quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The trances and so on we read about in Acts don't appear to have been 'induced' by cues, mood-music or any other form of stimulus such as those discussed on the music thread - so were there of a different order to what we find today where these things are employed to create mood and atmosphere?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Are rollings on the floor, prostrations, laughing or tears examples of Daronmedway's genuine '£10 notes' or are they counterfeit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Looking back, I can think of one or two instances where things didn't appear to be so 'conditioned' or done on cue - but overall I think there was a self-fulfilling prophecy sense of expectation built-up which made some kind of 'release' of this kind (if that doesn't stray too far into the analogy that Boogie has used) became inevitable.

---

It doesn't stray at all from my analogy. A large part of orgasm is release of tension. I think that's maybe why I found the two things looked similar, and would be similarly embarrassing done in public!


 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Mmm. I don't know. Nobody induced me deliberately to do anything, and yet I experienced some of the things discussed above - despite being heavily skeptical about it beforehand and never experiencing it again in the same way.

I remember the small number of experiences I had as very tender, beautiful and peaceful. Similar (although obviously very different) to that rush when reaching a mountaintop and seeing a great view and being able to see the milky-way on a very clear night.

I'd be happy to call the things I felt hypnosis on the basis that my state of consciousness was altered. Whether or not they were genuine is hard for me to assess (mostly because in my current doubting state, I'm not really sure of anything), but I do not believe they were 'fleshly' in the sense that anyone deliberately did it to me.

In contrast, I have also experienced strange visual phenomena that others have told me sound drug induced. I do not believe anyone gave me anything, but am wondering whether there was some kind of deliberate manipulation and suggestion going on.

I wouldn't particularly look to experience either again, but wouldn't be upset if I found myself in the former state again.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I would think that those running the gatherings where this happens should bear a huge responsibility, to make sure people are alright (not having an epileptic fit, or something) and not to introduce susceptibility to anything dodgy while people are under the 'influence', rather like you would do with someone under the influence of drink, for example. Perhaps there should be a Code of Practice - an informal one of honour, if not an actual written document.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Where do we draw the line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE]It doesn't stray at all from my analogy. A large part of orgasm is release of tension. I think that's maybe why I found the two things looked similar, and would be similarly embarrassing done in public!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Are rollings on the floor, prostrations, laughing or tears examples of Daronmedway's genuine '£10 notes' or are they counterfeit.

---

I have witnessed all of these and I don't think 'counterfeit' is the word I'd use. But I did find them pretty embarrassing. A bit like they were having a public orgasm with God, if you see what I mean.

Some things are best done in private.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Having watched Ian Hislop's series on the Stiff Upper Lip, I'm coming round to the view that there's a great deal to be said for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Now - without getting tangled up in what styles of music are or aren't appropriate, I'm interested in exploring the issues of expectation, suggestibility and mildly altered states.

Daronmedway observes that the Apostles went into trances - yes, it would seem so from the book of Acts - and that without ipods and Coldplay ...

My questions are:

Does this then make it legitimate/acceptable for people to fall into trance-like states today?

The trances and so on we read about in Acts don't appear to have been 'induced' by cues, mood-music or any other form of stimulus such as those discussed on the music thread - so were there of a different order to what we find today where these things are employed to create mood and atmosphere?

Where do we draw the line?

Are rollings on the floor, prostrations, laughing or tears examples of Daronmedway's genuine '£10 notes' or are they counterfeit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I've done the falling over thing and on the first occasion there was nothing expected or induced about it - it took me and everyone else by surprise and I did have a profound sense of peace and tranquility - of acceptance by God and so on. I don't know how to explain that.

---

quote:

---

I think, though, that in the kind of circles where these things take place there is a kind of 'anchoring' of responses to particular cues and suggestions - which is why these things seem to happen over a protracted period of 'refreshing' and what-have-you. I soon realised that there was a kind of 'Toronto liturgy' at work where the conditions could easily be replicated or created where this stuff could be expected to happen.

---

quote:

---

I know I've asked whether these things are 'real' or legit or counterfeit but really I'm not sure that's the right question to ask. I think they make sense within their own frame of reference and within their own terms - but that's about as far as it goes. They are seen as reinforcements or practical evidence for the presence of the divine.

---

quote:

---

On the whole, I would suggest that most of this stuff is fairly harmless - or neutral. For some people it may even be therapeutic and helpful.

---

quote:

---

I'm always wary, though, when I hear the instance of David dancing in his nappy (diaper) cited as evidence for how the Lord would have us behave in worship - it seems to be taken completely out of context 9 times out of 10.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

Wikipeda says that Ian Hislop has been much sued. Perhaps this is part of why he would take an interest in the subject. The stiff upper lip is incompatible with being enough of a crybaby to pursue lawsuits over relative trivialities. As long as suing is so lucrative a pastime, the stiff upper lip is doomed.

---

Hislop is a very British character, but I'm not sure his stiff upper lip is directly linked to his ability to be sued.

He is the editor of a satirical magazine and takes the attitude that this is essentially painting a bullseye on his chest - and comes with it the threat of being sued.

Stiff upper lip isn't just about magnanimously and cheerfully accepting the inevitable consequences of one's choices.

As far as I'm concerned, it is about facing adversity and bad stuff without cracking emotionally. Just getting on with it with none of that namby-pamby continental over-emotionalism.

It isn't so often seen today, and largely that is a good thing.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I think that the suspicion of emotional responses to the Holy Spirit among British Conservative Evangelicals is directly related to the stiff upper lip mentality inculcated by the public school system. I really do.

My experience of Conservative Evangelicalism (of the St Helen's Bishopsgate variety) over the past four years convinces me that it is, at least unofficially, a closed shop to anyone who wasn't educated in a good public school.

Yes, you can hold the same theology and go to the same conferences but the reality is this: if you didn't become a Christian at the same school as someone else or through some kind of University Christian Fellowship then there is a big question mark over your Christian credentials.

[ 18. October 2012, 08:09: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thanks the long ranger - I think thee and me are pretty much on the same page on this one.

@daronmedway - interesting. I've never had a 'vision' in the way you describe but have had other experiences of a somewhat 'mystical' or charismatic nature ... I certainly wouldn't want to write-off or call into question what you experienced but do wonder whether there's something a bit self-fulfilling about some of these things ie. if a Sufi mystic did the same thing would they report some kind of Sufi vision or a Hindu mystic a vision of Ganesh or whatever ...

Still - I think the Holy Spirit does take our non-verbal prayers and yearnings and interpret them in some way and, yes, because we're creaturely then I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect the imagination or something 'visionary' to be involved from time to time - with due care, caution and caveats in place, of course.

I s'pose my theology/spirituality still has space for such things although I wouldn't put as great weight or emphasis on this stuff any more - we may have had too much cheese the night before ...



