Is Charismatic Hermeneutics cancer?

[mikedsjr]

Mark Stibbe as defended charismatic hermeneutics by bulleting the 7 points which he believes makes up Charismatic hermeneutics(listed below). Okay. I disagree. It's a different denomination. Nothing to fret about.

Except you hear more and more non-charismatics speaking like this is how they interpret Scripture. Look at Facebook, Twitter, or any Christian meme. There is nothing about the 7 points that tries to read context. What has happened to reading Scripture for what it says?

I find the 7 dangerous. To me, this is a reason for a modern day church council(my opinion only). There is no sense the Scriptures hold any historical truth, unless you claim the spirit told you them.

I could be overreacting. I'm good at that. Any thoughts?

1. AN EXPERIENTIAL READING "The hermeneutical process often begins with the Holy Spirit working upon a person's heart and impressing him or her with a burning sense of the relevance of certain Scriptures for his situation." (184)

2. ANALOGICAL (pesher interpretation). "A charismatic hermeneutic begins with the story of what God is doing now, and then proposes analogies with the over-arching meta-narratives of Scripture." (185)

3. A COMMUNAL READING "Biblical interpretation is undertaken in a community and for a community". (186)

4. A CHRISTOLOGICAL READING (as in Acts 2:22-36) "A fresh sense of the glory and lordship of Jesus Christ." (187)

5. AN ESCHATALOGICAL READING "Emphasis on both the 'now' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God. (188)

6. AN EMOTIONAL READING "The emotions must be involved in our reading of Scripture, and indeed in our response to Scripture." (190)

7. A PRACTICAL READING "We must always ask, 'What is the consequence or fruit of such interpretations?" (192)

From: http://www.brow.on.ca/Articles/Hermeneutics.html

 

[Shane R]

3-6 are valid considerations when reading Scripture.

 

[mikedsjr]

3-6 are valid considerations when reading Scripture.

I at least agree they are not all invalid, though primary herms dictate the others usually

 

[OzSpen]

Mark Stibbe as defended charismatic hermeneutics by bulleting the 7 points which he believes makes up Charismatic hermeneutics(listed below). Okay. I disagree. It's a different denomination. Nothing to fret about.

Except you hear more and more non-charismatics speaking like this is how they interpret Scripture. Look at Facebook, Twitter, or any Christian meme. There is nothing about the 7 points that tries to read context. What has happened to reading Scripture for what it says?

I find the 7 dangerous. To me, this is a reason for a modern day church council(my opinion only). There is no sense the Scriptures hold any historical truth, unless you claim the spirit told you them.

I could be overreacting. I'm good at that. Any thoughts?

1. AN EXPERIENTIAL READING "The hermeneutical process often begins with the Holy Spirit working upon a person's heart and impressing him or her with a burning sense of the relevance of certain Scriptures for his situation." (184)

2. ANALOGICAL (pesher interpretation). "A charismatic hermeneutic begins with the story of what God is doing now, and then proposes analogies with the over-arching meta-narratives of Scripture." (185)

3. A COMMUNAL READING "Biblical interpretation is undertaken in a community and for a community". (186)

4. A CHRISTOLOGICAL READING (as in Acts 2:22-36) "A fresh sense of the glory and lordship of Jesus Christ." (187)

5. AN ESCHATALOGICAL READING "Emphasis on both the 'now' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God. (188)

6. AN EMOTIONAL READING "The emotions must be involved in our reading of Scripture, and indeed in our response to Scripture." (190)

7. A PRACTICAL READING "We must always ask, 'What is the consequence or fruit of such interpretations?" (192)

From: http://www.brow.on.ca/Articles/Hermeneutics.html

I have a significant issue with all of these points as they depart from understanding the historical, grammatical and cultural hermeneutics of the text. We should come to any text with a view to understand the history, grammar and culture of the era in which the document was written.

Of course, there are practical applications of the meaning of a text. However, the christological and eschatological only apply if those dimensions are in the text. To understand the meaning, I apply the regular principles of interpretation that I've mentioned. This happens when I exegete a text for my preaching and from the exegesis I move to a homiletical outline that helps me present the material to the congregation.

However, throughout this process I seek the Holy Spirit's guidance to help discern meaning in the text that I may have missed and applications that are needed for the congregation and the contemporary society in which we live.

One does not have to be a charismatic to violate some fundamentals of exegesis of a text. I see it happen in Baptist, Wesleyan and Pentecostal denominations with which I've had some preaching association. Experiential/existential preaching happens all too often where I live and mix that with some allegorical interpretation, which imposes a meaning on the text.

There are lots of issues that come out of your comments.

Oz

 

[Uber Genius]

Mark Stibbe as defended charismatic hermeneutics by bulleting the 7 points which he believes makes up Charismatic hermeneutics(listed below). Okay. I disagree. It's a different denomination. Nothing to fret about.

