Matt Olson: "to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ"

What Matters Most: How We Draw the Lines

I can visit a church on Sunday morning, fellowship with believers, love what I am seeing, encourage fellow believers in what they are doing—and still choose not to join that particular local assembly. When we start separating over every belief and opinion we soon find ourselves standing all alone, criticizing the rest of body of Christ. I don’t think that is what God intended

Discussion

[ADThompson]

Brother Alex,

I believe you are perfectly capable of legitimately pointing out inconsistencies without questioning a brother’s integrity. Please do not seek refuge in nuance and assume responsibility for your words.

I will speak no further.

Good, but I will speak further. You are failing to distinguish between “questioning a brother’s integrity” as if Olson’s overall integrity is being questioned which it is not and a lack of integrity, thus far, demonstrated in the context of the policy of NIU with regard to charismatics LMHT (Light, Moderate, Heavy, Theorist) and Olson’s practice.

When policy vs practice does not match on such a historical and distinctive doctrinal matter, there is a valid question of integrity. Now, that question can be cleared up by Matt Olson himself. But your posturing and insisting that questions of integrity may not arise because someone in the past has demonstrated integrity is the very sycophantism which led to Jack Hyles and Aberrant-Fundamentalism or any other Christian Aberration of which SGM, by the way, has a record!

It answers nothing and only abuses those making inquiry into serious issues.

[Joel Tetreau]

I think I can explain with a quick illustration how many of these guys defend the notion of soft-cessationism. Many of us would say, “God called us to our present ministry.” So…how do you know that? Many of us would say, “I know it was God’s will to marry the gal I’m married to. How do you know that?

Joel

I, for one, don’t hold to the “God’s will for my wife” point of view, generally speaking. Can happen, rarely does, in my opinion.

However this type of leading and influence by the Holy Spirit has never been denied by so-called ‘cessationists’. It isn’t the issue.

The supernatural “at-will” miracle type gifts: apostle/prophet/tongues/interpretation of tongues/healing etc., it is these things that have ceased.

To call people who believe in the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit “soft-cessationists” is a rhetorical side step trying to prove the charismatic point. There is no such thing as a soft cessationist. You either believe the supernatural GIFTS have ceased or you do not. Such a belief has no connection whatsoever on the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Don’t fall into the rhetorical trap.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I need to clarify my earlier post. My description of SGM’s position was correct, except that I incorrectly labeled their position as “soft-cessationism.” Daniel Wallace defines soft-cessationism as:

I would consider myself a soft cessationist. That is, I do not believe that the sign-gifts of the first century are still operative except under unusual circumstances. These gifts were given to the early church primarily as a means to authenticate the message of the gospel. But there have been occasions throughout history in which some of these gifts are seen. When a cessationist like Charles Spurgeon could note that the Spirit of God gave him insights that could not have been gained by normal means, it seems obvious to me that I can’t maintain a hard cessationist stance. (http://www.kingsdivinity.org/theological-articles/interview-with-daniel…)

Perhaps a better descriptor for SGM would have been “soft-charismaticism” (aka “small-c charismaticism”).

Some of you have made an interesting comparison between SGM and fundamentalist language of “calling,” “God told me to,” etc. I understand what you are saying, but there is still a difference. SGM believes all the charismatic gifts of the Spirit are still in operation today, including apostleship, prophecy, and speaking in tongues (although subject to Scriptural authority, unlike Pentecostalism or Charismaticism), while most fundamentalists would not believe that to be the case.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Susan R]

Here-

SGM “charismaticism” is not much different from what I experienced in Bible-based fundamentalism growing up. (Which is also precisely why so many young fundamentalists can easily make the transition to SG churches—they do not really have to embrace anything distinctly different about how the Spirit works, only the extent to which He plays a role in everyday life.) Let’s not forget our own holiness/revivalist roots.

And here-

Why can’t associations and organizations admit that they’ve tolerated this error for far too long in their own camps, that it is possible this has contributed in some way to some (not all) of this doctrinal confusion../

Fundies have been soft cessationists for years, they just haven’t ever come out of the closet to admit it. I have not, in 40 years of being in IFBism, seen a hard line drawn on special revelation/knowledge. Doctrinal criticism has been focused on speaking in nonsensical tongues and claiming the gift of miraculous healing.

I don’t think much credence is being given to how pervasive soft cessationism is in IFBdom. I didn’t even realize it myself until one day a pastor came out and said that he received knowledge from God as our shepherd that we were not kin to because we were his sheep. He expected the congregation to ask his permission about major life decisions and purchases. It was an epiphany to hear it so boldly stated.