I remember a scene in one of those Pasolini films where he used to use peasants as actors and so on, where a late-medieval/early Renaissance artist wakes up one night to see the Virgin Mary and hosts of angels filling his bedroom - and looking very much as they do in early Italian Renaissance altar-pieces. He looks up for a while then turns over and goes back to sleep. In the next scene he's painting a triptych nonchalantly as if this sort of thing happens every day ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's a while since I encountered public-school conservative evangelicalism, Daronmedway, but I think your analysis holds true to an extent in the precise circles you've identified - but out in the sticks conservative evangelicalism doesn't have that kind of background in my experience.

I've also encountered plenty of 'Bash-camp' style charismatic public-school types. Believe it or not, the restorationist new-church network I was involved with for 18 years had a smattering of very posh public school people (some of them the sons and daughters of missionaries) alongside those with a more working class South Walian or West Yorkshire background. It was an interesting mix.

But I don't think you can write the whole conservative evangelical reserve thing off as a public-school/stiff-upper-lipped phenomenon. I grew up in South Wales and my first evangelical contacts were among the Brethren and they were pretty reserved about all this stuff - and none of them had public school backgrounds. Quite the opposite.

There were some Pentecostal refugees among them - but then the traffic sometimes went the other way.

If anything, I'd suggest that HTB-style/New Wine charismatic evangelicalism is as much tinged/influenced by the kind of public school evangelicalism you're talking about as St Helen's Bishopgate or any of the other conservative evangelical outfits.

As a lad from the Valleys who went to a bog-standard comprehensive I'd like to tell the toffee-nosed bastards in both traditions to take a running jump ...


 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think that the suspicion of emotional responses to the Holy Spirit among British Conservative Evangelicals is directly related to the stiff upper lip mentality inculcated by the public school system. I really do.

My experience of Conservative Evangelicalism (of the St Helen's Bishopsgate variety) over the past four years convinces me that it is, at least unofficially, a closed shop to anyone who wasn't educated in a good public school.

Yes, you can hold the same theology and go to the same conferences but the reality is this: if you didn't become a Christian at the same school as someone else or through some kind of University Christian Fellowship then there is a big question mark over your Christian credentials.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Wikipeda says that Ian Hislop has been much sued. Perhaps this is part of why he would take an interest in the subject. The stiff upper lip is incompatible with being enough of a crybaby to pursue lawsuits over relative trivialities. As long as suing is so lucrative a pastime, the stiff upper lip is doomed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Stiff upper lip isn't just about magnanimously and cheerfully accepting the inevitable consequences of one's choices.

As far as I'm concerned, it is about facing adversity and bad stuff without cracking emotionally. Just getting on with it with none of that namby-pamby continental over-emotionalism.

It isn't so often seen today, and largely that is a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Why? Are you saying that when life is hard, it's a bad thing just to get on with it, and a good thing to crack up emotionally? You seem to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I wonder if it is possible to put a line between the kinds of charismatics that are into New Wine/HTB/Vineyard and other kinds. It is a while since I moved in these circles, but I don't recall there being much cross-over with Pentecostals and other charismatic churches (I'm not even sure they go to the same conferences etc).

As I said, I've been in a lot of HTB style services. And one of the few occasions that I actually walked out of a church was during a highly charismatic (I think Elim Pentecostal) service where there was a lot of falling over and other 'expressions'.

I'm not trying to diss Elim Pentecostals because I don't know much about them. I'm just wondering whether the HTB style is on the mild end of the spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Five to ten years ago I would have agreed with this. However, Nicky Gumbel's 'new thing' is pairing up with Pentecostals. Two years ago at their summer retreat (Home Focus) I watched Judah Smith give a hysterical 'talk' (you don't call them sermons in those circles) that I could not have imagined happening only a few years earlier. While HTB goes through periods (long periods?!) of weirdness, it is rooted in the CofE and I think that this keeps the clergy and active laity from going off the rails. Nicky is explicitly a Trinitarian--and I cannot say the same for other C of E charismatic churches in my area. But I digress…

---

quote:

---

Of course delicacy is required in discussing emotional responses because even when we have good evidence that some practices are induced or imitative types of behaviour (as opposed to spontaneous movements of the Spirit) the participants experience them as real. Once that bond, that connection is made in the mind the person (that God has spoken to them directly through this experience) little good will come from confronting them and telling them what they experienced was something else. I can't think of a single way to avoid these sorts of things. Note well that physical manifestations attributed to The Holy Spirit are not new, but their frequency is new. Epilepsy was often confused for spontaneous reactions to 'the movement of the Holy Spirit' in medieval and renaissance periods--just as an example.

---

quote:

---

One area where I think a delicate vigilance can be exercised is taking more care in the mixing of (whatever denomination) Christian practices with folkloric or indigenous ones; what is called 'popular religion' in the old texts (I suppose we might now use 'superstition'). This can range from rural practices in the developing world (a missionary friend in sub-Saharan Africa has told me some really scary stories!) to the influence of the New Age movement or other, seemingly occult, practices.

---

quote:

---

The emphasis on emotional response cannot be laid solely at the feet of charismatics--the is a long Catholic tradition here too, involved trances, visions, prophecies and even 'levitation'. Why not create your church service to avoid the deliberate fostering of emotional reactions without forbidding them?

K.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I suppose my main worry is the tendency of some to become hooked to this kind of thing. So they very regularly attend meetings where this kind of thing happens and spend a lot of time talking about 'words of knowledge' and revivals and whatnot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some of it might be genuine. None of it might be genuine. How do we know? How can we tell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Orfeo, but that's making the assumption that what we are seeing in charismatic circles today is the same or similar phenomena to what was happening back then. I'm not entirely sure we can make that hermeneutic jump.

No-one knows what charismatic phenomena looked like back then so we have no idea whether what we see in churches today is part and parcel of the same thing.

Some of it might be genuine. None of it might be genuine. How do we know? How can we tell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
We can't tell for sure but there are some pointers to charismatic experience in the New Testament. For a start there's the reference (is it in Romans 8?) to the Holy Spirit praying through us with wordless groanings. Plenty of modern-day charismatic experience could be described in that way, IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
So, to be clear - are you saying all/most of these things are not from the Holy Spirit? How do you know?

---

quote:

---

I'm not into the occult, but I've not seen anything in my experience which could be remotely occultic in any of the HTB style services I've ever been to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:


(There was also the comment I recall that the only people in the NT who were "slain in the Spirit" were Ananias and Sapphira.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

But I don't think you can write the whole conservative evangelical reserve thing off as a public-school/stiff-upper-lipped phenomenon. I grew up in South Wales and my first evangelical contacts were among the Brethren and they were pretty reserved about all this stuff - and none of them had public school backgrounds. Quite the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:


(There was also the comment I recall that the only people in the NT who were "slain in the Spirit" were Ananias and Sapphira.)

---

Saul/Paul? (Acts 9:4)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

My 'Toronto' experience largely mirrors that of Nicodemia and to an extent Daronmedway's.

---

Interested to hear more about what you experienced and what you feel about it now. Interesting how many of these experiences are similar - which perhaps suggests that we're from broadly similar backgrounds where we experienced some of these things on an irregular basis.

