Category Archives: Theological Issues

Posts on theological issues not in other categories

Two Anglican priests' thoughts on charismatic experience

Posted on by
Reply

My post on speaking in tongues seems to have stirred up quite some interest. In addition to several comments and the link from Darrell Pursiful which I mentioned in my first follow-up post, it has attracted links from two Anglican priests on the edge of the charismatic movement, Tim Chesterton and Sam Norton.

Tim, once of Essex but now of Canada, dispels any suggestion that for him charismatic experience was something he enjoyed as a teenager in the 1970s but has now grown out of. In his new post he writes about “words of knowledge”. I didn’t mention in my previous posts that these “words of knowledge” are a major part of the prayer ministry at my church (which, sadly, is not well described at its website). Every Sunday morning before the service a group of us pray together and also wait for God to reveal to us specific prayer needs, such as sicknesses which God wants to heal. These are read out in the service before the final time of worship in song and prayer ministry, to encourage people to come forward for prayer for healing etc.

I don’t personally have such words on a regular basis. But a couple of weeks ago I had a sort of vision of someone with a particular health problem sitting in a particular part of the church. I wasn’t at all sure that this was from God and not just my imagination, but I shared it with the group in a very tentative way. Despite my uncertainty this was read out, there was indeed someone with that problem in that part of the church, and they came out for healing prayer.

Now it took a long time for my church to get to the point where that was acceptable; other churches may need to move gradually in that direction.

Sam, still here in Essex, linked to a recent post of his which I had not read before, about his visit to the New Wine Leadership Conference. It is good to see how he is edging towards a greater acceptance of the charismatic movement. To me, as an evangelical Anglican, the kind of “worship” experience which he criticises is quite normal, but I can see why he as a high churchman found it difficult to accept. And if he can’t take Bill Johnson, I certainly wouldn’t recommend to him Todd Bentley!

But I wonder if there is really “an underlying disparagement of the intellect” and “a division between ‘head and heart'” at New Wine. What I have seen is the opposite, a rejection of the division between ‘head and heart’ which underlies the idolatry of the intellect and disparagement of experience so common in many church circles, together with messages intended to appeal holistically to the whole person, including head and heart. I quoted here before Smith Wigglesworth’s 1947 prophecy that

When the Word and the Spirit come together, there will be the biggest movement of the Holy Spirit that the nation, and indeed, the world, has ever seen.

Surely it is this coming together of the Word and the Spirit which New Wine is aiming to achieve. And there are signs that it is beginning to happen.

I’m sure Sam will be happier as a “Charismatic Catholic” than he is in New Wine circles. And I hope on Pentecost Sunday, this Sunday, he will indeed have the courage to carry out his intention to preach about a “release of the spirit”, and that this release becomes not just words or doctrine but a real experience of many in his congregation.

Sam also links to an older autobiographical post of his own, Guarding the Holy Fire, which is long but fascinating. May there be in his parish of Mersea a real visitation of the Holy Spirit, not as an explosive fire which blows itself out (read the post to understand this allusion) but as a long-lasting holy fire which burns up all the rubbish and provides lasting heat and light. Todd Bentley is praying that the revival fire in Florida will light fires all over the world. May this happen even in Mersea, as well as here in Chelmsford. And while I don’t want to wish anything uncomfortable on Sam, he just may find that this revival doesn’t fit his expectations about a proper liturgical setting!

I was interested to see also in this post of Sam’s these words from Marianne Williamson:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. …

Sam gives the whole quote. These words, as seen in a clip from the film Coach Carter (which in fact cuts the quote to leave out the parts about God), formed the basis of a recent sermon at my church’s youth service. It was certainly a powerful sermon. With the Holy Spirit working in us we are indeed “powerful beyond measure”. But for many of us our deepest fear is of allowing that power to work in us (to continue the Williamson quote)

to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. …
As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

It is the Holy Spirit who can liberate us from our own fear. May we have the courage to let him do so.

Filled with the Spirit, not with emotionalism

Posted on by
18

Dr Platypus, Darrell Pursiful, linked to my last post on speaking in tongues and also gave a link to an older post of his, Filled with the Spirit. That post gives, it seems to me, some very sensible teaching on what baptism and filling with the Holy Spirit really means. But I am not entirely convinced by the distinction he tries to make between pleroo and pimplemi.