Except you hear more and more non-charismatics speaking like this is how they interpret Scripture. Look at Facebook, Twitter, or any Christian meme. There is nothing about the 7 points that tries to read context. What has happened to reading Scripture for what it says?

I find the 7 dangerous. To me, this is a reason for a modern day church council(my opinion only). There is no sense the Scriptures hold any historical truth, unless you claim the spirit told you them.

I could be overreacting. I'm good at that. Any thoughts?

1. AN EXPERIENTIAL READING "The hermeneutical process often begins with the Holy Spirit working upon a person's heart and impressing him or her with a burning sense of the relevance of certain Scriptures for his situation." (184)

2. ANALOGICAL (pesher interpretation). "A charismatic hermeneutic begins with the story of what God is doing now, and then proposes analogies with the over-arching meta-narratives of Scripture." (185)

3. A COMMUNAL READING "Biblical interpretation is undertaken in a community and for a community". (186)

4. A CHRISTOLOGICAL READING (as in Acts 2:22-36) "A fresh sense of the glory and lordship of Jesus Christ." (187)

5. AN ESCHATALOGICAL READING "Emphasis on both the 'now' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God. (188)

6. AN EMOTIONAL READING "The emotions must be involved in our reading of Scripture, and indeed in our response to Scripture." (190)

7. A PRACTICAL READING "We must always ask, 'What is the consequence or fruit of such interpretations?" (192)

From: http://www.brow.on.ca/Articles/Hermeneutics.html

Bravo!

Been in the Charismatic movement for 41 years.

The list you commented on is often the approach for the average attendee. How do I know? I have taught exegesis and hermeneutics for the last 30 years in these Charismatic churches.

And boy are they mad when I say things like, "A passage can't mean now what it never meant to the original audience! "

This flawed method produces false (post modern) views about the scripture qua knowledge. Scripture interacts with our spirit by taking words on a page that in-turn spark an idea that I (the Charismatic reader) take to be God speaking to me specifically.

A. No interpretation is possibly even false.

B. It reminds us of the ancient Church Fathers allegorizing.

C. It makes a mockery of God's intent for the scriptures.

D. It dishonor those who signed their accounts, or translations into the common vernacular, in their own blood.

E. It opens one up to spiritual deception not revelation. (God is not mocked, one doesn't trample on God's word and not open themselves up to demonic ideas set against the knowledge of Christ)!

Now Evangelicals who are patting yourselves on the back right about now, do you worship The Lord with a whole heart (or an eye to look respectable). Do you "long to pray in tongues" like Paul urges? Or to. Prophecy, or give a specific word of knowledge from God to someone in your sphere of influence? Charismatics do these things without much fanfare. When I take my Evangelical friends out to engage the public and demonstrate God's goodness they, not the Charismatics, are the most ill-equipped.

So it seems we can all learn from one another, each building up the weakness in their brother so that we grow up to full maturity in Christ Jesus.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I could be overreacting. I'm good at that. Any thoughts?

No.
You are under-reacting. (but don't react anyway).
Just throw all that garbage out.
It is not fit for conversation amongst believers. It leads many astray.

 

[tdidymas]

It appears to me that 1 & 2 are the primary means of interpretation among cults, and we have about 1500 years of RC practice to thank for that. We have resorted to which particular doctrines a denomination teaches to discern if someone is Christian or cultic. This is what the Reformation was all about and why the primary (#1) rule of hermeneutic is "let scripture interpret scripture." When the context is left out of the primary means for meaning, error becomes prominent. Thin ice is dangerous.
TD

 

[ken777]

And boy are they mad when I say things like, "A passage can't mean now what it never meant to the original audience! "

I am wondering how this applies to prophecy such as Genesis 3:15?

 

[Uber Genius]

I am wondering how this applies to prophecy such as Genesis 3:15?

So to every rule there is an exception. Prophecy of future events is one.

But luckily the majority of scripture is not prophetic in nature and the majority of prophecy has been fulfilled. So we have little to worry about until we get to books like Revelation that mix and mingle prophetic, with apocalyptic, and epistlelary genres.


The exoteric rather than esoteric knowledge is center-stage throughout scripture but there is Jesus' telling people not to reveal, before his crucifixion, who he was.

And Paul also says "had he rulers and principalities known, they would have crucified The Lord..."

So some things are hidden. Most require hard work to get at the meaning.

 

[tdidymas]

And Paul also says "had he rulers and principalities known, they would have crucified The Lord..."