I'd also be really interested to talk to someone who experienced these things on a regular basis.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
OK, I'm middle-class but at the time attended a Penty church where being 'slain in the Spirit' and speaking in 'tongues' happened prior to Toronto. I was 'slain in the Spirit' genuinely prior to Toronto hitting on a couple of occasions and on one or two others pushed by the pray-er (whom we used to take the piss out of behind his back precisely for doing that, but that's another story ): what happened was that I felt an overwhelming 'weight' come over me, my legs turned to jelly and buckled under me. That sort of thing was the main thing that happened to me during the whole Toronto 'thang', but with laughter added in, which felt like an emotional release; I was and still am a depressive and I found the laughter helped my moods. Whether that was 'of God' or just a bit of accidental 'primal scream-type therapy' into which I stumbled because others were doing it though is very difficult to say...
 

---

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think that the suspicion of emotional responses to the Holy Spirit among British Conservative Evangelicals is directly related to the stiff upper lip mentality inculcated by the public school system. I really do.

My experience of Conservative Evangelicalism (of the St Helen's Bishopsgate variety) over the past four years convinces me that it is, at least unofficially, a closed shop to anyone who wasn't educated in a good public school.

Yes, you can hold the same theology and go to the same conferences but the reality is this: if you didn't become a Christian at the same school as someone else or through some kind of University Christian Fellowship then there is a big question mark over your Christian credentials.

---

This is a very interesting point. Within Anglican Conservative Evangelicalism (sigh, these terms are so misleading - the most Conservative Evangelicals are not charismatic and consider these things to be of the devil..) there is most definitely a bias towards the privately educated.

Justin Welby was from Eton - though having been in churches with him quite a few times, I'm not sure he is really particularly charismatic. John Irvine, the previous Dean of Coventry (who worked with Bishop Justin for a long time) is very charismatic and was associated with the Alpha course and HTB, He was a barrister and (I think) went to Eton. As, I think, did Nicky Gumbel.

That is just three people of influence in this group that I can think of.

But then I'm not sure if that is exactly the same subset as St Helen's Bishopsgate. I don't know anything about that church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The FIEC and 'Free Methodist' churches I came across in Yorkshire and Lancashire in the 1980s and '90s were pretty working class overall in comparison with many of the other churches of all stripes.

---

quote:

---

On one or two occasions after that I felt that I was going to 'go' but generally the feeling (as it were) passed fairly quickly. I did drop down once a while later but it wasn't the same kind of thing at all - there was an experience of some kind the first time - endorphins? I don't know - the first time.

---

quote:

---

I then found that my right arm would begin to tremble or shake - often quite violently - whenever the Toronto-y stuff was starting to kick off again and I'd go around laying hands on people - or as far as I could with my right hand flapping about - and they'd keel over or, in some instances - shoot rather alarmingly backwards as if struck by electricity.

---

quote:

---

If you asked me to evaluate it all now, I'd say that it was partly to do with a bubbling over of expectation and enthusiasm that had been building during the 80s and 90s that needed some kind of outlet or valve. As the much vaunted and expected 'revival' didn't take place our energies were expended/dissipated in one final fling of charismatic enthusiasm before settling back down to the mundane and the ordinary again.

That's my take anyway. It was all fairly neutral and I'm not really sure there was much 'fruit' from the whole thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
If it's acceptable to jump for joy when your football team has scored a goal or won a game why is it not acceptable to jump for joy in worship?

If its acceptable to go to a pop/rock concert and get excited why is it not acceptable to be excited when worshipping God?

I guess there are limits as no-one wants to hear in the middle of church "All the F****** way!!!" like one does at a football/rugby game but as you suggest Gamaliel in your OP the line is not so obvious.

---

quote:

---

For me our own cultural background probably defines more how we answer your question. In addition to what has been mentioned above the good old British Stiff Upper lip has a lot to answer for as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

One of the things that made me wonder about the genuineness of it all was how it never happened to my wife - we'd not long been married - and how it seemed to be happening to the same people again and again - as if certain people/personality types were more susceptible to this stuff than others.

---

quote:

---

I'm not really sure there was much 'fruit' from the whole thing.

---

But no experience goes to waste, so I suppose people are unlikely to be hoodwinked in the same way again....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure - in lots of ways the experience, for me, was valuable as it led me to delve into Tradition, liturgy and so forth as a counter-balance ...

You misunderstand the point about my wife, though, SvitlanaV2. This is nothing about my wanting to impose uniformity.

I'm simply suggesting that because my wife didn't respond that way it implies that this stuff might be connected with cues and suggestibility and so on. A Baptist minister in Scotland wrote an interesting account at the time of the Toronto thing noting that people with Downs Syndrome in his congregation didn't 'respond' in the way other people were and remained unaffected by the whole thing. He concluded that this was because they were relatively guileless compared to everyone else - but there are other ways of interpreting this observation I would imagine.

I'm not suggesting that all these experiences are inauthentic - just sounding a note of caution.

To be honest, it narks me to some extent because you pontificate about these things despite having no first-hand experience yourself and keep bringing in a contrary view that puts a negative spin on what other people (such as myself) are suggesting. I find it rather irritating to be frank, in a way that I don't find other contributions to be the same. At least with the long ranger we may differ on some aspects but we both have experience of what we're going on about and are coming at it from an informed perspective.


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Polly - I'm sorry, but the football match analogy drives me spare. The next time I hear our vicar use it I'm going to knock his block off.

My wife says that she wouldn't shout even at a football match so the analogy doesn't hold.

It's a crap one.
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Oh I don't think it is so bad. We used to go to support a sports team, and there is certainly some similarities between the euphoria of being in a crowd and in a charismatic church service. Different, but similar.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK, I'm middle-class but at the time attended a Penty church where being 'slain in the Spirit' and speaking in 'tongues' happened prior to Toronto.

---

quote:

---

Whether that was 'of God' or just a bit of accidental 'primal scream-type therapy' into which I stumbled because others were doing it though is very difficult to say...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Polly - I'm sorry, but the football match analogy drives me spare. The next time I hear our vicar use it I'm going to knock his block off.

My wife says that she wouldn't shout even at a football match so the analogy doesn't hold.

It's a crap one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

To be honest, it narks me to some extent because you pontificate about these things despite having no first-hand experience yourself and keep bringing in a contrary view that puts a negative spin on what other people (such as myself) are suggesting. I find it rather irritating to be frank, in a way that I don't find other contributions to be the same. At least with the long ranger we may differ on some aspects but we both have experience of what we're going on about and are coming at it from an informed perspective.

---

I just wanted to say here that half my extended family are Pentecostals. My mother became a Methodist during my teens, but she hasn't identified as such for many years now. My grandfather was a Pentecostal pastor for a time. He died last year at a very great age, and throughout his life he was a dominant, highly opinionated man, as I knew from personal experience as well as family stories. The other half of my family belong to another arguably evangelical denomination.

In other words, I haven't quite spent my life cooped up in some kind of MOTR nunnery, as you seem to be implying!