So since that line is not so clear or intuitive, perhaps it needs to be redrawn before we get upset at someone for crossing over it?

I see, two wrongs makes a right, theory.

But more specifically, your willingness to allow generalizations regarding Fundamentalists theological and practical expressions of matters of apostolic sign gifts, prophecy and be led of the Spirit are your undoing.

You state, “since that line is not so clear or intuitive, perhaps it needs to be redrawn before we get upset”.

Ummm….Susan, there are many, many and many more historical Fundamentalist resources that have specifically and with exhausting detail drawn the line and made quite clear the separation between these matters you imagine are confusing to all Fundamentalists.

It might be to you and it might be this is the Fundamentalism to which you have been expose but you are missing a very big piece of historic and immediate Fundamentalism.

What you are talking about is the Aberrant end of Fundamentalism, Jack Hyles and “Meet the Holy Spirit”. On this topic it seems you have not done some due diligence or you would be very aware of the volumes of material that do not permit “God told me so” claims by Fundamentalists in the name of being led by the Spirit and so on.

[James K]

R A Torrey’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit argued for a 2nd work of the Holy Spirit post conversion. His views have been used by Charismatics to justify their theology. While I doubt he would align himself with Charismatics today, nor SGM (he wasn’t a calvinist), he had fundy street cred and academic cred. Alex, you have been overstating your case that fundies have always been anticharismatic.

James, nice try but Torrey held to right doctrine, wrong wording. That is, his view of the crisis baptism of the Spirit, when articulated, was that of one empowered to serve. Yes, his doctrinal accuracy was imprecise eithert because of his Words or concepts not handled rigorously enough but in either case his aim was not charismaticism in any form, (Light, Moderate, Heavy or Theorist). Whar Torrey had in mind with his unrefinded use of baptism and filling is reflected in this quote:

“At the Montrose Bible Conference„ Dr. W. P. White, founder of The Biblical Seminary in New York, was on the platform as co-speaker with Dr. Torrey. When the latter said, ‘What we all need tonight is a new baptism of the Holy Spirit!’ Dr. White said, in a stage whisper, ‘You mean “filling,” do you not, Dr. Torrey?’ The preacher turned on him and replied, ‘What difference does it make how I say it? These men know what I mean.’

“After the meeting they went to Torrey Lodge, and soon Dr. Torrey called Dr. White into his room and thanked him for what he had whispered to him at the meeting, acknowledging that it was best to speak of the things of the Spirit in the correct terms.

“He told Dr. White that he regretted that certain Pentecostal leaders quoted him as they did, since he did not believe their teaching on the Person and work of the Holy Spirit. He admitted that he used the terms ‘baptism’ and ‘filling’ with the Spirit synonymously, but he did not think it best to call attention publicly to his mistake, and did not see the necessity for correcting the word ‘baptism’ in his books—even though he himself used the scriptural term thereafter.”

So to appeal to Torery is a fail in your argument seeing that it was understood he in no way was referring to or had in view any categorical charismatic baptism. He rejected Pentecostalism. He was simply delinquent in developing the proper and robust distinction presented in the Scriptures and errantly used baptism when he meant filling. And that filling was to do the work of God and never with any of the apostolic sign gifts charismatics insist exist today, whether light, moderate, heavy or theorist.

Over 3 years ago I wrote an article for SI on “Dream and Visions: Confessions of a Soft Cessationist.” I was pilloried in some sectors of Fundamentalism for my position. After re-reading what I wrote, and which I still believe, I am reminded how disagreement in this area goes deep and in other areas which Matt mentioned as not being tests of fellowship. After re-reading Matt’s article I’m hopeful that he can fellowship with someone like me –soft cessationist, non-dispensationalist, elder polity, blended music, etc. I have remained an immersionist  but do not make it a test of fellowship. It was my positions on these and other issues which helped move me from fundamentalist orbits and from many of its institutions where I had spoken or taught in the past.

I do not envy Matt. I have known him for over thirty years since the days we played basketball together at BJ (yes he was a much better player). Over that period of time I have seen many rise and fall and am thankful for men like him who have remained faithful to Jesus. I understand that there are those who disagree with him, the direction of NIU, and the interpretive lack of consistency between NIU documents and practice. Disagree? Fine. Debate? Fine. Scour documents to find something to hammer? Fine. Yet to attack his integrity betrays a lack of integrity. Or it betrays ignorance of the Charismatic Movement (or Movements as someone pointed out) and a lack of charity toward a brother. I do recognize that not all of Matt’s critics have been obnoxious in their disagreement (Mike Harding comes to mind and I regard him as one of the more balanced Fundamentalists and am thankful for his decades of faithful service to our Lord).

