57-
’REVELATION KNOWLEDGE’ AND KNOWLEDGE OF REVELATION: THE FAITH MOVEMENT AND THE QUESTION OF HERESY Thomas Smail, Andrew Walker and Nigel Wright C.S. Lewis Centre, King’s College, University of London Cornwall House Annexe, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8TX
Introduction
Our theological approach to the charismatic movement over the years has been eirenic and polemical. If we have looked for correctives, bal- ance and reflective criticism within the renewal, this has not been con- ducted in a spirit of witch-hunting nor with inquisitorial menace. However, what sets the parameters2 within which eirenic and polemical theology can properly function, and what determines the rightness of our method, is the same as that which determined the nature of eirenic and polemical theology in the early Christian church. And that ’what’, that ’something’, we can best describe as ’the dogmatic core&dquo; of Christian faith. At the heart of theology there is a non-negotiable centre of dogmatic truth, an unmovable residue of authoritative doctrine. We can properly call it apostolic faith. The Apostle Paul tells us that he came by it
1. See in particular our book Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a Theology (London: SPCK, 1993). This paper is itself a marginal adaption of an additional chapter in the American edition of this book, The Love of Power or the Power of Love (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1994). 2. From the point of view of systematic theology it could be said that theology has four tasks: eirenics, polemics, apologetics and dogmatics. Eirenical and polemical theology are disputes internal to Christian faith and apologetics is the defence and pro- motion of Christianity to those outside the church. While dogmatics are concerned with the explication and elucidation of orthodox doctrine, eirenics and polemics are more typically reserved for theological issues of great importance (theologuemena) but not necessarily dogmatic ones. Nevertheless, when dogmatic issues are at stake in the church we can properly say that polemical theology (often of an astringent nature) is necessary. 3. We are grateful to Michael Beggs of King’s College, London for suggesting to us the notion of the dogmatic core. 58
’through the revelation of Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 1.12).4 Peter insists that ’we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye- witnesses of His majesty’ (2 Pet. 1.16). The essential truths of the received apostolic tradition were distilled by the early church into Christian charters or creeds (the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed of 381 CE being the most ecumenical and authoritative). The apostolic faith in the creed contains what we might call ’knowledge of revelation’-non-negotiable truths gleaned from the Bible, or dogmas concerning the nature of God, the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, and the church. It is only when theology contradicts the basic core truths of creedal Christianity that we can properly use the word ’heresy’ to describe it.’ If we turn to the modern charismatic movement and measure it against this creedal Christianity we cannot really agree with the general tenor of MacArthur’s book,6 which considers charismatic Christianity to be more heretical than orthodox. On the contrary, we think it worth asserting that on the whole from the origins of classical Pentecostalism to the present-day renewal there has been no significant deviation of the charismatic movement from what we earlier called ’the dogmatic core’ of Christian theology.’ Perhaps the Christology of William Branham and indeed the whole ’Latter Rain’ theology of the late 1940s is problematic. But today the greatest concern must surely be reserved for the Faith Movement.
The Faith Movement as Heresy Here we believe that we need to move beyond eirenical approaches to the sharp end of polemical theology, for the central question facing us in the Faith Movement is not whether its proponents operate with an unacceptable hermeneutics (which they do), nor even whether the whole
4. All biblical quotations in this paper are from the New King James Version. 5. The fact, for example, that the Nicene Creed says of Jesus that ’He was begotten not made’ is precisely because Arius, a presbyter of the East, had claimed that Jesus as God’s Son was only semi-divine—inferior to God because he was subsequent to or made by the Father. 6. J. MacArthur, Jr, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). 7. Though since the early days there have been movements of universalism, trinitarian modalism and baptismal practices which have insisted on a ’Jesus only’ formula.