Being aware of the plethora of material written on the tension between Charismatic and Conservative theologies one scarcely believes it possible to contribute anything new. However, as I reflect on New Testament events and hold them in relief against my time spent as a pioneer missionary in the jungles of Kalimanatan Indonesia and add to that, the fact that I have yet to read any material on the issues I wish to present, I am encouraged to proceed.

The differing views of the tension can be briefly summarised around three passages from the New Testament; 1Corinthians12:13, Acts 19:1-7 and Ephesians 5;18. My intention is not to agree or disagree with the following views but to note their respective emphasis then compare them with some of my thinking, which I think for some will be a little left field.

Biblical Evangelicals interpret the “baptised by one spirit into the body” in the Corinthian reference as being the active work of the Holy Spirit convicting the seeker of sin, righteousness and judgement, then leading him to faith in Christ thus planting him into the Body of Christ. Most conservative Christians who hold this view are adamant that we speak here of conversion. The disciples in Ephesus, who were baptised by Paul were not properly converted, thus the experience of being baptised into the Name of the Lord Jesus, receiving the Holy Spirit and praying with tongues and prophesying was also a conversion event. John the Baptist’s gospel about Jesus and his baptism of repentance were deficient in ushering these twelve or so ardent seekers into the kingdom. When we come to the Ephesian reference those of us who are conservative translate Paul’s mandate as having our lives continually controlled by the Spirit rather than a second blessing experience. All evangelicals that I have spoken to, listened to or read of claim this should be a by faith event; the lack of any thing felt here does not mean nothing is happening.

Biblical Charismatics or Pentecostals have a prima face approach to “ baptised by one spirit into the body” as they have with most of their theology. The baptism of the Spirit is a stand-alone event preferably accompanied with the speaking of tongues or prophecy. It is a real experience, which can occur at conversion or as a subsequent second blessing. In Ephesus Paul prayed for the disciples of John to be both baptised with water and the Spirit because they were already believers through the ministry of John. Similarly the reference of Paul in Ephesians is a command to be filled or baptised with the Spirit after conversion. Broadly speaking the Charismatic biblical pattern is conversion with or without the Baptism of the Spirit or conversion then subsequently baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The reason I have outlined these two variant theologies it to demonstrate that we have in each camp a definitive sequence of events that occur in our spiritual pilgrimages. Both theologies have been firmly locked into a time sequence and religious pattern that each party is respectively comfortable with. The question I am asking is, ‘Are either of these forms truly biblical, or are these conflicting views both in their own way correct, but are viewed through the wrong lenses of chronology and culture?’

My wife and I had the immense privilege of pioneering the gospel in the Silat River basin Kalimantan Indonesia. The fresh spiritual stuff happening around us dared me to go back and begin to read my Bible differently. I was forced to turn my thinking around. One of the areas was in relation to spirituality, time and culture. To these delightful indigenous Dyak people there was no dividing line between the physical and spiritual. They both blend into one – I don’t think we in the west can ever really understand this ( by the way I believe they are right and we have got it wrong ). They also live with different paradigms to us in relation to their chronology and culture.

For example when I trekked through the valley accompanied by some Dyak Christian friends, I never had to announce my arrival; the villagers somehow knew I was on the way. When I arrived at a village it was normally empty as they were mostly out in the jungle. As the day unfolded they would gradually drift in from the jungle and eventually, when it was dark after being invited to eat, we would have a meeting with them on the long house veranda. Early in my ministry I became frustrated with this slackness and endeavoured to set meeting times by my watch. When I understood their culture I stopped using my watch and my western calendar. The issue that was significant to my Dyak friends was the fact that I had arrived, not that I had arrived late or early (jungle travel was always unpredictable and my lateness was always viewed nonchalantly). As I observed their behaviour and listened to their conversations it became clear to me that they have a different understanding of existentialism to us. To them the important thing was the event itself regardless of when it occurred. The fact that I had arrived was of significance; when I arrived was a non – issue to them. These Dyaks lived in a continuous time mode of the present with very little ability to place things in sequence. Hence my attempts at teaching them theology was a disaster but stories were a buzz and on these they grew. Having lived with, loved, and been loved by these people changed me. I will always be deeply grateful to God for them.

So as I began to read the gospels and Acts again I noticed something; there was little reference to time and dates! I discovered that these early Christian were living in a time culture not highly unlike that of the Silat Dyaks. As I flipped over the pages of the NT leaving aside my modern‘ wristwatch calendar paradigms’ I discovered people occupied with events not sequences. I noticed that when the Apostles were involved with people they were event focussed. They made enquires in relation to where people were at then ministered to them to make up the deficits. They never tried to reconstruct faith (albeit sometimes crude) nor systematise faith; they built on what was there. The early Christians were quintessential existentialists. (Gulp!)

As I understand it today, we as Christian leaders are products of our culture which has been built largely on the industrial revolution and the renaissance. Prior to the renaissance religious belief permeated throughout all of our culture. Eg, Religion, science and medicine were in the one basket. Theology was not thoroughly organised except for some Creeds etc. The huge industry of Systematic Theology developing from the late nineteenth century and bourgeoning into the twentieth has affected us all deeply in the way we think about God. The industrial revolution has taught us to think with ‘pigeon holes’. Therefore we approach the Bible with presuppositions rather than let the nature of the text speak for itself. Much of our Christian thinking today is done somewhat mechanically and chronologically hence we find it difficult to think ‘outside the box’. Our Colleges of Theology are examples of these paradigms. Therefore it is only natural that when we address issues of pneumatology and attempt to ‘pigeonhole’ the Breath of God we become unstuck and begin to argue with one another. The problem is we were not meant to analyse this stuff in an academic laboratory insulated from the workshop of life. It seems to me that we have to stop organising what God has said into our own limited filing cabinets which consumes an inordinate amount of time, and spend more time sitting with people, helping them move forward and allow the Holy Spirit to “Blow as He wills.” If one of your Christian friends has not experienced the reality of the Holy Spirit, don’t try to sort out his / her theology; take a hint from Paul, lay hands, pray and leave the results with God. (By the way if Luke 11 is correct, you may need to pray for a while ! ! ! )

As for me now, I have no problems in addressing these issues. They no longer conflict as I have mentally taken any presupposed sequences away from these main texts. Is either side wrong? Yes if you are dogmatic! I would like to think of myself as being ‘ Evangelical Charismatic.’ Sometimes I see my charismatic friends out in the middle of the river having a ball. Some of them can’t swim very well but they are alive! We Evangelicals are standing in the shallows reading our books and debating about non-issues.

Submitted by a friend

January 2006