Introduction

The thesis of John MacArthur’s new book, Strange Fire is that Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement, are heretical movements that must be rebuked and eliminated from the church. 1 Everything to do with these movements is fraudulent, inauthentic or a misrepresentation of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Strange Fire continues his war on the Pentecostals and charismatics begun with his book published twenty years ago, Charismatic Chaos.2

In the public launch to Strange Fire, MacArthur made clear his utter disdain for the Charismatic Movement in particular:

Nothing coming from the Charismatic movement has provided recovery or strengthening of the biblical Gospel. Nothing has preserved truth and sound doctrine. It has only produced distortion, confusion, and error. Yes, there are people in the movement who know and love the truth, have an orthodox Gospel, but are heterodox on the Holy Spirit. Not all of them are heretics. But I say again the contribution of truth from the people in the movement doesn’t come from the movement, but in spite of it.3

In the introduction to Strange Fire we find this accusation about the Charismatic Movement:

In recent history, no other movement has done more damage to the cause of the gospel, to distort truth, and to smother the articulation of sound doctrine. Charismatic theology has turned the evangelical church into a cesspool of error and a breeding ground for false teachers (pxvii).

The Rev. MacArthur bases these judgments on his close adherence to Reformed and Calvinist theology, and especially the doctrine of cessationism. This doctrine holds that the gifts of the Spirit, as described in Epistles and the Book of Acts, disappeared with the death of the Apostles or shortly after. Thus, in MacArthur’s mind, any manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit in the present must be of a fraudulent nature.

Strange Fire is divided into three parts. Part One critiques both the origins and the workings of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements as counterfeit revivals. Part Two focus on four areas of Pentecostal/charismatic ministry that MacArthur feels are especially fraudulent: the contemporary ministry of prophecy, the healing ministry, the act of speaking in tongues, and the recovered apostolic office. In Part Three MacArthur presents what he deems to be the proper work of the Holy Spirit as salvation, sanctification, and illumination of the Scriptures—the traditional Reformed understanding of the Holy Spirit’s work. This part ends with an open letter to Pentecostal/charismatics, which he calls “continuationists,” urging them to repent of their folly and return to the authentic, i.e., his Reformed and cessationist, form of Christianity.

I wish to make clear in this critique of Strange Fire that I consider that MacArthur’s biblical analysis is often excellent. His methodology of interpreting Scripture with Scripture can often be very insightful. His analysis of the Old Testament seems to be consistently of a high quality, and his radio program Grace to You has blessed millions.

But now I must say that Strange Fire is a deeply flawed book. It is an unintended and woeful parody of Jonathan Edwards’ standards of discernment which MacArthur cites, but fails to apply. Strange Fire, like his previous work of twenty years ago, Charismatic Chaos, is deeply Pharisaic in content, theology and tone. I use the term Pharisaic in its biblical meaning. That is, it is a religious perspective that is orthodox in essential doctrines, but flawed in discerning the present activity of the Holy Spirit.

Biblical Definition of Phariseeism

The Pharisees in the New Testament were a faction that had their theology right. They believed in the truthfulness of the Scriptures, in angels, and in the resurrection of the dead—all things that passed on and were affirmed in Christianity. This was in contrast to another Jewish faction, the Sadducees, who disdained those beliefs. Jesus took sides on this and affirmed the Pharisees’ theology:

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them” (Matt. 23:1-3, NIV).

Their great error was not in scriptural understanding or interpretation, but in discerning the motions of the Holy Spirit in the present. They did not expect or understand that the Holy Spirit could function outside of their group, or in a manner they were not accustomed to. Specifically, they interpreted Jesus’ “signs and wonders” as originating with the power of Beelzebub (Mark 3:22). The Pharisaical perspective is one that is strong on issues that are clear in Scripture and covered by tradition, but almost paralyzed when an issue arises that is not discussed in traditional theology—or threatens their perceived monopoly as “religious experts.”

Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The age of the Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys, A History of Evangelicalism, People, Movements and Ideas in the English-Speaking World I (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2003).

This is a splendid book that I found to be very rewarding reading. It is well thought out and it is presented in a way that makes for easy reading, yet challenges the reader to think and reflect on how the era covered in the book relates to today’s challenges in evangelicalism. Noll is able to cover the first three hundred years of English-speaking evangelicalism by capturing landmark events in such a way that readers will feel as if they were present in the shaping of these events. The book is divided into nine chapters, which are well integrated so that the book flows from one important event and/or leader to another.