Darrell brings up the old chestnut that encouraging the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit, especially speaking in tongues, is in fact encouraging emotionalism. But those of us who have experienced these gifts in our own lives know very well that they are not just matters of emotionalism. Yes, human emotions are affected by the touch of the Holy Spirit, often leading to releases of tears or laughter, and to joyful praise and worship. For some people the Holy Spirit brings release from years of oppression and suppression of emotions, and healing from depression. When the pressure is released the emotions bubble over, like the froth from a newly opened champagne bottle. But in the bottle there is not just froth, there is the beautiful new wine of God’s presence, which is clearly felt and known by those whom the Holy Spirit touches.

Anyway, what Darrell says is true of most churches in western countries, except for some extreme Pentecostal and charismatic ones:

Some will wonder about the danger of emotionalism if such experiences are encouraged. To that I would say that there are no doubt many spiritual dangers facing the churches of which I have been a part for the past forty-some years, but unrestrained emotionalism has rarely been one of them! Rather, the danger for most of us in our relationship with God is not emotionalism but the lack of emotion. Every loving relationship involves emotions. There must be more than emotion—things like friendship, communication, honesty, trust, and so forth—but if I never showed emotion toward the people I love, something would be missing.

Meanwhile there is an amazing revival going on in Lakeland, Florida, led by Todd Bentley. Apparently there have been meetings there every night for more than a month, with wonderful miracles happening. This has been showing on God TV (late every evening here in the UK), and also as live streaming from this site, with (rather poor quality) recordings of previous meetings available at all times. Christian leaders from all over the world are flying to Florida to catch the fire from this revival. I have just been watching some of this – the evening meeting from 5th May, starting after the “worship” about 90 minutes into the four hour broadcast and listening for about 40 minutes.

Now Todd Bentley, a tattooed former drug dealer from Canada, is not everyone’s style. He is certainly very different from the other preachers from British Columbia I have mentioned here recently. His preaching is not classic expository preaching, and I’m sure he makes no claim that it is. He is quite deliberately appealing to his congregation’s emotions rather than to their intellects. Not everyone likes this, I know. I have seen some really rather ridiculous criticism of what is going on in Lakeland. But it should be clear from watching it that people are being touched by the power of the Holy Spirit and their lives are being changed. I believe this is God’s work. If others are not convinced, they should at least follow Gamaliel’s principle in Acts 5:38,39, and remember what happened to those who opposed Moses.

Google found for me an excellent post on the subject by John Allister, who quotes Greg Haslam quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Here is part of John’s post:

But just because we have the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that we have the fullness of experience of the Holy Spirit.

And if someone asks “Surely we got it all automatically when we believed?” Dr Lloyd-Jones replied “If you have got it all, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians? Got it all? Got it all at your conversion? Well, where is it, I ask?”

Filled with the Holy Spirit by Greg Haslam in Preach the Word

Should all Christians speak in tongues?

Posted on by
52

Brian Fulthorp, a Pentecostal pastor, has opened up discussion of speaking in tongues, with two reports on books, a review of the 40th anniversary edition of John Sherrill’s book They Speak with Other Tongues, and a brief notice of a new book Initial Evidence. Tim Chesterton also mentioned speaking in tongues in a great post which is in effect his testimony of how he became a Christian.

Like Tim, I first prayed in tongues here in Essex in the 1970s. In fact I can tell you the date, 11th April 1979, and the precise spot, 51°42’54.32″N 0°31’9.58″E (according to Google Earth). The evening before I had had a long talk with some older Christians about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, at the end of which I let them pray for me. Nothing happened at that moment, and I was left confused, but the next evening as I went for a walk to think and pray about what had happened, I suddenly started to speak in tongues. In fact the words came out in a flood. as if a dam had broken, and at the same time I felt a great release of previously dammed up joy and peace. I have been praying in tongues on and off since that day, so for nearly 30 years, and in general consider it helpful as part of my prayer life.

