I love having read Dan’s article, from a charismatic viewpoint, and now yours, Michael, and seeing comments from Southern Baptists, charismatics, liturgical Christians, and more. May we all draw together in Christ bringing glory to Him so that the world will know that Jesus is for real!

You’ve set yourself up as judge and jury of the e.c. Let me know how that works out for you. As quite frankly, I’m a little tired of gauntlets being thrown down.

You are correct. The charismatic/Pentecostal side of things can become “holier than thou” with regards to their pneumatology. You’ll get no arguments from me on that.

If you would like me to admit I’m being hyperbolic, I’ll say it, “I’m being hyperbolic.”

But not by much. At some point the sheer number of words spoken within the EC about all other topics begin to drown out the very rare few spoken about the Holy Spirit, and the mathematical limit approaches zero.

As has been noted here and from EC commenters regarding my post, most people in the EC agree that next to nothing is being said about the Holy Spirit. I got almost eighty pages into The Forgotten Ways a hot new reform-oriented book before the Spirit was mentioned, and then only in passing. That’s par for the course. I’m frankly staggered that I continue to see this lack of attribution to the Spirit of anything that is happening in the EC; it’s almost pathological. That some EC leaders are only just now beginning to take note shows the depth and intractability of the problem.

Again, I’m simply noting what some EC leaders have noticed!

IF the EC continues to go this route of downplaying the Spirit’s role, then I fear it is the arm of flesh. IF it wakes up and starts attributing its direction to the leadership of the Spirit and not the cleverness ofg interpreting sociological data, then it may NOT go the arm of flesh route. The IF there is up to the EC. They can decide. That’s the gantlet I’m throwing down.

1. There is a charismatic tendency to imply (or even state outright) that the person and work of the Holy Spirit had been neglected until, well, basically until the Azusa Street Revival and/or the charismatic revival of the 1960s onwards.

When I first returned to the Christian faith, I was quite influenced by the charismatic movement for a while (experiencing the “Toronto blessing”, “speaking in tongues” etc), and took this claim at face value. Then I encountered people like Spurgeon or Ryle or the Puritans or the Reformers talking about the Holy Spirit all the time, and the emphasis on the Spirit’s work in Eastern Orthodoxy and so on. Frankly this left me feeling pretty angry and betrayed by the claim that the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism had “rescued” the Holy Spirit from neglect.

Don’t worry, I’m over it now , but it does make me put the claim that the emerging church “perpetually leaves out the mention of the Holy Spirit” in a certain context.

2. Your reference to Montanus is highly appropriate. My recollection of my days in charismatic circles is that there is a tendency to see Montanism not as a dangerous heresy that was rightly rejected by the catholic church, but as a (perhaps slightly over-exuberant) charismatic revival movement that was quenched by the institutional church. See, for example, Michael Green’s “I Believe in the Holy Spirit”.

He then cites Andrew Jones statements on a need for a deeper understanding of the HS in the emerging church in an attempt to prove his point (in the comments on his blog post) – which disproves his “not a peep” statement – but that doesn’t change his statements or conclusion. (I think the TSK would be shocked to know he’s involved in “flesh-centered hogwash.”)

Maybe what we have here is a whole new sub-category of the blogosphere, the TCs and Dan is vying for the Challies position.

Just so I retain some street cred among the Emerging folks out there, later this week I plan on dismantling the anti-mysticism bent some “traditionalists” have been on lately.

So see, sometimes I do defend Emerging Church ideals.

Ironically, I have very little quibble with anything you’ve said here. I kept reading thinking the guns would come out sooner or later, but I feel remarkably unscathed.

Comments:

1. I was saved in the Lutheran Church, so I’m very well acquainted with liturgy. I wish more Evangelical churches had some–SOME–sort of liturgical grounding. And I’m very aware of the way the Spirit is discussed and presented within liturgical circles. We absolutely need that perspective. Where we might differ is whether the liturgical view captures the entirety. I don’t think it does, but then no one denomination or theology today seems to cover all the bases. I’ve been in enough different churches to know where the blindspots and strengths lie. But by all means, lets hear what the liturgical churches have to say in pneumatology. The charismatics and Pentecostals (as well as everyone else) desperately need their insights!

2-3. Michael, no charismatic blogger has taken greater pains than I have to address phony, heretical, and downright blasphemous “moves” within the charismatic/Pentecostal community:
http://snipurl.com/1dg71
http://snipurl.com/1dg74
I think you and I are on the same page on this. On the other hand, I’m also not a fan of the “let’s kill it all off so nothing bad can ever get through” theology that some espouse (like MacArthur). A gift of discerning of spirits exists for a reason. I wish we’d learn how it works!

4. You’ll get no arguments from me. We agree.

5. I’ve been around the Emerging Church for a few years, have known folks who attend emerging congregations, and have read extensively. I spent a few years on The Ooze and racked up several thousand posts worth of conversations with folks there. Yet it seems the number of times I can count mention of the Holy Spirit would barely fill all my digits. I’m not the only one saying this, either. Andrew Jones has noted the strange lack of talk within the Emerging Church about the Holy Spirit, as have other well-known names. Jones has also wondered why so few emerging churches are charismatic or Pentecostal. So it’s not just me who is saying this. In fact, I’m mouthing a lot of what I’ve heard other Emerging leaders say.

6. Ironically, I’m currently reading The Forgotten Ways and it’s one of the reasons why I wrote my post. Almost every hot book within the Emerging conversation ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS starts with science. ALWAYS. I sometimes wonder if the leaders within the Emerging Church are all sociology majors because the second they try to make a point or offer a solution, here comes the sociological studies. It wouldn’t be so bad if these studies were used to illustrate problems, but it’s hard to escape that reality that they’re just as often used as part of the solution, too. Now I’m not anti-science by any means, but this obsession with crafting our spiritual responses around what the latest demographic study reports automatically stymies the Spirit. Instead of asking, “What is the Spirit saying?” as we should do (and the first century Church did), the Emerging Church has this tendency to ask, “What are the sociologists telling us the cultural drift is saying?” That’s the arm of flesh right there–let’s try to reason this out and create a response. Yet I look at the Bible and I can’t see that the early Church functioned that way. I hear a lot of talk about Ancient/Future within the Emerging Church, but the way the ancients listened to the Spirit first doesn’t seem to be on the radar screen. And I know that’s a generalization to some extent, but I wish I’d pick up an Emerging tome that would shatter this mold of going to the science and then dwelling there, all the while leaving the Spirit out of the picture. If that’s the model, then give me Edwards, Tozer, Murray, and their brethren.

Anyway, I hope this clears up some things. Thanks for stoking the fires.

My concern is that those who need to heed it most will not, choosing instead to defend themselves even though they are not being attacked. Why is it so difficult for so many of us to accept criticism from those outside our own theological comfort zone? I have learned as much or more from my critics than from those who agree with my observations. We all say we need to grow into Christlikeness but, when someone actually points out an area where we might be deficient, we act like we’ve already arrived and don’t need input from anyone, thank you very much.

Well, this is more of a rant, I suppose, than a comment. Again, I appreciate your insights and remarks here.