In spite of the unwarranted and ungracious attacks on his integrity I pray for Matt and hope that regardless of the cost that he will not capitulate to the ultras. Fundamentalism as many of us knew it and lived it for years is dying for lack of fresh air. Few outside the movement(s) are attracted to it and those who remain have either modified or codified what it was. It seems to me that the treatment of this simple affair of visiting and commending a church he visited is symptomatic of the failure of many Fundamentalists to think outside their box all the while claiming some higher purpose.

It seems to me that the treatment of this simple affair of visiting and commending a church he visited is symptomatic of the failure of many Fundamentalists to think outside their box all the while claiming some higher purpose.
Right, let’s pretend the part about someone who is being paid by NIU as a remote staffer at an SGM church, hence forming a coalition/partnership with a charismatic ministry isn’t part of the concern. Let’s leave that out so we can create a straw man.

Posturing only leads to abusing others and denying them a voice. It is an ugly weapon used to silence critics. When practice violates policy, not by subordinates who may more easily be understood to be still developing their spiritual and theological perspicacity but by leaders, this, if ever, is the time not only to ask questions but demand demonstration of integrity. All the posturing in the world will not change the fact that there is a distinct departure and violation of policy in this recent practice. It must be reconciled or questions of integrity will remain and grow larger if unattended. This matter and this matter alone is where the issue of integrity is being questioned, rightfully, until reconciled and not Olson’s overall history.

This is not a matter of someone being tardy, this is a departure from a historical practice and policy. This is not a misstatement, this is not one based on not being informed. Blaming those who want answers and who rightfully point out the integral problem of practice and policy not matching on such a distinctive issue that has defined the institution, in part, historically, is the simply a tactic to avoid having to answer the questions. It is abhorrent elitism at its worst.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Susan R]

Here-

SGM “charismaticism” is not much different from what I experienced in Bible-based fundamentalism growing up. (Which is also precisely why so many young fundamentalists can easily make the transition to SG churches—they do not really have to embrace anything distinctly different about how the Spirit works, only the extent to which He plays a role in everyday life.) Let’s not forget our own holiness/revivalist roots.

And here-

Why can’t associations and organizations admit that they’ve tolerated this error for far too long in their own camps, that it is possible this has contributed in some way to some (not all) of this doctrinal confusion../

Fundies have been soft cessationists for years, they just haven’t ever come out of the closet to admit it. I have not, in 40 years of being in IFBism, seen a hard line drawn on special revelation/knowledge. Doctrinal criticism has been focused on speaking in nonsensical tongues and claiming the gift of miraculous healing.

I don’t think much credence is being given to how pervasive soft cessationism is in IFBdom. I didn’t even realize it myself until one day a pastor came out and said that he received knowledge from God as our shepherd that we were not kin to because we were his sheep. He expected the congregation to ask his permission about major life decisions and purchases. It was an epiphany to hear it so boldly stated.

So since that line is not so clear or intuitive, perhaps it needs to be redrawn before we get upset at someone for crossing over it?

I see, two wrongs makes a right, theory.

But more specifically, your willingness to allow generalizations regarding Fundamentalists theological and practical expressions of matters of apostolic sign gifts, prophecy and be led of the Spirit are your undoing.

You state, “since that line is not so clear or intuitive, perhaps it needs to be redrawn before we get upset”.

Ummm….Susan, there are many, many and many more historical Fundamentalist resources that have specifically and with exhausting detail drawn the line and made quite clear the separation between these matters you imagine are confusing to all Fundamentalists.

It might be to you and it might be this is the Fundamentalism to which you have been expose but you are missing a very big piece of historic and immediate Fundamentalism.

What you are talking about is the Aberrant end of Fundamentalism, Jack Hyles and “Meet the Holy Spirit”. On this topic it seems you have not done some due diligence or you would be very aware of the volumes of material that do not permit “God told me so” claims by Fundamentalists in the name of being led by the Spirit and so on.

I see, the “Do as I say but not as I do” theory. Nice work if you can get it.

Distinctions may have been drawn in print, but they have not been drawn in practice by separating from the “God told me” crowd.

Joel,

The matter of continuation/cessation of miraculous gifts and tongues is of critical importance to the church today. The first wave of Pentecostalism began in 1906 with its emphasis on second blessing as a short cut to holiness and tongues were considered a sign of the end times. The second wave of Charismaticism began ca. 1960 emphasizing ecumenicism and spontaneous/spectacular worship. The third wave coined by Peter Wagner in 1980 moderated the second wave but still maintained a broad theological spectrum. I see SGM as an extended portion of the third wave.

