Would that every preacher in the charismatic movement had the good sense and Scriptural grounding of Wesley!
From his sermon "Scriptural Christianity," preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, before the University, August 24, 1744:
The text: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." Acts iv.31.
...In this chapter we read, that when the Spostles and brethren had been praying, and praising God, "the place was shaken where they were assembled together, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." Not that we find any visible appearance here, such as had been in the former instance: Nor are we informed that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were then given to all or any of them; such as the gifts of "healing, of working" other "miracles, of prophecy, of discerning spirits, the speaking with divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues." (1 Cor. xii. 9, 10.)
Whether these gifts of the Holy Ghost were designed to remain in the Church throughout all ages, and whether or no they will be restored at the nearer approach of the "restitution of all things," are questions which it is not needful to decide. But it is needful to observe this, that, even in the infancy of the Church, God divided them with a sparing hand. Were all even then Prophets? Were all workers of miracles? Had all the gifts of healing? Did all speak with tongues? No, in no wise. Perhaps not one in a thousand. Probably none but the Teachers in the Church, and only some of them. (1 Cor. xii. 28-30.) It was, therefore, for a more excellent purpose than this, that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost."
It was, to give them (what none can deny to be essential to all Christians in all ages) the mind which was in Christ, those holy fruits of the Spirit which whosoever hath not, is none of his; to fill them with "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness;" (Gal. v. 22-24;) to endue them with faith (perhaps it might be rendered, fidelity,) with meekness and temperance; to enable them to crucify the flesh, with its affections and lusts, its passions and desires; and, in consequence of that inward change, to fulfil all outward righteousness; to "walk as Christ also walked," in "the work of faith, in the patience of hope, the labour of love." (1 Thess. i. 3.)
Without busying ourselves, then, in curious, needless inquiries, touching these extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, let us take a nearer view of these his ordinary fruits, which we are assured will remain throughout all ages; -- of that great work of God among the children of men, which we are used to express by one word, Christianity; not as it implies a set of opinions, a system of doctrines, but as it refers to men's hearts and lives.
Now about this I offer the following brief comments:
1. I think Wesley unduly pessimistic, and unduly impressed with the importance of "Teachers," when he says, "Perhaps not one in a thousand," etc. But Wesley, in taking seriously the obvious intent of Paul's rhetorical question, "Do all speak in tongues?" is at least dealing honestly with the text, in marked contrast to such persons as Dennis Bennett.
2. I am not nearly as certain as Wesley that it "is not needful to decide" whether the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, used by God to edify His infant Church and thus produce in her the fruits of the Spirit, "were designed to remain in the Church throughout all ages." In fact I think he is wrong; I think that they were designed to remain, that it is needful to understand their nature and uses, and that a Church that refuses to avail itself of the gifts of the Spirit properly used cripples its own ability to produce the fruit of the Spirit just as surely as a Church that comes to adore the gifts rather than the Giver, most surely will end in dividing the Church rather than edifying it, as has been the case from the days of Corinth to the days of the all-too-frequently self-congratulatory and schismatic "renewal" movements of the twentieth century.
3. But I hold very strongly indeed to the belief that Wesley is absolutely right in demanding that our focus be on the ordinary fruit of the Spirit rather than the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and there can be no excuse for those large contingents within the charismatic movement who insist, in effect, on rewriting the very words of Christ Himself to say, "By their gifts you shall know them." Nay, to those who proclaim, with all the vehemence of a Corinthian, that one can tell which soi-disantes Christians have the Spirit and which do not, by the presence or absence of supernatural gifts of the Spirit, I urge meditation upon the following words of Christ Himself.
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit [not, you perceive, by their gifts] you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
It's a simple question, really: did Jesus spend more time talking about Spiritual gifts -- or Spiritual fruit?
Thus I personally believe there is a proper middle ground between Wesley's apparent desire to minimize the importance of Spiritual gifts (understandable given his desperate desire to head off schism between the Wesleyans, many of whom were demonstrating ecstatic gifts, and the Church of England), and the charismatic movement's glorification of gifts beyond all rational or godly measure. And there are many persons within the renewal movement who have remained responsible and Biblical and godly, and who have born much fruit.
But if I were forced to choose between the two, I would trust my children in a heartbeat to a Wesley rather than to a Bennett.
No comments:
Post a Comment