My initial reluctance to accept this gift was largely because of the teaching on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which seemed to go with it. According to the kind of teaching I heard (although maybe they didn’t intend to put it quite like this), since before that day I didn’t speak in tongues, I must have been some kind of second class Christian, and what I needed to become first class was to experience something called the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The way to know that I had received this would be if I spoke in tongues. This is more or less the classic Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence which Brian refers to. And it was this teaching which was a stumbling block to me as a young Christian, a recent graduate, well schooled in UCCF‘s brand of evangelicalism. Nevertheless, I was hungry then as now for all the good things God had for me, and so I let these people pray for me to receive this Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

At that time, the late 1970s and the early 1980s, a lot of well known Christian authors were writing their books giving their different perspectives on this Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some embraced the Pentecostal doctrine. Some rejected speaking in tongues as demonic, or at least as unhelpful emotionalism. But the most convincing, to me at least, were the ones which concluded that speaking in tongues is a genuine and good gift from God, one which Christians should seek, but not evidence of or a prerequisite for a full Christian life.

And that is basically the position I have come to over the years. I continue to speak in tongues, and to encourage and pray for others to do so if they want to. But I don’t condemn those who don’t speak in tongues or don’t want to as unspiritual or second class Christians. I am happy to work alongside Pentecostals as long as they don’t make too big a thing of this gift, and alongside those who don’t speak in tongues as long as they don’t reject me because of my experience and the way I pray.

So, what of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? I know that this is the name often given to the very clear experience, accompanied by speaking in tongues, which I had. And I don’t reject the name as long as it is not associated too dogmatically with what John the Baptist prophesied about the ministry of Jesus:

I baptise you with [footnote: Or in] water, but he will baptise you with [footnote: Or in] the Holy Spirit.

Mark 1:8 (TNIV)

I believe that all Christians receive the Holy Spirit at conversion, and perhaps this is what John was referring to in this verse. Nevertheless, many who profess to be Christians have never had any experience of the Holy Spirit working in them. That is the position I was in as a student in a UCCF group. I knew my doctrine backwards, but only in my head, but I knew I was missing out on something, especially when I met Christians who had experienced the reality of the Holy Spirit at work in their lives.

In my church these days we don’t make a big thing about speaking in tongues. And I think this is wise. But in line with practice at for example Soul Survivor and Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, we pray for people, whether already Christian or not, and expect them to have an experience of the reality of the Holy Spirit. For those not already Christians, this will be accompanied by repentance and faith; for those already Christians, this will be some kind of second experience. The evidence or manifestation of this experience is very varied – it may be shaking, or tears, or laughter, or even the infamous Toronto Blessing animal noises, or it may just be an inner sense of peace or joy. Such experiences can be repeated. But somehow having had one once is enough to change a person’s life, because they suddenly realise, not just in their heads but deep in their hearts, that God is real, alive, and working inside them.

When you have experienced all that, it somehow seems petty to try to insist that this experience is only fully valid if the evidence is speaking in tongues.

Another take on the Ascension

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote about the Ascension on Ascension Day, last Thursday. But it was no surprise to me that my own church seems to have completely ignored the Ascension this year – no special services on Thursday, no mention on the following Sunday, except possibly at the one of three services which I did not attend.

However, many churches marked the Ascension yesterday, and several bloggers who are also pastors of some kind have blogged their sermons. I won’t link to these as I don’t usually read sermons posted on blogs.

But I did read Maggi Dawn’s short homily, with its charming story about the Ascension, which well illustrates her point:

It’s a common mistake in Sunday School theology to make the Ascension sound like the moment when earth and heaven are separated from each other… as if Jesus looks back at the messy earth, post resurrection, and says, “job done, I’m out of here.” A view of the Ascension that separates God from us, heaven from earth, is a woeful theology, and misses the balletic beauty and completeness of the Easter season. … it was only by leaving the earth that Jesus could become permanently present with all of us. … the disciples stood there gaping at the sky hoping he would come back, when what they need to do was go and wait in the Upper Room like he’d told them, so that he could send them his Spirit.

Why the Ascension was necessary

Posted on by
25

Today, May Day, is also Ascension Day, in the western church calendar. The pagan and Christian festivals coincide today for the first time in nearly a century, because Easter was exceptionally early this year, and because it is always on the fortieth day after Easter (based on Acts 1:3 and counting inclusively) that the church marks the Ascension to heaven of the risen Jesus. And because this fortieth day is not a Sunday, the Ascension is often ignored by the church, perhaps marked by a poorly attended midweek service, but not taught about in a prominent way.

