Category Archives: Topics

Charismatic Shift?: Evangelist Greg Laurie Joins the Southern Baptists

During this break from the Veracity series on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, I could not passover a recent news item. Greg Laurie, the dynamic evangelist and California megachurch pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship, announced earlier in June, 2017, that his church would join the Southern Baptist Convention. Why is this significant? Let me explain.

Greg Laurie’s Harvest Christian Fellowship is the eighth largest church in America. Greg Laurie, and his church, came out of the Calvary Chapel movement, that began in the early 1970s in Southern California. What is notable for those interested in the teaching of the “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” is that historically, the Calvary Chapel movement has been associated with the charismatic revival, that hit mainstream evangelicalism, starting in the 1960s. Calvary Chapel-type churches, like Laurie’s, are therefore not cessationist in their doctrinal teaching, Cessationism is the teaching that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit ceased to operate after the end of the apostolic age, in the early church. Instead, Greg Laurie would most likely affirm a continuationist view, that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit continue to operate today within the worldwide church.

What makes this quite interesting is that the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in America, has historically been cessationist, when it comes to these types of issues. Southern Baptists do not have an official teaching position about “speaking in tongues.” But it appears that the long-time, historical resistance to the charismatic movement could be changing in Baptist circles, as the Southern Baptist International Mission Board rescinded its policy of banning charismatics from becoming overseas missionaries, just a few years ago.

It would be careful to note that Greg Laurie’s position, while surely not banning charismatic gifts, is much more low-key than what you find in classic Pentecostal churches. You might hear “speaking in tongues” in small group meetings, but rarely, if ever, in a corporate worship setting.

I would call it “charismatic-lite.”

So, what does this mean for the Southern Baptists and for Greg Laurie’s Harvest Christian Fellowship? With respect to the charismatic movement, it is difficult to say. Is the charismatic movement declining among the Calvary Chapel-type churches, such as Harvest? Or are the Southern Baptists warming up even more to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit? Is this part of a general, shifting trend throughout the evangelical church at large? If so, what is this shift?

What do you think? Below is the announcement from pastor Greg Laurie.


The Book of Hosea: In Seven Minutes

My church is doing a summer Bible study on the Minor Prophets of the Old Testament. If you want a brief introduction to the Book of Hosea, with some helpful visual illustrations, it is worth watching this 7-minute video by the “Bible Project.”


Does the Prophet Amos Predict a Literal Rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem?

Plumb LineWhen Donald Trump was running for the office of President of the United States, one of his campaign promises was to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Such a symbolic act would have huge geopolitical ramifications, but why? It all boils down to how you read the Bible.

Look at the prophet Amos. The Book of Amos is mostly a rather devastating prophetic critique of the ancient, northern kingdom of Israel. After discussing all of the problems with Israel’s neighbors, Amos launches into a scathing attack on Israel, and how they are in many ways worse than their neighbors. God pronounces judgment, showing how God’s people do not pass the standard set by God’s plumb line (Acts 7:7-8), and the prophecy came true when Israel was conquered by the Assyrians. It is a rather sober message for a disobedient people.

But at the very end of the book, Amos gives the people a message of hope:

“‘In that day I will raise up
    the booth of David that is fallen
and repair its breaches,
    and raise up its ruins
    and rebuild it as in the days of old,
that they may possess the remnant of Edom
    and all the nations who are called by my name,’
    declares the Lord who does this.
“(Amos 9:11-12 ESV)

Many Jews and Christians today understand “the booth of David” to be a reference to the temple in Jerusalem. The temple was the center of worship for the Jews, and with the destruction of the first temple, built by King David’s son, Solomon, not many years after this prophecy was made, it gave hope to the Israelites that God would one day restore God’s people to the land, along with a rebuilt temple. A second temple was eventually built but subsequently destroyed in 70 C.E. With the reconstitution of modern Israel, partially centered around Jerusalem, there are many who still hope for the rebuilding of yet a third temple, and the full restoration of Israel promised by Amos.

President Trump’s campaign pledge would imply a type of endorsement to this hope. Yet setting aside the geopolitical issues, there is a major question as to how we are to read the Bible on this point: Is this really how we should read the prophecy of Amos today, regarding a future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem? Continue reading


The Book of Amos: In Seven Minutes

My church is doing a summer Bible study on the Minor Prophets of the Old Testament. If you want a brief introduction to the Book of Amos, with some helpful visual illustrations, you can not do much better than this 7-minute video by the “Bible Project.”


“Loving Day” and the Sin of Previous Generations

Virginia judge Leon Bazille’s handwritten theological justification for banning interracial marriage. He ends by saying, “The fact that [God] separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” What Bible was he reading from?

Fifty years ago today, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage. The Loving vs. Virginia decision cut at the heart of racist ideology in my home state, and paved the way for American democracy to recognize that skin-color makes no difference when it comes to marriage. For couples in interracial marriages today, June 12 is often remembered as “Loving Day.”

What makes this so tragic for the Gospel is that a racist ideology had for centuries been falsely linked with the Bible. The biblical teaching that prohibited Jews from marrying people outside of the Mosaic covenant had been twisted to say that people of different skin-color, irrespective of God’s covenantal purposes, should not be allowed to marry.

Folks, unless you have not figured it out before by reading this blog, Bible interpretation matters.

In addition to what I wrote in reviewing Loving, a 2016 film of the story behind the Loving vs. Virginia case, I believe the legacy stemming from Christian rejection of interracial marriage is a good example of what is meant by this difficult passage of the Bible:

“The Lord…[forgives] iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Exodus 34:6-7)

One application of this passage is that sin has its way of being repeated generation after generation, unless it is properly addressed, through confession and repentance. In recent decades, most Christians have thought that interracial marriage is not forbidden by the Bible, but over the past fifty years, this has not always been the case.

I have had more than one conversation in some thirty years, where a believer simply assumed that the Bible really did forbid interracial marriage. In every case where I challenged the believer to give me a prooftext, the answer every time was something like, “Well, someone told me it was in the Bible. I just do not know where it is.”

Mmmmpph.

Why would anyone go around saying “the Bible says,” when in fact, they have no clue as to what the Bible says?

At best, that is merely uninformed, or just plain, lazy-thinking Christianity. At worst, it is a subtle way of justifying sin. Furthermore, the fact that it took a secular court to force Christians to rethink how they were misinterpreting the Bible is a scandal in and of itself.

We should therefore not be surprised when so many in our society today apply the same logic about interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. As the thinking goes, “Christians were wrong to condemn interracial marriage some fifty years ago, so why should Christians be condemning same-sex marriage today? Marriage is about people loving one another and being happy as individuals making their own decisions. What does race and gender have anything to do with it?”

I can easily sympathize with what drives the argument, based on how poorly Christians in past eras misinterpreted the Bible. However, unlike the falsehood of racial ideology, the Bible does understand God’s purpose in marriage to have gender as an essential component to it. But how many Christians today think theologically about marriage?

“So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27)

Here Genesis sees human gender as a primary way of reflecting God’s character, demonstrating to the world around us, the nature of the God of the Bible. But how many of us think of God’s purpose for marriage in this way, as a means of displaying the attributes of God? The God of the Bible is Triune, the Father and Son in union through the bond of the Spirit, distinct persons yet in fundamental unity with one another.

Surely, those Christians from earlier eras who opposed interracial marriage were not theologically sound when they were thinking about marriage. Could it be that Christians today still need to learn more of thinking theologically about marriage? Could it be that we have some more confession and repentance to do today?

HT: The Gospel Coalition has a helpful article summarizing the significance behind Loving vs. Virginia.