On doctrinal dispute

Warning: This post is long and meandering ... not regular Wayfaring Stranger fare.

Two years ago I decided to move back to Seattle from Washington, D.C. A lot of people had left the church we were pioneering, and I thought the task of laying the foundations again was too much for us. Specifically, as the leader, I didn't feel I had the spiritual gumption to set as good an example as was needed. I feared building a church that was crippled by the limitations of its pastor.

Anyway, when we knew we would stop meeting, we started looking for another church to attend in the interim. We ended up going to Rockville Evangelical Mission because some of our church members were already attending that church intermitently, and the church also ministered to the same group of Chinese immigrants we did, so we knew some people. REM was also a pioneering church, having started about the same time as we did, but had grew tremendously to about 100 people in just a few years. It was my first time as an adult going to a church outside my own "denominational walls."

The English fellowship pastor was a wonderfully sincere Jamaican man (who didn't fit the stereotype at all). I was impressed to see a black man ministering amongst so many Chinese! I was upfront about only being there for six months and he was gracious. The second Sunday, I told him my beliefs on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He said he was brought to Christ by charismatics, but had grown up in a Baptist-type church. He didn't argue with me too much about our doctrinal differences, but simply explained his views. For my part, I let him know that I didn't intend to cause trouble.

I thank God for those six months, because I learned to appreciate the viewpoints of my Christian brother. I learned a lot about Bible study and, even though I didn't agree with some of the things he taught, I was able to understand both sides of controversial issues better. What I've come away with has tremendously benefited me:

1) Appreciation (not necessarily agreement with) of other Christian points-of-view, especially historical Christian thought.
2) Recognition of the need for "Gospel preaching" that is focused on repentance.
3) Greater understanding of the importance of Bible study and interpretation.

That all is part of the reason I've been reading this book with a great title, "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth." I really like it because the authors write for layfolks, and it's short. Sort of an "Elements of Style" for Bible readers. Among other things, it explains that episodes in the Book of Acts should not be used as the basis for doctrine, although they can support it. This is because Luke wrote Acts as a history, not as an explicit teaching, such as Paul's Epistles.

Which brings me to the main point of this post. After my experience "on the other side," I've realized a lot of denominational teaching is simply people getting entrenched in their position, one against the other. Polarization of views is an unfortunate by-product of partisanship. I recently had a conversation with my mother in which she stated the common Pentacostal tenet that Christians cannot know they are baptized with the Holy Spirit unless they speak in tongues. I explained what I've learned about interpreting Scripture, that we cannot use the precedents in Acts as the basis of doctrine because those episodes are not meant to teach doctrine. The most we can say is that tongues is desireable and to be expected when one is baptized in the Holy Spirit, but not that it is a necessary corollary. I believe this teaching--that tongues are a necessary evidence of Holy Spirit baptism--is simply another man-made doctrine to fit one's pre-existing view, just as cessationalist arguments are.

On the other hand, I've been coming across interesting anecdotes from people like Charles Spurgeon (the great Baptist preacher) and Johnathan Wesley (the founder of Methodism) that show these men valued the work and gifts of the Holy Spirit in a way that is very similar to current charismatic teaching. I already blogged on Johnathan Wesley's quote about "dry and orthodox men" ridiculing those gifts which they did not have--and just yesterday I came across this in Spurgeon's "Lectures to My Students." He is teaching on the Holy Spirit in connection with a preacher's ministry:

I told my people the other morning, when preaching from the text, "My grace is sufficient for thee," that for the first time in my life I experienced what Abraham felt when he fell upon his face and laughed. I was riding home, very weary with a long week's work, when there came to my mind this text: "My grace is sufficient for thee"; but it came with the emphasis laid upon two words. "My grace is sufficient for thee." My soul said, "Doubtless it is. Surely the grace of the infinite God is more than sufficient for such a mere insect as I am," and I laughed, and laughed again, to think how far the supply exceeded all my needs. It seemed to me as though I were a little fish in the sea, and in my thirst I said, "Alas, I shall drink up the ocean." The thought made unbelief appear supremely ridiculous, as indeed it is.

Man, the guy speaks about Abraham's falling and laughter in the presence of the Lord and applies it to himself! Sounds like Rodney Howard-Browne!