I'm sure you mean:
"had the rulers and principalities known, they would NOT have crucified The Lord..." (1 Cor. 2:8)
TD

 

[Uber Genius]

I'm sure you mean:
"had the rulers and principalities known, they would NOT have crucified The Lord..." (1 Cor. 2:8)
TD

Yep. Most of these are typed on my phone. I fat-fingered it. Thx

 

[Greg J.]

I attended a charismatic church for 9 years. Not surprisingly, there is a huge range of perspectives even within the charismatic movement. Some people would barely be characterized as charismatic at all. It is good to address individual experiences, statements, or stated doctrine rather than "all those people."

I wasn't up to reading the article (especially after skimming some of the points posted), so my thoughts are just about the text that @mikedsjr posted.

1. AN EXPERIENTIAL READING "The hermeneutical process often begins with the Holy Spirit working upon a person's heart and impressing him or her with a burning sense of the relevance of certain Scriptures for his situation." (184)

Since he is talking about something that "often begins," there is nothing of substance to address here. God can do anything he wants with whomever he wants, but that doesn't imply he'll do it for everyone.

2. ANALOGICAL (pesher interpretation). "A charismatic hermeneutic begins with the story of what God is doing now, and then proposes analogies with the over-arching meta-narratives of Scripture." (185)

We learn Scripture and the Holy Spirit gives us experiences so we can know God. Knowing God's heart helps us acquire his perspective through which we can evaluate circumstances. In other words, we are looking through the lens of God's heart to evaluate a circumstance (as much as God has enabled us to). Looking through the lens of circumstance to evaluate Scripture is like using the resources of a child to evaluate an adult. It lends itself to making Scripture say what one wants.

3. A COMMUNAL READING "Biblical interpretation is undertaken in a community and for a community". (186)

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our experiences in community are a part of coming to know God's inherent communal (Triune) nature. But ultimately, it is by knowing God's nature that we can properly interpret the communal facets of Scripture. Interpreting Scripture through a foundation of human community is backwards, and cannot be trusted, because the fallen cannot understand the pure.

4. A CHRISTOLOGICAL READING (as in Acts 2:22-36) "A fresh sense of the glory and lordship of Jesus Christ." (187)

There isn't an assertion to address there, although it implies he wants to interpret Scripture through fallen feelings.

5. AN ESCHATALOGICAL READING "Emphasis on both the 'now' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God. (188)

The now and not yet usually refers to us growing into the likeness of Christ in this life until we leave all remnants of our "old man" behind. That fulfillment is already finished in Spirit, but not in this life experientially. However, it can be applied to the culmination of all things in the end. Better to view that as our experiences now vs. what is in God's heart. Understanding these things is a consequence of knowing God and his Word. It is not a lens that we look through to understand Scripture.

6. AN EMOTIONAL READING "The emotions must be involved in our reading of Scripture, and indeed in our response to Scripture." (190)

It seems he is referring to understanding Scripture through emotions. We grow into Christ's likeness through sanctification done by the Holy Spirit and Scripture. His likeness includes his emotional makeup. Godly emotions come as a result of knowing God. Sanctified emotions are a consequence of the work of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, not a lens through which to can understand Scripture (or the Holy Spirit). Our emotions are partially still fallen in this life, so using them as a lens to understand Scripture leads to error (rather quickly, from what I've observed).

7. A PRACTICAL READING "We must always ask, 'What is the consequence or fruit of such interpretations?" (192)

We can ask, but what is going to matter is whether the fruit that is produced is growing people into the likeness of Christ. To be able to recognize that fruit requires knowing the real Christ, otherwise fruit can be evaluated to be good even when it is in fact bad ("good" compared to a false Christ).

 

[mikedsjr]

Greg J., Thanks for responding to Mark Stibbe's points. I appreciate the input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Mark Stibbe as defended charismatic hermeneutics by bulleting the 7 points which he believes makes up Charismatic hermeneutics(listed below). Okay. I disagree. It's a different denomination. Nothing to fret about.

Except you hear more and more non-charismatics speaking like this is how they interpret Scripture. Look at Facebook, Twitter, or any Christian meme. There is nothing about the 7 points that tries to read context. What has happened to reading Scripture for what it says?

I find the 7 dangerous. To me, this is a reason for a modern day church council(my opinion only). There is no sense the Scriptures hold any historical truth, unless you claim the spirit told you them.

I could be overreacting. I'm good at that. Any thoughts?