But I fully accept that I don't fit into the club of ex-charismatics, and since I don't want to be the cause of any further irritation I'll leave you to it....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - I was in a hurry SvitlanaV2 and was feeling rather petulant for a variety of non-Ship related reasons - so apologies for that. I did know something of your background but not in as much detail as you've now supplied.

I s'pose I was getting a bit irritated by what I took to be an inveterate habit of always putting the other side of an argument. Whenever I post anything you always 'see the other side' - which isn't a problem and sometimes I find it very helpful. I just didn't on this occasion - perhaps because there's some 'baggage' I'm carrying, I don't know ...

Anyway - I value your posts and contributions and don't want to fall out over this one.

@Polly - no, I'm not making your point at all. I'm contradicting it.

Our vicar will regularly use the football match analogy because he wants to encourage people to shout and so on. He's dropping broad-hints and encouragements to get the kind of reaction he feels appropriate and that he wants to see. That could easily teeter over into manipulation.

At a football crowd you don't get cheerleaders at the front (at least not in the UK) telling everyone when to shout and when to sing.

At a football/rugby/sports event people are free to get excited and to express their passions in any way they can or simply just be still. Well, yes, so why try to whip church congregations up to emote/express passions rather than simply just being still - if that's how they want to be?

I'm a bolshie bugger so if someone tries to get me to shout or clap or respond in a certain way then I'll dig in my heels and do the opposite.

If I wanted to shout, dance, clap and so on then I would do so. But don't you go telling me that I ought or should.

You see the difference?

I was quite happy to shout, clap, dance and wave my arms around when I was a full-on charismatic. I no longer do so. I don't disparage or despise the former self who used to do these things - it's just that I no longer feel the need to do them - nor the kind of peer pressure or cues that can induce them.

Why should a church be any different than a football match?

Because it IS different.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't feel at home or comfortable in church. If you look at the more sacramental traditions then you'll find that most of the participants aren't at all self-conscious or precious about what they do - apart from some of the tat-queens in Ecclesiantics. They just worship that way because that's the way they worship.

They're entirely comfortable with it. As I'm sure people are who go in for the happy-clappy stuff - as I was when I was more that way inclined.

My wife never liked it and always felt different or under pressure or as if she was some kind of inveterate sinner because she didn't 'respond' in the expressive and demonstrative way that was expected of her and everyone else.

That sucks.

So the next time some bastard tells us that we should be clapping or dancing or doing what he thinks we should be doing I will tell him to fuck off.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Cool ecstasy versus hot ecstasy, Gamaliel. I suppose I'm "cool" with "hot" and "cool", not so "cool" with lukewarm.

Provided neither hot nor cool is made compulsory. Either by up-front exhortations or general peer-pressure. Both seem to me to involve judging the servant of Another. Don't think He likes that a lot.

Re Polly, I've told the story before here of an ex-drug addict who had a profound conversion to the faith. Very early on, when he really did not have any idea about church niceties, a Baptist minister asked him to tell his story at a church service, which he did without any self-justification and apparently it was very moving. Then the minister made the "fatal" mistake of asking him what he thought about Jesus. "F***ing marvellous", he exclaimed, with a huge smile.

Personally, I thought that was a very sincere expression of worship, but there was a (probably understandable) deal of outrage about it all. Tongue in cheek, I observed afterwards that he was simply speaking in another tongue (which got me into trouble as well).

I learned from "Pride and Prejudice" that we must make allowances for differences of upbringing and temperament. People are not the same.

[ 19. October 2012, 14:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
^ Nice, Barnabas.

I spent a few years in a church environment that was quite 'charismatic', with a lot of hands waving in the air, but the good thing about it was that there wasn't a sense of PRESSURE to wave your hands in the air.

So I mostly didn't. Because that wasn't usually how I felt like responding. Once in a while, that changed.
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Ah yes, the old 'and now we'll have a spontaneous round of applause' routine.


I hate being told what to do, and would often sit when everyone else stood (sometimes even standing whilst everyone else sat). These days it isn't a problem because I don't go to church..
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I just wanted to say here that half my extended family are Pentecostals. My mother became a Methodist during my teens, but she hasn't identified as such for many years now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I wonder if it is possible to put a line between the kinds of charismatics that are into New Wine/HTB/Vineyard and other kinds. It is a while since I moved in these circles, but I don't recall there being much cross-over with Pentecostals and other charismatic churches (I'm not even sure they go to the same conferences etc).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
^ Nice, Barnabas.

I spent a few years in a church environment that was quite 'charismatic', with a lot of hands waving in the air, but the good thing about it was that there wasn't a sense of PRESSURE to wave your hands in the air.

So I mostly didn't. Because that wasn't usually how I felt like responding. Once in a while, that changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think that the suspicion of emotional responses to the Holy Spirit among British Conservative Evangelicals is directly related to the stiff upper lip mentality inculcated by the public school system. I really do.

My experience of Conservative Evangelicalism (of the St Helen's Bishopsgate variety) over the past four years convinces me that it is, at least unofficially, a closed shop to anyone who wasn't educated in a good public school.

Yes, you can hold the same theology and go to the same conferences but the reality is this: if you didn't become a Christian at the same school as someone else or through some kind of University Christian Fellowship then there is a big question mark over your Christian credentials.

---

This is a very interesting point. Within Anglican Conservative Evangelicalism (sigh, these terms are so misleading - the most Conservative Evangelicals are not charismatic and consider these things to be of the devil..) there is most definitely a bias towards the privately educated.

Justin Welby was from Eton - though having been in churches with him quite a few times, I'm not sure he is really particularly charismatic. John Irvine, the previous Dean of Coventry (who worked with Bishop Justin for a long time) is very charismatic and was associated with the Alpha course and HTB, He was a barrister and (I think) went to Eton. As, I think, did Nicky Gumbel.

That is just three people of influence in this group that I can think of.

But then I'm not sure if that is exactly the same subset as St Helen's Bishopsgate. I don't know anything about that church.

---

My own experience of St Helen's in the 1990s ( I became a Christian there in my mid twenties and stayed there 5 years until my marriage) was that it was an overwhelmingly middle/upper class church with a unusually large number of public school educated members - I had good friends who had been to Eton, Merchant Taylor's and Cheltenham Ladies College and several friends were lawyers, barristers or worked in the city. I was very much in the minority as a working class girl (I was brought up on the roughest estate in Luton). I wouldn't be at all surprised if upbringing/schooling influenced the restraint in emotion in such a conservative church. I, personally, never found class to be a barrier in being accepted there though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

I think the "we don't do that here" of Conservative Evangelicalism (and there are lots especially from Sydney types) is much more powerful than "we like to do this here" or the "you can do this if you want" of the Charismatics. Churches which resist or disapprove of charismatic phenomena, IME, almost always have an underlying culture of fear. It even affects their attitudes to evangelism. Charismatics tend to go for the "isn't Jesus great, look how much we like him" approach, Conservatives tend to go for the "you'll go to hell if you don't become like us" approach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It might not be the case now, the long ranger, but at one time many conservative evangelicals certainly would have been offended by hand-raising, almost as much as they would have been if people crossed themselves (now, that really WOULD be radical ...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It doesn't seem to me that there's a great deal of Biblical evidence for this - he said going all sola scriptura all of a sudden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

I think the "we don't do that here" of Conservative Evangelicalism (and there are lots especially from Sydney types) is much more powerful than "we like to do this here" or the "you can do this if you want" of the Charismatics. Churches which resist or disapprove of charismatic phenomena, IME, almost always have an underlying culture of fear. It even affects their attitudes to evangelism. Charismatics tend to go for the "isn't Jesus great, look how much we like him" approach, Conservatives tend to go for the "you'll go to hell if you don't become like us" approach.