God’s self-limitation in cessationism should not be understood as a statement of what God can or cannot do. The purpose of the miraculous gifts involved a display of supernatural divine power for the intent of public attestation and the establishment of the Christian Church. They were undeniable, edifying, identifying, and exclusive. On the other hand, a providential gift by definition is not miraculous. Thus prophetic gifts are miraculous by definition. When the completed thing comes the partial thing is no longer necessary. The signs of an apostle do not exist today (2 Cor 12:12) nor are they possible. They were unique to the apostolic ministry and era. The office was foundational and Paul was the final appointee (1 Cor 15:8). The primary function of tongues and other revelatory gifts were Kingdom markers via miraculous attestation (Heb 2:4; 6:5; 1 Cor 14:6, 22), including signs of the coming Kingdom, Christ’s offer of the Kingdom (Matt 12:28), and that a new body of Jews and Gentiles was being formed to temporarily displace Israel (Acts 11:15ff). Those attesting signs were necessary in part because of the temporary incompleteness of the written Word for those who lived in the era of the uncompleted Scriptures.

The continuation of tongues and other revelatory gifts in the church age today cheapen and jeopardize the doctrine of biblical sufficiency and possibly re-open the canon. Those gifts are necessary today only if the Bible is insufficient. The signs served the thing signified. Unverifiable revelation today is a threat to canonicity. These spurious revelations diffuse biblical authority and create contradiction as has been seen in Romanism, Mormonism, Islam, and Christian Science. When Grudem and others maintain that current revelations are fallible and therefore subservient to Scripture they decrease rather than increase the confidence in Scripture. The multiplication of divinely authoritative material that is potentially fallible and contradictory does not help us in any fashion. Rather, it destroys confidence in the Bible and is no more valuable than good advice. Continuationism is a theological aberration with potentially first-order implications against biblical authority. Marginalizing this aberration is done to one’s own peril. Those who penned the original polices at Northland fully understood these things and would not ecclesiastically join hands with those who openly espoused and practiced continuationism. The providential leading of the Lord is not nor ever has been considered revelatory.

Pastor Mike Harding

Sorry Susan, but many Fundamentalists have done as they teach and have not and do not practice the “God told me so”. Sorry your limited life has not introduced you to them.

But let’s consider your complaint, that some cross the line, ignorantly or arrogantly but errantly. Okay so some people have trespassed and your suggestion is that we argue against others doing it, too? You do have kids, right? Because Johnny does it doesn’t make it okay for Timmy.

I never, ever said or implied that two wrongs make a right. IMO, if we are going to properly address the issue- not just symptoms but the underlying causes- I think some investigation into where the trouble began inside of IFBism is in order. I offered a theory about how this kind of doctrinal confusion may have flourished under the radar in IFBism. This whole conversation is ‘for what it’s worth’ anyway.

Susan, I think you are making two mistakes. First, extrapolating from your experience to let that stand for the whole of Fundamentalism. Second, confusing the leading of the Spirit, which no one denies, with the gifts of the Spirit, see my post to Joel above.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I think we need to be concerned about more than just our own backyard. Others share my experiences and perspective, just as there are those who share your experiences, and thus your perspective. I don’t intend to dismiss your pov just because it isn’t a carbon copy of mine.

Using the term “IFBism” or “Fundies” is an acceptable generality, not to be inferred as indicating every Fundy everywhere in the universe- iow, “IFB without distinction, not IFB without exception”.

I’m not the one confused about the Holy Spirit using revealed Scripture to lead and guide us. Those who need to get a grip on when and where and how the Holy Spirit acts in our day-n-age are those who make claims of prophesy and special knowledge not revealed in Scripture. People don’t just dive headfirst into a giant vat of error. They take baby steps, often after they have been worn down by accepting little errors. I have pointed out what I think one of them is.

In closing, Bro. Johnson- I think some of the questions you are asking are valid questions. It is very important that we can trust our leaders to abide by stated, published policies, whether they are university professors or pastors.

I guess I see Don’s questions as valid but academic—I have no affiliation with Northland. Kids from our church go to BJ, MBBC, Cedarville, as well as state universities and community colleges. They could go to Northland, but none have lately.

In short Matt Olson isn’t my leader any more than Stephen Jones or whoever runs Ohio State.

Alex, if you consider what I actually said, you will not see where I said anything negative about his doctrine. Saying that some have used his works to justify bad behavior/theology isn’t a criticism necessarily.

It is certainly that it is within the realm of possibility that Olson does not see charismaticism in the SGM as the same thing that the statement of faith was arguing against. So while as charitable as you are toward Torrey, you are very much not toward Olson. You are simply debating the terms used.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.