1. AN EXPERIENTIAL READING "The hermeneutical process often begins with the Holy Spirit working upon a person's heart and impressing him or her with a burning sense of the relevance of certain Scriptures for his situation." (184)

2. ANALOGICAL (pesher interpretation). "A charismatic hermeneutic begins with the story of what God is doing now, and then proposes analogies with the over-arching meta-narratives of Scripture." (185)

3. A COMMUNAL READING "Biblical interpretation is undertaken in a community and for a community". (186)

4. A CHRISTOLOGICAL READING (as in Acts 2:22-36) "A fresh sense of the glory and lordship of Jesus Christ." (187)

5. AN ESCHATALOGICAL READING "Emphasis on both the 'now' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God. (188)

6. AN EMOTIONAL READING "The emotions must be involved in our reading of Scripture, and indeed in our response to Scripture." (190)

7. A PRACTICAL READING "We must always ask, 'What is the consequence or fruit of such interpretations?" (192)

From: Hermeneutics

Those are the same principles that are used in Sextons which is a Mormon, LDS sect.

 

[Biblicist]

Mark Stibbe as defended charismatic hermeneutics by bulleting the 7 points which he believes makes up Charismatic hermeneutics(listed below). Okay. I disagree. It's a different denomination. Nothing to fret about.

As for these 7 points supposedly representing the charismatic hermeneutic, I think that it would be better to say that they are 7 points that Stibbs adhere's too, though I have never heard of Stibb's until this thread so I really have no idea what he is about.

Trying to define the broad domain of charismatic theology, which I can only presume that he has seperated from Pentecostal theology or for that matter with Renewal theology, is an onerous task as the domain or domains of charismatic theology are indeed broad and I know full well that the points that he has presented would probably horrify the more respected charismatic theologians and commentators.

Pentecostal exegetical scholars such as Gordon Fee would probably not be all that impressed with Stibb's 7 points.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

ameno

 

[Richard Tanner]

An emotional and experiential approach will always lead to error. We cannot approach interpretation and reading of the scriptures in this manner - our hearts are deceptive, and our experience though they be valid have too many factors feeding into them.

I attended a particular church for 18 years and was ostracized because I refused to approach the scriptures in this way. And yes I was guilty of this very error. Yet through further study of the scriptures, I realized I could no longer allow my emotions and experiences dictate what the scriptures are saying or not saying.

Many of whom I preached for ceased using me in their pulpits because I would no longer preach against what God never once was against. And many of those same pastors agreed with me in private, yet for the favor of man and position they would not speak up.

 

[Sola1517]

What has happened to reading Scripture for what it says?

It's irrelevant.

There is no sense the Scriptures hold any historical truth, unless you claim the spirit told you them.

Can you expound?

1. AN EXPERIENTIAL READING "The hermeneutical process often begins with the Holy Spirit working upon a person's heart and impressing him or her with a burning sense of the relevance of certain Scriptures for his situation." (184)

Why else would you have a concordance in your Bible?

2. ANALOGICAL (pesher interpretation). "A charismatic hermeneutic begins with the story of what God is doing now, and then proposes analogies with the over-arching meta-narratives of Scripture." (185)

I see no problem with connecting the Scripture to Scripture, if we're talking about the Rule of Faith.

3. A COMMUNAL READING "Biblical interpretation is undertaken in a community and for a community". (186)

I understand that Scripture is for a community (the Kingdom of God) I just don't understand how it's undertaken in a community.

4. A CHRISTOLOGICAL READING (as in Acts 2:22-36) "A fresh sense of the glory and lordship of Jesus Christ." (187)

The Bible taught minus Jesus (the heart of the Gospel)= Legalism.

5. AN ESCHATALOGICAL READING "Emphasis on both the 'now' and the 'not yet' of the kingdom of God. (188)

Once again, I find Baptist hermeneutics to be irrelevant.

6. AN EMOTIONAL READING "The emotions must be involved in our reading of Scripture, and indeed in our response to Scripture." (190)

The Scriptures should invoke emotion, they reveal the story of God.

7. A PRACTICAL READING "We must always ask, 'What is the consequence or fruit of such interpretations?" (192)

What's the difference between that and Observe, Interpret, and Apply?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

If one does not start with sound exegesis then the application is off the mark. I remember a Pastor who drowned because he tried to walk on water to prove his faith. Jesus told us not to tempt God, when Satan told him to jump off the Temple.

 

[Greg J.]

Something I've seen from more than one charismatic environment is use of the phrase "I know that I know that I know" when trying to describe one's faith about something. A person that really means that phrase is guaranteed to not actually have the implied ("maximized") faith. It is, like many other ways to describe one's own faith, a method of trying to find affirmation for their heart that they are loved, accepted, and worthy more than what is actually in their heart. The person believes they are a more approved and a greater person if they have greater faith rather than less faith (erroneous, albeit subtle). It is a side effect of having objectified faith in God and other things.

The above-mentioned pastor was trying to prove his faith to himself, which all by itself is a guarantee he didn't have that faith. He also had objectified faith in God as well as failed to recognize that trying to prove one's faith only happens when someone doesn't actually have that faith.

Btw, the account of Jesus resisting Satan's attack was using the power of the truth that we are commanded to not test God.