The different "flavors" of Christianity

I came to Christ my senior year in high school at a Nicky Cruz Crusade in 1971. Cruz came to Christ through David Wilkerson who was of a more charismatic persuasion. 

My first church was a fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church (the John Rice, Jack Hyles, Jack Van Impe legalistic variety...if you are old enough to remember those dudes). Before that I was unchurched. Neither of my folks were practicing faith of any kind, though my mom was raised Catholic and my dad grew up in the Church of Christ I believe but had walked away from the church as a young man. 

A year after I came to Christ, I went to Lynchburg Baptist College (now Liberty U) and then transferred to Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International U) after two years. I graduated from Columbia in 77. Columbia's theological roots were in the Keswick or "deeper life" movement. 

While at Columbia I was exposed to a whole spectrum of views through the various students and faculty, from Reformed, to Arminian, to deeper life, to charismatic. I also started reading folks like Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis and some works out of a more reformed tradition. I eventually landed in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church after College for a couple of years -- which is on the far right theologically and most conservative spectrum of reformed churches. Solid doctrinally for the most part, but very little life. I found the label "the frozen chosen" to be appropriate. They were all "up in their heads" and somewhat oblivious in their approach to the mysteries of the Spirit and how to live in God's presence (or possibly it was more my lack of spiritual maturity and I was not ready to hear whatever they offered in this area). I learned a ton theologically while there, however, and became more convinced and grounded in a reformed theological outlook.

With my then-growing family (2 already born and one on the way) we moved to Massachusetts in 1982 to open a sales office for my business. While there we attended a Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Reformed) for about 4 years, then a Congregational Church for about 6 years eventually landing in a Baptist church for around 6 years (my wife had left our marriage and the Baptist church had a strong youth group which I attended for the benefit of my 4 kids, ages 12, 11, 9 and 7 at that time). 

After living in Massachusetts for approximately 16 years, I moved to the West Coast and attended an Evangelical Wesleyan Church for 4 years, eventually landing up in a non-denominational Charismatic Church (co-pastored by 2 brothers) for 13 years where I taught an adult bible class for 12 of those years.

I moved to Texas - since my daughter and her husband were considering starting their family (they have a son now) - and am now in a Baptist church (in name only...which they keep under wraps) that operates more like a Presbyterian church in its form of government (e.g. a plurality of elders/pastors) and also in their eschatology and soteriology but also like a charismatic church in their style of worship.  

The main thing Baptist about them is they practice adult Baptism. Otherwise, they even enjoy a good glass of wine or a beer - definitely not the kind of Baptist Church I used to attend. (They also do not emphasize the "cultural mandate" and exercising dominion over all aspects of culture which is more common in Presbyterian and Dutch reformed circles).

Why my church history? I have seen a lot of shapes and varieties of churches and the full theological spectrum within the church as a whole. I have observed what I feel are the good and weak sides of these various groups and drawn some conclusions along the way. The following are the differences I have seen. I am not suggesting I am right necessarily, only giving you my observations and understanding. In the following thoughts, I will discuss these and mainly compare and contrast the broader groups of Charismatic to non-Charismatic.

Charismatics

Charismatics tend to draw their sense of God's love through his present work and activity such as experiences and manifestations of his love in and through his Spirit and various spiritual gifts. They are more experience and feeling-oriented in how they approach God, tending to look to experiences/manifestations as much as God's word, sometimes giving personal encounters with God more weight than scripture. Given the inclination of our fallen hearts, I have concluded this ¹can be and often is very shaky ground to stand on. They tend to be so focused on present experience that they can lose sight of the significance, importance, and completeness of God's past work in and through Christ and the vast depth and richness of that work for us in our day-to-day lives i.e. they tend to chase present experiences/manifestations of God instead of appreciating the rock-solid realities of God's presence due to Christ's work on our behalf, despite present circumstances, experiences, and manifestations or lack of them.

Other Evangelicals

On the other hand, non-charismatic types i.e. Calvinists, Reformed, Baptists, and non-charismatic evangelicals tend to focus more on God's past work and Christ's future return with minimum emphasis on his present work i.e. the necessity of ²operating "in the Spirit." They have a tendency to draw their sense of God's love through the depth and breadth of Christ's past work - if they do at all. My observation is many evangelicals within the non-charismatic part of the church know more about God - in their head - instead of having an ongoing vital daily personal experience of God. This was also true of me for a long time. 

I find this is where Charismatics are stronger than most other evangelical churches. They at least have some life in them and seek to operate in the Spirit, if not always as strong a grounding in God's word. The downside of this, however, is Charismatics can confuse some subjective experiences as proof they know God, when their experience may have nothing to do with God. Non-Charismatics on the other hand, are propositional or doctrine-oriented (even among those who do not consider themselves cessationists or recognize the validity of all the gifts and the various activities of the Spirit). In fact, non-charismatics are so focused on propositional truth in scripture they confuse knowledge about God with knowing God. (I discuss this further here.) There is little emphasis on seeking God's presence or experiencing manifestations of his presence ²through His Spirit and what that looks like in our day-to-day walk with God. They are so focused on Christ's past work they can lose sight of God's present ongoing work by His Spirit. This is especially true of those in reformed circles from my experience. 