The Ascension is the one known incident in Jesus’ life which is not definitely reported in any of the four gospels. The mention in Luke 24:51 is both textually and contextually rather doubtful. But it is clearly narrated in Acts 1:1-11. It is also a difficult doctrine for modern Christians, because it seems to imply a rather primitive worldview that heaven, the home of God, is literally in the sky. We are used to artistic representations based on that worldview, but we find it hard to believe that they represent what really happened.

One such representation illustrates Michael Barber’s post Five Reasons the Ascension Was Necessary. In this post Michael follows up earlier seasonal posts on the Cross and the Resurrection with a similar summary of Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the Ascension. Here are his five points:

  1. The Ascension helps foster faith in Christ;
  2. It inspires hope;
  3. It impels us to grow in charity (I didn’t understand the connection here);
  4. It helps us grow in our reverence for Christ;
  5. In it Jesus enters into heaven with our humanity.

I would say that here there are three or four reasons why the Ascension was helpful, and one, the fifth, why it was necessary for the completion of our salvation. For indeed it was necessary for Jesus, the pioneer or trailblazer, and perfecter, of faith (Hebrews 12:2), to open the way for our redeemed humanity to be taken up along with his humanity into God’s presence.

Michael finishes with this quote from Aquinas:

Christ’s Passion is the cause of our ascending to heaven, properly speaking, by removing the hindrance which is sin, and also by way of merit: whereas Christ’s Ascension is the direct cause of our ascension, as by beginning it in Him who is our Head, with whom the members must be united.

But let’s not think of the Ascension as Jesus being taken from the earth into a heaven situated in the sky. Under point 5 Michael quotes Aquinas quoting Ephesians 4:8-10. This passage is perhaps the clearest biblical teaching on the meaning of the Ascension, and shows that Paul’s worldview is not the “primitive” one that Jesus went upwards to a heaven in the sky. For it teaches that Christ

ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.

Ephesians 4:10 (TNIV)

So we should not think of the risen and ascended Jesus today as having gone away to some distant heaven far above us in the sky. This is not the time referred to in Mark 2:20 and parallels, when the wedding guests will fast because the bridegroom has been taken from them. No, the outcome of the Ascension is that the risen Jesus is with us always (Matthew 28:20), wherever we go, because he fills the whole universe. This outcome is confirmed by the pouring out, ten days later at the feast of Pentecost, of the Holy Spirit, who is the agent through whom the continuing presence of Jesus is made manifest in his people.

So let’s not forget about the Ascension of Jesus, neither because it took place mid-week nor because we are embarrassed by how it has been depicted in art. Instead, let us celebrate this day as assuring us that our humanity is fully acceptable in God’s presence and that Jesus is with us always and wherever we go.

A Bishop on Woman Bishops

Posted on by
Reply

Recently I have been writing a lot about bishops, Anglican and otherwise, on this blog. And, sadly, most of it has been negative. But I don’t want my readers to think that I have something against bishops in principle. I will show this by for once quoting a bishop very positively.

The blogging bishop of Buckingham, Bishop Alan, writes about the background to the Church of England’s latest thoughts on how to introduce women bishops, the Manchester report, which I have already referred to. Thanks to Maggi Dawn for the link. Bishop Alan first affirms the principle of women bishops:

the practical sociology of Christian ministry has always been contextual, not absolute, reflecting the reality of the social structures around it. … Absolutising 12th century cultural assumptions, whilst cutting free from the (frankly ludicrous) anthropology of female subordination that validated them at the time, seems to me historicist weirdness, ignoring truths recovered by the sixteenth century Reformation.

He then notes how the proposed partitioning of the Church of England into pro-women bishop and anti-women bishop dioceses mirrors 20th century British government policy of partitioning colonies before independence. He points out the disastrous results of this partitioning – but I could add that the results of British decolonisation without partitioning has often been just as disastrous, as in Iraq, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Yet he is right that the church needs to learn from history:

We are still struggling with deadly institutionalised schism in the Middle East and India. Of course in Church everything is entirely different, but history is reality written for our learning, and I can’t get enthusiastic about elegant churchy versions of the kind of statesmanship that so delighted 20th Century Sir Humphreys. They got their knighthoods but they also got the big picture dangerously wrong.