---

I can't think of any conservative Evangelicals who would be offended by someone raising their arms. The wearing of suits, maybe, but arm raising, no.

Which just goes to show - talking about Conservative Evangelicals as a group is as stupid as making sweeping statements about charismatics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

My personal preference is for the blend of Reformed doctrine, charismatic expectation and the slightly more energetic worship style of Newfrontiers in which the charismata seem better integrated into the whole meeting.

---

quote:

---

The balance of doctrinal rigour and charismatic expectation of Newfrontiers worship is certainly more appealing than the less well defined doctrine and more 'blissed out" style of New Wine. Personally I feel on much safer doctrinal ground with Newfrontiers than with New Wine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:


Whatever similarities may exist between the emotional effects of singing Mull of Kintyre and the emotional effects of singing (oh for example) "10,000 reasons (Bless the Lord O my soul)" as a community sing-along, isn't there something qualitatively different going on in acts of worship? Or if there isn't, why isn't there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I find this very interesting. How did you make the transition from the 'stiff upper lip" of St Helen's to Newfrontiers? How do the two compare? How do/did you reconcile the differences? And what have you now moved onto?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Daronmedway only finds it doctrinally rigorous because it happens to fit with his own position.

If it didn't he wouldn't find it doctrinally rigorous at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

If any of us is struggling with the question of whether the offering to and perceived encounter with God are in fact real, then of course the reductionist "no different from community sing-along" argument is more likely to win the day.

But suppose that is wrong? Or suppose the sincere worshipper is wrong? Who really saw it clearly?

The answer we find in ourselves to that question will have a major impact on the way we see the issue of emotional response in worship (and many other issues as well).

Presuppositions matter a lot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Daronmedway only finds it doctrinally rigorous because it happens to fit with his own position.

If it didn't he wouldn't find it doctrinally rigorous at all.

I daresay that's true of all of us in relation to what our own particular preferences and predilections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Actually, this has got my dander up a bit. I've got another spiritual experience I'd like to throw into the pot to which I find the answer in Orthodoxy. Although our Orthodox friends may well think that I'm mistaken.

On three or four occasions when praying alone, or with one or two others, I have experienced a sense of God arriving in the room in a way that I can physically see.

My eyes are shut but I can "see" golden light and when I open my eyes the room and (the people I'm with) are diffused with visible glory which I can only describe as liquid-like golden light. This generally is accompanied by complete assurance that my prayer has been answered in the affirmative. One was prayer for the conversion of my girlfriend (now my wife).

The only answer for this phenomenon that I have found is the hesychastic tradition within Orthodoxy which speaks of something like God's "uncreated light". Oh, and sometimes I see goldren halos around people's heads when they're preaching.

---

Hmm. so, what do you think God is intending to tell you via this, and why?
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
When it was in prayer I took it as sign of God's presence, his approval and his intention to act: I think it involved the gift of faith.

When I see halos I general react by screwing up my eyes and opening them again to see if it goes away. If it's still there or quickly appears again I take it as a sign of Hod's anointing on the preacher.

And yes, these halos look exactly like the one around this angel.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Hod is my personal spirit guide, by the way.

I meant God.
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
[QUOTE
Gamaliel posted:
]@Polly - no, I'm not making your point at all. I'm contradicting it.

At a football crowd you don't get cheerleaders at the front (at least not in the UK) telling everyone when to shout and when to sing.
[/QUOTE]

But you are supporting my point Gamaliel and you aren't really listening which isn't the first time.

Firstly I have never been part of a church especially in al my days within NFI and going to leaders meetings and Stoneleigh etc have I ever seen the worship leader bark out instructions in worship.

Eugene Peterson's the Message Bible translates the greatest commandment as "to love the Lord your God with all your passion, intelligence and energy"

The sporting analogy is appropriate because people are free to use their "passion' and express in the way they choose. My point is that in church this should be no different.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that people shouldn't feel at home or comfortable in church. If you look at the more sacramental traditions then you'll find that most of the participants aren't at all self-conscious or precious about what they do - apart from some of the tat-queens in Ecclesiantics. They just worship that way because that's the way they worship.

---

quote:

---

I'm a bolshie bugger so if someone tries to get me to shout or clap or respond in a certain way then I'll dig in my heels and do the opposite.

---

quote:

---

I s'pose I'm just a grumpy post-charismatic.

---

Really????

quote:

---

Barnabas 62 posted:
I learned from "Pride and Prejudice" that we must make allowances for differences of upbringing and temperament. People are not the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I have always understood that Christ's command was not to make a great show when praying etc (see Matthew 6) but to be very private, not as the hypocrites who make a great show and are known for this behaviour. My experience has been that those who participate in extroverted behaviour during a worship service are doing the very thing Christ asked us not to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I have always understood that Christ's command was not to make a great show when praying etc (see Matthew 6) but to be very private, not as the hypocrites who make a great show and are known for this behaviour. My experience has been that those who participate in extroverted behaviour during a worship service are doing the very thing Christ asked us not to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

The sporting analogy is appropriate because people are free to use their "passion' and express in the way they choose. My point is that in church this should be no different.

---

I find the chants, shouting and songs at football matches very tribal. A great release of energy - but is it really like worship?
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think we are encouraged to spend one to One time with God and many to One time with God. Whichever, the common principle appears to be 'don't get too big for our boots'. But the guidance for what is appropriate is different for the two kinds of encounter.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I apologise for getting your dander up, Daronmedway. I can certainly see how my posts (and grumpy style) could annoy and cause offence to Polly and yourself.

However - these are issues I'm struggling with in order to find a place to stand that doesn't involve dissing anyone's tradition or spiritual experience whilst remaining some kind of 'critical friend' - but with friends like me who needs enemies, eh?



Firstly - I don't have a problem with hesychasm per se and I don't think the Orthodox would have any issues with such things happening outside of their own tradition - at least that's the impression I get from some of those I know in real life as well as here on the Ship.

I do have some theological and 'gut-level' issues though, with aspects of Reformed soteriology and the more evangelical end of the Reformed tradition in general. Consequently, I am suspicious of experiences and so on that appear to reinforce or confirm one particular theological viewpoint over another.

All traditions do this - there are the RC (and some Orthodox) visions and so on that appear to confirm the 'real presence' in the eucharist and so on. One imagines that you might be rather wary of those whilst remaining convinced that your own experience with the Reformed tome was legit.

