 they are 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 Cublin! %reland! an editorial read+ 5There is not an evening that Roman Catholics! as well as 1rotestants! have not found their way to the in$uiry room. 1robably 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 serviceH and feeling no hurt! and not having opposition forced upon 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

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 2G reported by Heng Crummond+ 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 to build a church. They went around the township collecting subscriptions! and by2and2by 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 1ope! or the ini$uities of the #carlet Doman. 'r. 'oody gave them one 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 is surely better to have a Catholic church than noneH 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 warm2hearted tolerance and love of others with whom orthodo/ Christians may 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+erC" hea&in," un<eri*ia+&e= %n 'acArthur(s chapter on the Third Dave! 'acArthur states that 5all those ?medical healings@ are utterly preposterous. %t is difficult to resist the conclusion that they are either utter fabrications or yarns that have grown with the telling. %n each case! the people to whom the miracles have supposedly occurred remained anonymous. %n the two cases reported by Dimber! he maintains that medical doctors witnessed the events. Jet he offers no documentation.5 'acArthur goes on to suggest that the only 5so2 called5 miracles that ever occur in the signs and wonders movement are psychosomatic and involve hard to prove cases involving 5bac" pain! inner healings! migraine relief! emotional deliverance! ringing in the ears! and so on. The only detailed anecdotes involving "nown people actually describe the occasions when the healing doesn(t come.5 %nterestingly 'acArthur never mentioned the boo" length academic investigation of 1!K-9 people who attended one of Dimber(s conference in Harrogate! :ngland in 1-KI. The boo" is titled Healing+ Fiction. Fantasy or Fact2 )0ondon+ Hodder and #toughton! 1-K-.! by Cavid C. 0ewis. The author is a social anthropologist with degrees from Cambridge and 'anchester. Cr. 0ewis prepared a detailed $uestionnaire that people filled out during the conference! and then followed2up with some randomly selected cases several months later. Bf KI2 cases of prayer for physical healing! <2L )2F-. reported a great deal of healing or total healing. Another 2IL )222. reported a fair amount of healing. All the physical problems prayed for are listed in a detailed appendi/. The physical problems are distinguished from prayer for spiritual problems such as emotional healing and deliverance that are separately tabulated by Cr. 0ewis. 'any case studies were reported in detail! and several incidents with medical reports are $uoted at length. 'acArthur suggests that no medical verification is ever given. Dhy not

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 2I respond to 0ewis(s boo" rather than resort to ad hominem attac"; 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 three grand 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! who may! 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 the pleasure of both observing and participating in. I. I" the Thir! Wa<e "i1#&y a "&ick 1arketin, techni/ue= &ohn Dimber has never labeled himself as a leader of the Third Dave. Cr. 1eter Dagner coined the phrase and Cr. Cavid 4arrett has used it to describe conservative evangelicals who hold both a Reformed evangelical view of the baptism of the Holy #pirit and believe the full range of the gifts of the Holy #pirit and miracles are available today. 'acArthur forces Dimber to defend a label that he himself is uncomfortable with and only gingerly holds himself. Dimber has remar"ed in public that 5% am a conservative evangelical who spea"s in tongues.5 He does not see himself as leading a new splinter group within evangelicalism. However the Third Dave is a descriptive label. 'acArthur repeatedly asserts that the Third Dave is nothing other than a mar"eting techni$ue. >or e/ample! 'acArthur states+ 5The effort to mar"et the Third Dave as noncharismatic fits as a pattern of shrewd promotion and semantic smo"e screens that permeates Third Dave teaching.5 0ater in the chapter! 'acArthur states+ 5The truth is the evangelical veneer of the Third Dave is a carefully crafted image! another crucial element of the s"illful mar"eting campaign that is attempting to sell the movement to non2charismatic evangelicals.5 To say this! 'acArthur by definition! is departing from confronting ob=ective observations regarding the Third Dave and is involved in =udging the heart motivations of &ohn Dimber and other Third Dave leaders. There is no way for 'acArthur to "now whether something is sincerely believed or is! instead! 5a s"illful mar"eting campaign.5 Dhile he may legitimately ob=ect to what the Third Dave teaches! it is wholly inappropriate for 'acArthur to suggest that Dimber is 5slic"!5 or 5shrewd!5 or involved in a 5mar"eting campaign designed to mislead.5 Again! these "inds of charges fan into the same unfortunate pattern that characteri6es Charismatic Chaos as a whole. 4ut! once a charge has been made and is read by thousands of Christian friends! it demands to be answered. No! 3ineyard(s views are not designed as a mar"eting campaignA Bne of the observations that has been repeatedly made about &ohn Dimber by friends and foes ali"e! is his unfailing willingness to confess mista"es! to display wea"ness! to admit to failures! and to be! in general! ruthlessly honest! especially about himself. Dhile he is "nown as advocating a healing ministry for the church today! &ohn Dimber has repeatedly emphasi6ed his own failures in healing. This is not! as 'acArthur ta"es it! clear evidence that a healing

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 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. Dimber emphasi6es 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 that he 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 and respect. 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 in his 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 far as to write an article in Charisma maga6ine! 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 1entecostal teaching regarding healing. &ohn has also! both privately and publicly! affirmed his own belief that the so2 called 54aptism in the Holy #pirit5 is not a post2conversion e/perience! but occurs as part of the initial conversion e/perience. &ohn has also denied the Coctrine of subse$uent evidence5 taught by some 1entecostals. To sum up! 'acArthur(s charge of mar"eting deception! and intentional semantic diversion! especially when applied to Dimber! is $uite unfair and inappropriate. %t is a personal attac". %t is an attac" on Dimber(s motivations and personal integrity. &ohn 'acArthur! fran"ly! owes &ohn Dimber a personal and public apology regarding these statements. #ha"espeare! in $thello! describes the wrongfulness of in=uring another(s reputation! when he says! *ood name in man and woman...is the immediate ?most valuable@ =ewel of their souls. Dho steals my purse steals trash 2 (tis something! nothing! (twas mine! (tis his! and has been the slave to thousands 2 4ut he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And ma"es me poor indeed. Conc&u"ion %n 1-GF Carl Henry! the :ditor of Christianity Today maga6ine wrote a criti$ue of fundamentalism that accurately 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 2 lamentable as this was 2 as from a harsh temperament! a spirit of lovelessness and strife 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.

A response to Charismatic Chaos by Rich Nathan 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 the American 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 temperament and not primarily fundamentalism as a theology! has brought the movement into contemporary discredit... Historically! fundamentalism was a theological positionH 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 the scriptural 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! 1entecostal and Third Dave movements. Rabid anti2charismatics will love this boo". %t provides wonderful sermon illustrations for the already convinced. >or those not so 6ealously anti2charismatic! 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 been able 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 Author Richard Nathan is senior pastor of 3ineyard Christian >ellowship of Columbus! Bhio. After being converted 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 1hi 4eta Eappa from Case Destern Reserve niversity with a 4A in Religion and History in 1-FF. He holds a &uris Coctorate 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.