3. To return to Church history, formative Anglican theologians did not attempt to build the church by cobbling together some kind of synthetic panjandrum out of the most extreme positions, to keep everyone on board politically. Rather they centred everything back on the Scriptures and the Creeds. This method worked for them, anyway. Perhaps we should try it. This is no time for Ecclesiastical Heath Robinson Engineering.

Amen!

Two Cheers for the New Calvinists

Posted on by
Reply

The Calvinist blogger Justin Taylor has graciously allowed Thomas McCall to post on his blog from a Wesleyan Arminian perspective. The resulting post, Two Cheers for the Resurgence of Calvinism in Evangelicalism: A Wesleyan-Arminian Perspective, was brought to my attention by McCall’s fellow Wesleyan Arminian Ben Witherington.

McCall describes similar phenomena that I have done in various posts on Calvinism on this blog. And I must say he has shown more gentle wisdom than I have done in some of those posts. He does what I have failed to do, but perhaps should have done, in first affirming the good things about this resurgence of Calvinism. It is indeed good that young Christians are passionate about theology and about holiness.

But McCall also makes some important criticisms of these New Calvinists, which I think are right on the ball concerning the ones I have had contact with, mainly but not only through my blogging.

First, he accuses them of misunderstanding Calvinism by taking it as implying determinism. As I am sure my commenter and fellow blogger Jeremy Pierce would be quick to point out, Calvinism properly formulated is by no means incompatible with human free will. But the teaching of the New Calvinists often seems to rule out any human free will in its insistence on the absolute sovereignty of God, a doctrine which is usually considered more Islamic than Christian.

Then McCall criticises

the unhealthy reliance of some of these New Calvinists on what might be called the “Neo-Reformed Magisterium” (the small group of theologians and conference speakers who are sometimes quoted as the final word on any theological topic at issue …)

– a group among whom he names John Piper. This ties up precisely with what I have observed among so many Calvinist bloggers and commenters on blogs.

McCall’s third charge is arrogance:

No theological tradition has cornered the market on arrogance. I have been accused of it (sometimes, I fear, with very good reason). Yet there seems to be – though I’m sure that what I say here is highly fallible – an amazing quantity of it among the New Calvinists.

Indeed. Like McCall, I am certainly not completely innocent of arrogance. But the amount of it so often seen and even boasted of among these New Calvinists is highly disturbing. They, and I, need to remember these verses:

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,
“God opposes the proud
but shows favour to the humble and oppressed.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.

1 Peter 5:5-6 (TNIV)

Decisions on Earth Ratified in Heaven, and $3 worth of God!

Posted on by
Reply

Two great posts from Ben Witherington.

First, Decisions on Earth Ratified in Heaven- the Opposite of Predestination, in which he explains how Matthew 18:18-19 shows that

decisions taken on earth, have eternal consequences. … human decisions matter tremendously, … God is said to respond to the human decision making process.

This biblical teaching shows how wrong is the doctrine of some Calvinists that everything, including human salvation, is predetermined by God.

Then, on a lighter note, read Ben’s post Quote of the Day– $3 dollars worth of God. This is far too true of too many so-called Christians today.

Fast and pray, or pray fast?

Posted on by
Reply

My post about Bishop Michael Reid has attracted a lot of interest. Simon Jones’ post which I linked to has attracted even more, to judge by the number of comments.

Well down the comment thread on Simon’s post a discussion has started on fasting. The issue was raised by Dr Raj Patel, and the discussion continued by John, a preacher from here in Essex, who reports the following:

Reid taught that it was not right to fast because the Lord, the bridegroom, is now with us and we do not need to fast. He even stated at a meeting for pastors that “fasting is heathen.” This is clearly false teaching, especially in view of Acts 13:2-3.

Raj continues with

You are absolutely right, Reid has totally contradicted Scripture on the issue of fasting. Indeed, some might say say he has blasphemed on this point, as the New Testament tells us that Jesus taught his disciples to ‘pray and fast without ceasing.’ … It looks as if the ‘bishop’ thought he was so important and authoritatative that he could contradict the teaching of Christ himself !

Strange, these quoted words don’t appear in my New Testament. Can anyone tell me where they come from? It is not Reid but whoever first attributed these words to Jesus who “thought he [or she] was so important and authoritatative that he [or she] could contradict the teaching of Christ himself”. For when we look at what Jesus actually taught about fasting, it is by no means that his followers should fast. He did not condemn fasting, but, in Mark 2:19, laid down a general rule, which Reid faithfully taught, that they should not fast “because the Lord, the bridegroom, is now with us”. So, according to commenter John,

Reid also used to say that we should not fast and pray, but pray fast.