The world of evangelicalism is not easy to define. Noll begins his book with an over view of the “Landscapes: Political, Ecclesiastical, Spiritual” that shaped the evangelical movement. By the time the reader reaches the third chapter, “Revival, 1734-1738” and the fourth chapter, “Revival, Fragmentation, Consolidation, 1738-1745” the reader understands why the revival became the centerpiece of the movement. Noll writes, “The evangelical revivals were unusual, however, in their frequency, their publicity and their function as a replacement for discarded aspects of traditional religion. They never, however, charted a simple course.” Noll captures the greatest challenge of today’s evangelical movement; how to replace the discarded aspects of traditional religion (revival is rarely practiced in mainstream religion, but is now rarely practiced in evangelical circles), yet not become the very thing (institutionalized religion) which the movement is attempting to replace.

Noll makes the point that, “Over time it became clear that for evangelicalism to take root, the longing for revival was more important than revival itself.” Through out the book Noll underscores the importance of this point. The preaching featured in the awakenings, “was a preaching aimed directly at popular affections, expecting life-changing results, emphasizing the message of divine grace as the God-given remedy for sin and often (though not always) dispensing with elaborate ratiocination.” Leaders into today’s evangelical movement should pay particular attention to this point. Rather than becoming preoccupied with doctrines, rules, prohibitions, and developing a “closed mind,” the movement needs to seek to appeal to people’s affections and help draw closer to Christ. In helping to explain the growth of the movement; Noll observes that, “evangelical Christianity coexisted with the Enlightenment.” The movement did not agree with all aspects of the Enlightenment; however, it was able to effectively dialogue with it. Noll does not shy away from critical reflection of the movement and its leaders. He notes that John Wesley was in many ways a tyrant, yet Wesley helped the evangelical movement to grow by expanding the role of laymen and to some degree challenged the stratified social order.

James R. Edwards, “A Unity Not of Our Making” Christianity Today (Vol 45, No 10, August 6, 2001), pp. 48-50.

“Unity in Diversity” has become one of the most popular ecumenical catchphrases. Especially among Pentecostal churches, the phrase seems to open up ways to engage in ecumenical dialogue without threatening the ecclesial independence or doctrinal commitment of the churches. James R. Edwards, Professor of Religion at Whitworth College and contributing editor to Christianity Today, has chosen to examine the phrase more closely. He is concerned about a nearly obsessive reliance on unity-in-diversity language and sees in it, rather than the desired emphasis on unity, a frequent apology for an unquestioned pluralism in Christian churches. Like light shining through a prism, the visible unity of the churches, instead of forming one body, is dispersed into many independent directions. The New Testament, however, Edwards points out, speaks of diversity that is channeled into unity and not, as the ecumenical catchphrase suggests, a unity that is being refracted into diversity. For support, he enlists the help of the Greek New Testament term homothumadon (“of one accord”).

Edwards finds that the use of homothumadon is frequently misunderstood. In secular Greek, the term does not convey the personal sympathy shared by the members of a group but a shared commitment of all to a specific cause. Thus the Greek orator Demosthenes “appealed to the Athenians to put aside their personal feelings and differences” (p. 49) and to unite in the defense against an invasion of Philip of Macedon. Edwards concludes that, like the unity of the Athenians, the unity of the church is “a compulsory unity rather than an intrinsic unity” (p. 49), produced by the extrinsic, and unmerited grace of God. The unity of believers is consequently not a sociological unity but one in correspondence and continuity with the proper understanding of God’s Word. This explains the use of the phrase “in one accord” in Acts 15:25 for an ecclesial situation that seems far from resembling a united Christian community. In order to achieve unity, the church must submit to the extrinsic Word of God, which is the great alien intolerance of human differences and divisions (John 17:11-22). The unity-in-diversity language, on the other hand, gives the impression that unity is based on the self-righteousness of the churches or their adaptability to changing social and theological norms. The true unity of the church, however, is “an alien gift of God from the outside, reflecting both God’s nature and governance” (p. 50). The goal of the church, Edward concludes, is not diversity but unity with God. It is a gift of God’s Spirit as long as the church follows God’s will as it is revealed in Scripture.