Both Christ's past work and the Spirit's present work are necessary means by which God shows his love and grace to us and through us. They are equally vital. I would also suggest for us to experience the latter (the work of the Spirit) as God intends we must be firmly grounded in the former (the work of Christ). I address this in several other posts on this blog. To focus primarily on one to the exclusion of the other is missing out on all the vital means by which God reveals himself to us, no matter which side you fall on. 

We cannot emphasize one to the point of minimizing the other or we will miss out on the full benefit of both and the vital connection between them. A key work of the Spirit is to reveal to us the things of Christ. And not just propositionally, but in the day-to-day experience and manifestation of his presence through the various gifts and other means of grace i.e. worship, prayer, meditation, etc. 

Now in saying all of this, these differences are not absolute distinctions but are tendencies. All groups would say they believe what the other groups emphasize, but from my experience and observation, there is a very definite distinction in practice, even if there is a verbal acknowledgment by each of the other's views and approaches.

I would also add the present church I attend (Baptist in affiliation) is more "charismatic" than most and the former charismatic church I was in is far more scripturally oriented than most, with a slight reformed leaning in eschatology while Arminian in their soteriology. But even with these two more "centrist" churches, there is still a considerable difference between them when you look "under the hood" and see how they operate and what they emphasize. 

For the non-charismatic groups, seeking and knowing the work of the Spirit is vital and a key missing piece. We are under grace because of the past work of Christ. But to be under grace is also to operate in the presence of God by His Spirit. I touch on this more here.  

My present church emphasizes the past work of Christ and minimizes the present work of the Spirit, as is typical of most non-charismatic churches.

Where I have landed... at present

I have personally been heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 1758 and instrumental in the first Great Awakening during the 1730's and 40's) and those who have studied him, such as John Piper (a Baptist), Tim Keller (a Presbyterian), and Kyle Strobel, (a professor at Talbot Seminary - also the son of Lee Strobel, author of "A Case for Christ").

Strobel is considered an Edwards scholar and did his Ph.D. on him. Edwards is wordy and also uses the 1700s variety of English - not unlike King James type English minus the "thee's and thou's" etc - which makes him hard to read.  Strobel, however, wades through this and does an excellent job of distilling his work and bringing out key aspects of Edwards's understanding of God in a way we can understand. I highly recommend all his work. The book at this link is a good summary overview by Strobel of what Edwards addresses regarding "spiritual formation" or what most evangelicals call sanctification. 

I have also posted some main truths Edwards discusses, summarized by Strobel here. 

While Edwards (along with the others mentioned) is within the reformed wing of the church, Edwards understands the importance of operating in the presence of God and the role of both our affections and our reason. As some may be aware he's written an entire treatise on "Religious Affections" in an attempt to address and assess the increase in emotional displays during the "Great Awakening" in the 1730s - e.g. folks loudly crying out to God for mercy, going into trances or convulsions, fainting, weeping sometimes for days, etc. Though he felt there were excesses and counterfeit displays of "the Spirit" he also believed much of this was the work of God. 

(by religious Edwards means "spiritual" as we would use it today. Not the legalistic performance-based variety common within the Evangelical community today) 

Interestingly, Edwards stresses (correctly I believe) that Christ is the eternal Word of God i.e. the truth and light (knowledge) of God revealed in the flesh and the Spirit is the passion and love of God poured out on us, through which Christ is revealed and the grace of Christ's work is applied (for a further discussion on this click here). Or as Edwards also likes to say, Christ is the light of God and the Spirit is the heat of God. Both knowledge and affection are vital in experiencing all of who God is and offers according to Edwards. So Edwards would not fit well in either a Charismatic or a stereotypical Evangelical church today or maybe, to say it more positively, he could possibly work well with either. 

The balance and conclusion

Our current walk with God and the presence of the Spirit are anchored in the past work of Christ i.e. the gospel of grace. Without that work and a clear grasp of grace, there wouldn't be our present walk. Our present experience of God is based on a clear and full understanding of this past work.  The truer our understanding, the greater our faith and the stronger we will experience the presence of God through His Spirit and day-to-day walk with God right now this moment. We are not to focus just on Christ's past work or our future hope of glory but on our present ongoing dependence on/faith in/walk with God. Our experience of God does not start and end with the past work of Christ but only begins there. This past work is the vital foundation for our ongoing participation in the ever-present love of the Father, Son, and Spirit. As scripture says, "the just shall live (present continuous action in the original Greek) by faith" and "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25) - it is worth noting the context of Galatians is a discussion of being under grace and not the law i.e. there is a direct tie into operating in the Spirit and being under grace. For a further discussion on how the Spirit and grace are connected click here. 

God did what he did in the past so we might know Him and walk with him in joy and power in every present moment to the glory of His name. 

___________________________________________________________________

¹Early on in his ministry, George Whitefield approached God in this way but later abandoned it after making a decision on "an impression from the Lord" that later proved to clearly not be His leading. 

²For a discussion on what I believe it means to operate in the Spirit, click here and here. 

For a discussion on being empowered by the Spirit, click here and here.