Excellent advice! Fasting may be helpful for some in certain circumstances, but in his teaching Jesus, without condemning fasting, repeatedly teaches on the importance of prayer. Not fast prayer in the sense of babbling words or getting it over quickly, but praying fast in the sense of being quick to turn to prayer when there is a need, and of holding fast to God in prayer.

I agree that Reid went too far in saying that “fasting is heathen.” This is indeed false teaching, as are large parts of what Reid taught. But he should be condemned for what is false, and for his adultery, and not for this teaching which is correct, and explodes a long held myth about fasting.

No doubt some of you my readers will want to point me to Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29 (see also 1 Corinthians 7:5) in KJV and NKJV, in which Jesus appears to commend prayer and fasting. But if you look for this teaching in almost any modern Bible translation except for NKJV, you will not find them. Matthew 17:21 is not in these translations at all, and there is no mention of fasting in Mark 9:29 or 1 Corinthians 7:5. In each of these cases the wording with “fasting” is found only in later manuscripts in the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions; the scholars of the biblical text who produced the UBS 4th edition Greek New Testament judge that in each of these three cases “the text is certain”, referring to the version without “fasting”. It seems highly probable that the variants with “fasting” reflect the growing prominence of this practice in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and not the actual teaching of Jesus and the apostles. These readings found their way into KJV through the Byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament on which the “Textus Receptus” is based, but are now almost universally (except by “KJV-only” people) rejected as later additions.

Since Jesus is with his church, the bridegroom with his bride, I can agree with Reid, as reported by John, that as a general rule

Christians should be feasting and not fasting.

Packer on Pentecostalism

Posted on by
Reply

I tend to associate J.I. Packer with a kind of Reformed evangelicalism which values intellectualism more than experiences and is suspicious of any kind of manifest activity of the Holy Spirit. So I was interested to read at Pentecostal pastor Brian’s blog sunestauromai – living the crucified life an extract from an interview Packer has just given to a Pentecostal periodical. Here is most of what Brian quotes from Packer, apparently with Brian’s emphasis, and the periodical’s American spelling:

The Pentecostal emphasis on life in the Spirit, which became a big thing at the turn of the 20th century, was absolutely right. It was an emphasis that hadn’t been fully grasped by other evangelicals for a long time. The up-front quest for fellowship with God that grabbed the whole of the heart and therefore had emotional overtones and the openness to a recurrence of some of the signs of the Kingdom was right. …

It’s simply a marvelous work of God that when the Pentecostal version of the gospel has been preached all around the world for the past half-century there has been a tremendous harvest. It’s a wonderful work in our time, which we can set against the decline of Christianity in North America and Western Europe. Most notably in Africa and Asia, Christianity has been roaring ahead through the Pentecostal version of the Christian message and life in the Spirit. I celebrate it and thank God for it. There have been older evangelicals who have set themselves against distinctive Pentecostal emphases as if there’s something wrong with it. I have not lined up with those folk and indeed have argued that their attitude is mistaken.

Now I am not a Pentecostal by denomination; like Packer I am an Anglican. But I am one of many Anglicans, and people from other “traditional” denominations, who over the last 40 years (for me personally, for nearly 30 years) have embraced what used to be considered the distinctive Pentecostal emphases, on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. True, many of us have rejected, as I think Packer did, the Pentecostal teaching about the necessity of a specific “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” experience evidenced by speaking in tongues. But we hold that such experiences and gifts are good and to be desired, and that these gifts should be used, with proper safeguards, in the life of the church.

This is of course a summary of what is known as the Charismatic Movement. Perhaps in some ways the movement is dead, as some have alleged. But if so, it is not because its distinctives have been abandoned, more because they have become more and more acceptable in the life of the church and are no longer charismatic or Pentecostal distinctives.

But these Pentecostal and charismatic distinctives have often been viewed with great suspicion by British Anglicans of the Oak Hill tradition who look up to Packer as one of their Christian heroes. Perhaps Packer can help to persuade them that the good things in the Pentecostal tradition are good for reviving not just Pentecostal churches in Africa and Asia but also Anglican churches in North America and Western Europe.