It's hard not to take sides on this sort of thing - I can certainly think of analogous and epiphanous moments like the ones you describe - but equally I can think of similar moments in areas that are not directly spiritual or connected with conversion/pneumatology etc etc.

I've had moments like that reading poetry or great works of literature or listening to music etc.

@Polly - It doesn't have to be 'barked' instructions to teeter towards the manipulative. I'm not suggesting that your critical faculties are less developed than mine but I find it rather difficult to believe that anyone can hang around in charismatic circles for very long - be they NFI (or what's emerging from it now), HTB/New Wine, the Vineyard or any other charismatic grouping without having come across platform cues and instructions (however mildly delivered) informing or telling people how they ought to be behaving in the worship time.

It happens all the time. If I were to go back to grumpy mode I'd suggest you were being disingenuous by maintaining otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Probably clear that my post was a response to bib.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure you're right, the long ranger.

But it has struck me how we somehow assume that raised hands in worship is some kind of 'badge' or outward sign of the intensity of the person's spirituality and so on. Where on earth do we get this idea from?

---

quote:

---

Boogie posted:
I find the chants, shouting and songs at football matches very tribal. A great release of energy - but is it really like worship?

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel posted:

@Polly - It doesn't have to be 'barked' instructions to teeter towards the manipulative. I'm not suggesting that your critical faculties are less developed than mine but I find it rather difficult to believe that anyone can hang around in charismatic circles for very long - be they NFI (or what's emerging from it now), HTB/New Wine, the Vineyard or any other charismatic grouping without having come across platform cues and instructions (however mildly delivered) informing or telling people how they ought to be behaving in the worship time.

It happens all the time. If I were to go back to grumpy mode I'd suggest you were being disingenuous by maintaining otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62posted:

I know, Polly. Not so sure that's a general NF value, however. Maybe it will become more so, post-Virgo?

But that's a digression.

---

To venture down the same disgression I would absolutely say that it was a NF general value. Then again I reject a lot of the criticism concerning TV on this forums and don't really want to venture into another debate about him with a number of folk who have probably had very little time with the man.
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
@Barnabas

Sorry to double post but I meant to say that it wasn't a general NF value.


 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
On three or four occasions when praying alone, or with one or two others, I have experienced a sense of God arriving in the room in a way that I can physically see.

My eyes are shut but I can "see" golden light and when I open my eyes the room and (the people I'm with) are diffused with visible glory which I can only describe as liquid-like golden light. This generally is accompanied by complete assurance that my prayer has been answered in the affirmative.

---

quote:

---

The only answer for this phenomenon that I have found is the hesychastic tradition within Orthodoxy which speaks of something like God's "uncreated light".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok Polly, I will accept that our respective mileages may vary on our 'tolerance' levels as it were - what might look manipulative (or potentially manipulative) to me might simply look like gentle encouragement or a neutral set of instructions to you.

But I find it almost conceivable that you've not, for instance, been in a charismatic service where someone has given out an instruction of some kind - such as 'Let's all raise our hands shall we?' or 'Let's give a clap-offering to the Lord' and so on.

Ok, on one level it could be said that 'Please be seated' or 'Let us pray' in a more traditional kind of service amounts to the same thing - but I'm not convinced.

---

As a regular Pentecostal-church attender, I yes, have experienced those sorts of directions, but rarely. Not nearly as often as the suggestions in your third paragraph (or the various add-ons to "let us pass the peace") which occur weekly in the more traditional church I serve. And in all honesty, I can't see the 2nd para. suggestions as any more manipulative or directive than those in the 3rd para. Far less manipulative emotionally than when I tell my univ. students "take out your textbook" or, more ominously "a scantron and #2 pencil".

I would, however, resonate with your later post. Emotional experiences are, as Wesley said, helpful (though not essential) for "confirming" religious belief, but are not in and of themselves a source of truth. Their strength and impact tend to lessen over time, which is probably for the best.

[ 20. October 2012, 16:29: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I would accept, Cliffdweller, that due to my experiences within full-on charismatic evangelicalism over a number of decades, I'm conditioned/inclined to react badly to things which other Shipmates might take in their stride.

That's not to say I had a terrible time. I was well 'into' things when I was into them, as it were.

But gradually I became disillusioned with much of what passed for prophecy and healing and so-called words-of-knowledge and so on in such circles, plus the yawning disparity between what was claimed and expected and what actually seemed to happen on the ground ... but that's another story.

I would agree with you that overt manipulation is probably rarer now than it was at one time - "Do I hear an 'Amen?' [pause] I said, 'Do I hear an Amen?!'" and so on.

But the tendency is still there, I think. Mostly for the right reasons, rather than cynical manipulation, but there's a fine line.

I do find myself wondering what emotional responses and apparent 'visions' and so on are actually 'for' though ... there is a kind of internal logic about Daronmedway's accounts of his experiences but I still find myself rather disturbed by the weight and authority he appears to give them - as though they are there to confirm him in his particular theological take.

Bluntly, it's as if God is a Reformed Christian and is showing Daronmedway by supernatural signs and so on that he is correct in his theological presuppositions.

I find that very disturbing indeed. As I've said, I suspect Daronmedway would be the first to question or challenge a Catholic, say, a Wesleyan or anyone who has a different theological mindset to himself if they were to claim supernatural experiences and so on that apparently reinforced their position.

I know I've fretted over this one for a few threads but I find myself echoing dear old Bishop Butler in his conversation with John Wesley:

'Sir, the pretending to extraordinary revelations and gifts of the Holy Ghost is a horrid thing, a very horrid thing.'

At one time I used to scoff at the poor benighted Enlightenment bishop but now I'm sure the poor old boy wasn't all bad ...

Where DO we draw the line?

I'm worried on Daronmedway's behalf. I fear lest he be led astray into illuminism and becomes puffed up by the visions and experiences he believes that he's had and becomes unteachable, unmalleable and prone to all manner of phantasms and illusions.

It's none of my business of course, but still ... but still ...
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
As usual, I agree Gamaliel. Again, I think the Wesleyan dividing line of "confirming" rather than being a source of truth in and of itself helpful. Also some of the Ignatian and Quaker means of "testing the spirits"-- but those two traditions aren't ones often heard from in charismatic circles (although that's slowly changing). But most of all, it seems time is the greatest leveler-- as we gain experience with discernment, with the work of the Spirit, we hopefully become curiously both more able to differentiate the voice of the Spirit from all those other "voices'/influences, as well as paradoxically more humble about the ability to do the same. Or we become cynical and jaded (for the record, I don't see you as the latter). Given the importance of time, experience, and humility, and the danger of cynicism, maybe the best we can do is simply advise not to burn any bridges on your journey, so that when what once looked like an exciting and fruitful path to certainty turns out to be a dead end, you can find your way back to another, less certain yet no less fruitful path.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
So, you see me as the former ...
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Indeed. Does that surprise you?
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
@Gamalel

I agree with Cliffdweller as your examples of what you suggest as emotional manipulation in worship are very weak and no different from certain other traditions.

