"Phonity. noun: superficial unity for which fundamental differences are ignored."

Who is The Thirsty Theologian?

Thanks

http://www.challies.com/articles/king-for-a-week-thirsty-theologian

is spelled P-I-P-E-R, with a dose of G-R-U-D-E-M on the side. Piper is the uber-leader of the young and reformed crowd. He is so fashionable. Well, he believes in Charismata Lite…not too much, but just enough to get you going in the morning. A little prophecy (hey, its not scripture, it must be “judged”), a little Spanish tongues to help you if you get lost in Monterrey for some reason, etc. But, certainly not a full-blown Charismatic. Healing gifts? Why not…but not like Kenneth Hagin or Copeland or Benny Hinn. Add a little CCM and its all good! On top of that, he is a theologian turned “Pastor for Preaching and Vision” (whatever that means…I guess it means don’t call me at 2am if you’re sick in the hospital…or if you need a funeral service), and now a retiree. So, he is legitimate.

Surprisingly, he has even drawn so called young fundamentalists his way.

rambling thoughts here, as I have now gained a bit of real life experience with charismatics …

They are our brothers and sisters.

Yes, I have met several who are terribly ungrounded in Scripture and who tend to be unstable and even unethical/immoral as a result. (There is one particular church here that is huge and this seems fairly pandemic. But they are very evangelistic. The pastor.)

I have met several who are very grounded in Scripture and wonderfully stable and godly.

They have a very high regard for pastors.

They have women pastors—although I don’t know if they are actually ordained women pastors here—they just have a lot of “pastors” it seems.

I try to be gracious and not judge them because I assume that I also have glaring faults in some beliefs about God that I don’t see.

I don’t like the way fundamentalists respond to charismatics by acting as God’s gatekeepers in how He is or is not allowed to communicate to us or work among us. I think there are normative ways God communicates to us and works, and we should not search for nor expect “ecstatic” things, but I don’t think we should say God is not allowed nor will ever do certain personal things. I think that may even be blasphemous of us in a sense.

[Anne Sokol]

I don’t like the way fundamentalists respond to charismatics by acting as God’s gatekeepers in how He is or is not allowed to communicate to us or work among us. I think there are normative ways God communicates to us and works, and we should not search for nor expect “ecstatic” things, but I don’t think we should say God is not allowed nor will ever do certain personal things. I think that may even be blasphemous of us in a sense.

Absolutely true Anne. My entire life I have struggled with the fundamentalist dogmatism about the ceasing of sign gifts when the Bible is not dogmatic about it at all.

Mark, is your sarcasm justified? How about fair?

he is a theologian turned “Pastor for Preaching and Vision” (whatever that means…I guess it means don’t call me at 2am if you’re sick in the hospital…or if you need a funeral service), and now a retiree.

I happen to agree with the basic point that Piper (and Grudem) helped to legitimize this (unfortunate) marriage between Charismaticism and Reformed theology. But I can appreciate some of his other contributions without resorting to the kind of vinegar you’re sprinkling about here.

Does that make me one of those “so-called young fundamentalists”?

Have you ever seen a sign gift in operation? I am NOT asking if you have ever heard of an answer to prayer for healing, for example. I am asking if you have ever observed the “gift of healing” where a person laid on hands and a physical disability immediately was healed? Or, some other dramatic miracle that can be attributed to a gift of the Spirit in operation in an individual?

Mark, how do you know John Piper has never been called at 2am for a hospital call? Are you suggesting he never does funerals?

Even if these two things were rare, are you suggesting it is wrong for a senior pastor to delegate some aspects of pastoral ministry? Or should each pastor do everything in the church for everyone?

The side comment was meant to figure out what “Pastor of Preaching and Vision” means. Do you know?

Nonetheless, focus on the thread, which is the connection between Charismatics and Calvinists. Clearly, as a Calvinist who is a continuationist he has been responsible to a significant degree for the relationship between the two.

To me…

Pastor means I do it all.

Senior Pastor means I do the administration plus some of the personal ministry but I delegate to others under as well

Pastor of Teaching and Vision means I preach…and dream up new things to do, but don’t bother me with the administration or personal ministry.

[Mark_Smith]

The side comment was meant to figure out what “Pastor of Preaching and Vision” means. Do you know?

If you were reading the title with as much charity as you’d expect your own words to be read, I don’t think there’s even anything worth explaining. It’s self-explanatory. But I’ll take a shot anyway: first, you’re dealing with a plurality of elders, so there’s no “senior pastor.” And in that plurality the work is going to be divided up by gifting (which only makes sense.) So one is going to naturally carry more administrative workload, one more counseling workload, etc. (obviously this doesn’t mean exclusivity, but a larger portion.) And so the one gifted most strongly for teaching is going to shoulder the majority of the teaching load. Vision just means that by virtue of the fact that you’re shouldering the bulk of the teaching load you’re going to naturally have the most practical influence on setting the vision for what the church is going to look like (as you’re the one doing most of the communicating of that vision to the congregation as a whole.)

The side comment was meant to figure out what “Pastor of Preaching and Vision” means. Do you know?

If that was what you wanted to know, then why the s[n] ide comment? Why not just ask? Or better yet, use Google.

The first thing that comes up when you Google “Bethlehem Baptist Church pastor of preaching and vision” is this: http://www.hopeingod.org/job-description-pastor-preaching-and-vision

You will be able to find an answer to your question there.

In a church that large, someone in Piper’s position doesn’t do much hospital visitation, funerals, or the like. I listened to him recently where he lamented that fact. But it’s probably reality in a large congregation where priorities have to be drawn up and tasks delegated. My guess is that most people were not at Bethlehem because Piper had a great bedside manner in the hospital, or knew just the right words to say as the dirt was hitting the casket. They were there for his preaching.

But let’s not detract from this any further.

Piper’s popularity is not due to his continuationism. It is due to his preaching and writing. Grudem’s popularity is likely due to his systematic theology which is very usable in many ways. I doubt anyone likes either one primarily because of their view on the gifts. Other things are far more prominent.

What does that matter? In this particular article, I think there is a good point, that many overlook significant things for the sake of a faux unity. And that is wrong, not to mention dangerous. However, that does not mean that these men or others like them have nothing of value.

They like his preaching and teaching. They then see he is a continuationist. They then start to move in that direction.

Let me encourage everyone here to review Mark Smith’s posting history - especially his emphasis on CCM and glossalalia - and decide for themselves whether or not this is a discussion that is worth pursuing.

It seems pretty clear to me that Mark is not really here to discuss - just to gore his particular oxen.

Type cast me…I see.

ONCE AGAIN this thread is about the connection between Calvinism and Charismatics. I mentioned the popularity of it comes from Piper/Grudem…and you try to type cast me. That is very low of you sir. Jay…has Piper had a major role to play in the cozy relationship between Calvinists and Charismatics?

Imagine, a fundamentalist against tongues…and he’s castigated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!