A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below.
To the Editor,
A letter in response to John Vissers’ recent article in Channels on Renewal.
We all know that our alphabet is made up of letters from A to Z. But sometimes people can operate with a much smaller range of letters, perhaps from A to P, or T.
This is my own personal reaction to John Vissers’ good article in Channels, “Shaping Our Vision of Renewal.” His insistence that renewal must include strong biblical, classical and evangelical appeal within the context of Reformed theology, is something with which no one in The Renewal Fellowship would quarrel. In fact, we would endorse it heartily, and hope that is would be implemented. But is that where we should stop?
What about the catholic and charismatic dimensions of church renewal? Can we as Presbyterians have a renewal which is divorced from the whole church? Can we ignore what God is doing in other denominations, or simply treat them lightly, as if we had little or nothing to learn from what they are experiencing of God’s renewing power in their midst? Do the renewal movements within the Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, United churches, have nothing to say to us which could help us in our prayer for revival within the life of the church? To foster such an idea, either carelessly or unintentionally, is only to give lip service to our Reformed conviction that we believe
in the Holy Catholic Church. I do not believe we can achieve renewal independent of the whole church, and we must seek energetically to work together with fellow Christians in all denominations and not just our own. I feel that this emphasis was unfortunately missing in John Vissers’ plea for future renewal.
Also, what about the charismatic dimensions? Surely after 30 years of charismatic renewal, we cannot ignore this aspect of God’s reviving work in our midst, even if it has elements in it with which we might disapprove. We know from our study of church history that every move of God has both positive and negative sides to it, including the Reformation. But that should not keep us from entering into the good which they have done for the church.
I have heard Dr. Ian Rennie say publicly, on several occasions, that when this twentieth century chapter of church history is written, that the Pentecostal and charismatic contributions will be the most significant. If this is true, or even 75% true, how can we have renewal in our denomination without explicitly identifying with this fact in a positive, wholehearted way? Reformed, biblical, classical, evangelical renewal is not fully-orbed without the release of the Holy Spirit in the gifts which we call charismatic. It seems to me that the apostles were orthodox, historical and evangelical in their faith dimension prior to Pentecost, but they lacked power to go out to meet the world of their day with the message of new life in Jesus Christ. Renewal is not an end in itself. It is meant to lead us into the world empowered by the Spirit, to bear strong witness, to the saving actions of God in Christ.
I know that John realizes that Reformed theology and evangelical proclamation must be vitalized by the power and effectual ministry of the Holy Spirit. And I am not saying that this is not happening in some limited measure within the PCC. But if we want the kind of renewal the Scriptures witness to, it must also include a strong emphasis upon the unity of the whole church (catholic) and all the charismatic gifts – not just the ones we feel comfortable with, or which fit into our preconceived notions. We must have the whole alphabet of renewal, and not just part of it.
Sincerely in Christ,
Dr. Cal Chambers
Ottawa, Ontario