"Lets give the Lord a clap offering" isn't an instruction in how to worship but what is seen as a heartfelt response in worship at that time. There is a difference.

I think we are possibly of the same mind in regards to the point concerning the purpose of visions, dreams, prophecies etc.

INMHO I always considered such means as ways God uses to draw people closer to himself and not for us to use to affirm our own limited theological stance.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do have some theological and 'gut-level' issues though, with aspects of Reformed soteriology and the more evangelical end of the Reformed tradition in general. Consequently, I am suspicious of experiences and so on that appear to reinforce or confirm one particular theological viewpoint over another.

All traditions do this - there are the RC (and some Orthodox) visions and so on that appear to confirm the 'real presence' in the eucharist and so on. One imagines that you might be rather wary of those whilst remaining convinced that your own experience with the Reformed tome was legit.

---

Rereading the reported visions, they changed his beliefs, they weren't ye old 'I believe this, so now I'm looking for a sign I can interpret as proof that it's true." I am skeptical of "signs" whose sole role is to "prove" what is already believed. But when something supernatural is unsought, surprises someone, and forces a change of belief, I pay attention. Is it proof? NOTHING IS PROOF! God doesn't do proof. But worth paying attention to, yes.

You seem to be saying that because you disagree with some of the theology, an unsought supernatural visit conforming "some of" it must be false, which since it was unsought and not pre-believed must mean, what, the devil? Hmm.

The problem is, God is bigger than any of our theologies. They all have some error and they all have some truth and God works within whatever system God can communicate to us through, so one sees a vision of Mary and another sees an angel -- or a bush on fire, or a cloud the size of a man's hand, or a baby in the river, and then we jump in with our little human divisiveness and say "the vision of Mary has to be untrue (made up, self-hypnosis, from the devil) because that's Catholic and the Catholics are wrong about -- whatever -- so no way could God do anything that would seem to endorse Catholicism.

Yup, Catholics are wrong about whatever, and so is the group you currently favor wrong about some stuff, as are the Reformed and the Methodists and the Pentecostals and the Mennonites and... So what? God works thru all of it.

Our prejudices are not valid tests of which claims of supernatural encounters are or are not true.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I suppose all one can say for sure is that a vision from God will serve a good purpose. Which might just as easily be a confirmation, or a redirection, or a challenge to complacency, or even a shock to get us off the garden path of misledness.

Given that my own Damascus-type conversion was centred on hearing clearly a voice that only I heard (something that had never happened before, and never since) it would be easy for me to be attracted to Belle Ringer's view. And I suppose because the original Damascus experience is so obviously a radical change of direction, we might find confirmation that way. There are lots of similar examples to find (both OT and NT) which tend to support the thesis.

The problem is that I've seen the dark side of that. Some folks seem to have the idea that genuine God-speaking will always push the "change your mind" button. This can make folks very vulnerable to the notion that any such call must run counter to the grain of their life and the direction of their gifts and talents. The harder and more radical the call looks, the more likely it is to be from God. The masochistic view of dreams and visions and callings.

For these reasons, I think the notion of confirmation is very helpful. We find the ideas of accountability and confirmation in scripture as well.

"Is this God, or is it the cheese you ate for supper?" How can we tell?

It's helpful to have friends who we have good reason to trust, both inside and outside our local congos. Hopefully also, our formal accountability to leadership will include someone we've got good reason to trust. (That isn't always the case, unfortunately, but that's another issue).

Two heads are generally better than one, provided we've got some reason to believe that the trusted counsellor is both wise and will look after our back. At the very least, such people widen our perspective, free us from the vulnerabilities of total reliance on our own judgments and reflections. (Of course we've got to know that we are vulnerable that way, but that's yet another issue.)

[ 21. October 2012, 06:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I saw a vision once, I heard God speak to me once. Both times I got into a lot of trouble.

And y'know, with hindsight, I'd put that down to being terribly immature and being within a group where visions and words and stuff was an expected part of life. If I didn't move in those groups, I guess I'd just have dismissed it as one of those background noises in my head. A random collection of lights, a stupid thought.

But, like the colours in the cube perception test there retains a part of me that is convinced I saw something even though the greater part of me thinks it was self induced. I know the colours are the same, but I can't make my own perception accept that - I still see them as different colours.

I suppose for me it comes back to Kierkegaard - I want to operate by logic, I want to ask questions about the things I see and understand, and if they don't make sense to reject them whatever the perception tells me. At the same time, try to hold open to the possibility that visions and words from God can happen.

And at the moment, the way that I'm coming down to understand that is to reject all claims to special instruction from God, unless they make sense, accept that if these things happen at all they are very rare, and would need a lot of persuasive power to influence me.

I appreciate that is a poor explanation for life, but that is currently the best I have.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Polly, I agree that visions/experiences etc aren't - or shouldn't - be there to confirm our necessarily limited theological standpoints. Completely on the same page as you there.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this, though:

"Lets give the Lord a clap offering" isn't an instruction in how to worship but what is seen as a heartfelt response in worship at that time. There is a difference.'

It could be. But it could equally be a power-kick on the part of the worship leader, it could also be the actions of someone who wants to get everyone to worship in the way that he/she wants them to etc. It could equally be a whole range of other things.

That's the point I was making.

There is a difference.

@Belle Ringer. On the contrary, I am not singling out any particular group for censure here. If you'd read my post properly you'd have seen that I said that 'all traditions' do this sort of thing.

I could easily have used the example of the Orthodox who see the 'Holy Fire' at Jerusalem at Easter as some kind of endorsement of their official position and jurisdictions and so on and so forth - and some even use the apparent miracle to suggest divine endorsement for their dating of Easter over and against the alternatives.

That's the sort of thing I was getting at. I only used a Reformed example because that's the stable that Daronmedway comes from. I admit that I have some problems with his theological position - not all aspects of it, of course, but I do have an issue with some aspects of full-on Calvinism.

No, what I was suggesting was that it would be equally 'wrong' in my view (wrong might be too strong a word, 'iffy' might be better) for, Mudfrog, say, to claim that he'd had a dream or vision that showed him that Wesleyan holiness theology was correct or for Mark Betts to have a dream or vision that told him that the Orthodox were right on particular issues and the rest of us wrong.

I don't think these things work like that.

It's a tricky position to be in, though. Because I don't doubt the validity of the apparently supernatural (or supranatural) elements around Daronmedway's conversion experience nor the instance that Barnabas62 cites about hearing a voice - I've known some very sane, sensible and level-headed people in non-charismatic settings who have had similar experiences. I wouldn't write them off in any setting - charismatic or otherwise.

What I am baulking at is the apparent use of these things to bolster or endorse particular theological positions which, as Polly suggests, seem to be partial and limited at best. We all 'see through a glass darkly.'
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I would add the caveat that I've not read Polhill but I did read Daronmedway's link to a blog post about him. I am sure I would be both blessed and impressed if I did read him.

My wariness about Daron's claims in this instance do not extend to wariness about the source. I'm sure Polhill is worth reading and I like the idea of a reformed catholicity. On a Christological level, Polhill sounds exemplary.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not out to diss the Reformed tradition. I admire it in many ways. I think aspects of it stray too far into Scholastic territory, but that's another issue. Where it maintains a Patristic and broadly 'catholic' core then it gets my vote, most certainly.

Balancing up what I've previously posted, I wouldn't be at all surprised that what really impacted Daronmedway at a deep level was the Christological aspects of Polhill's writings - although I can't, of course, put words into his mouth. And of course, those Christological aspects would have their corollary in the particular soteriology put forth.

I can only speak for myself, but where I have (or may have had) particular 'experiences' and so on, it's been the Christological elements that have been the most profound aspects ie. those times when I've realised, at a very deep, gut level, that Jesus is both Lord and Christ and that he is by very nature God.

On that, we can all agree. Cynics or otherwise ...


 

---

Posted by Shiprat (# 12808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Polly, .........I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this, though:

"Lets give the Lord a clap offering" isn't an instruction in how to worship but what is seen as a heartfelt response in worship at that time. There is a difference.'

It could be. But it could equally be a power-kick on the part of the worship leader, it could also be the actions of someone who wants to get everyone to worship in the way that he/she wants them to etc. It could equally be a whole range of other things.

That's the point I was making.

There is a difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I can only speak for myself, but where I have (or may have had) particular 'experiences' and so on, it's been the Christological elements that have been the most profound aspects ie. those times when I've realised, at a very deep, gut level, that Jesus is both Lord and Christ and that he is by very nature God.

On that, we can all agree. Cynics or otherwise ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
On three or four occasions when praying alone, or with one or two others, I have experienced a sense of God arriving in the room in a way that I can physically see.

My eyes are shut but I can "see" golden light and when I open my eyes the room and (the people I'm with) are diffused with visible glory which I can only describe as liquid-like golden light. This generally is accompanied by complete assurance that my prayer has been answered in the affirmative.

---

I have had such an experience once. One evening while I was preparing supper, I got a phone call from a friend asking for urgent prayer. Her husband's daughter by a previous marriage was staying with them. She was bipolar and abusing drugs. I don't remember what the specific crisis was, but I prayed very intensely while I fixed supper. At one point I saw a golden cloud enveloping Dave, Jane, and Nancy. The cloud was transparent; I could see the dishes in the cupboard behind the cloud.

quote:

---

The only answer for this phenomenon that I have found is the hesychastic tradition within Orthodoxy which speaks of something like God's "uncreated light".

---

I am not familiar with Orthodox tradition. I assumed this was the shekinah. I once heard a charismatic Episcopal priest say that several people told him they saw the shekinah every time they prayed.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shiprat:


Perhaps these theatricals were spontaneous. So what? They left congregation members with virtually no opportunity to not comply, unless they were willing to disrupt their neighbours. I cannot see that as anything but manipulation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When you go to a baseball game and everyone does "the wave" do you feel manipulated?

---

quote:

---

How about when you're at a football game and the cheerleaders instruct you to shout "give me a B!"?

---

quote:

---

What about when the store puts up ropes to direct you how to line up for the cashier?

---

quote:

---

] The selectivity of this complaint strikes me as contrived. When you are given instructions you like or expect, it seems normal and natural and a good communal bonding. When they go against the grain or aren't what you expect they feel manipulative. But the reality is, as long as no one is locking the doors or knocking you over the head for failure to comply, it's not all that manipulative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...... you are always free to leave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
but they seem contextually appropriate and you are always free to leave

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was once in a meeting, Cliffdweller, where the leader told everyone to stand up on their chairs as some kind of prophetic gesture to show our intention of drawing closer to God. Ok, he made it clear that God isn't 'up in the sky' and that anyone who was elderly and infirm needn't take part. But I still found it manipulative and stayed sat down. I was exhorted by some of the deacons to get up onto my seat and accused of 'resisting the Spirit' when I refused to comply.

Ok - that's an extreme example but not one that is particularly uncommon in some settings. Now, please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that ALL charismatic outfits are as crass as that - but it strikes me as axiomatic that these kind of churches are going to be more 'directional' or directive and possibly even coercive than other forms of church - at least when it comes to this sort of thing.

I didn't go to church this morning but my wife told me that the woman leading the worship suggested that everyone get up and walk around the church building and go outside to pray etc during the intercessions purely on the basis that someone had 'had a word' to that effect prior to the service. Ok, so she didn't compel anyone to do it and only about a handful of people actually did - but I suspect this was part and parcel of the same tendency.

I'm glad I wasn't there to see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Some queries:-

1. Why is it supposed to be somehow more holy if you worship God in a way that is unpredictable, noisy or embarrassing?

---

quote:

---

2. Why should there be something special about being spontaneous and unpredictable?

---

quote:

---

3. Why should anyone think that because God appears to be working with a particular group of Christians who are committed and exhibiting the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and even guiding them in what they do, that means God agrees with absolutely everything they do and say, and that particular group have got it 100% right?

---

quote:

---

4. Can anyone claim that because God has been very gracious to them, that means everything he or she have done while serving him has a personal divine endorsement?

---

quote:

---

5. I can't find it at the moment, but there was a Youtube at one time of an 'worship leader' insisting that everybody at his worship occasion, not just jump and dance around, but remove their socks and wave them in the air. Why should it be argued that this is a more fragrant offer to the Lord than something boring from Hymns A & M?

---

quote:

---

6. Changing the subject, are there people currently arguing about whether charismatic or other visionary experiences of light are created or uncreated, what was the nature of the light at the Transfiguration, and the relationship of their claimed or real experiences with the Transfiguration? I haven't me them. Am I moving in the wrong circles?

---

I don't know. I find Moo's story interesting and would to know more about the Orthodox understanding of the phenomenon.

[ 21. October 2012, 20:54: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair do's Daronmedway - to an extent ...

Believe me, I can 'relate' to your experience in teh library. The closest thing to your own experience in my case would one I had when reading an account of a Methodist preacher's conversion in the 18th century in the local history section of a library in West Yorkshire and feeling some kind of 'connection' with him across the centuries in the recognition that his experience was the same as mine.

Now, years later, I am sceptical about some aspects of that bloke's account - it's very much a 'tract' designed to promote a particular 'Wesleyan' view - but remain convinced both of the validity of his conversion experience and the experience I had when reading it.

I might also add, by way of balance, that I had a similar epiphanous moment when reading the last paragraph of James Joyce's short story 'The Dead' and realising that I HAD to study literature at university even if it made me subsequently barely employable ...



I find it very hard to write/engage in debate about these things because it is very, very easy indeed to come across as curmugeonly and cynical - and I'm sure that posters like Polly find me nit-picking in the extreme. But I can only speak as I find.

I don't, in theory, have any problem whatsoever with the kind of experiences people have described here. Indeed, I tend to warm more towards those that happen to individuals in an unbidden kind of way and not in the context of public worship - although I certainly wouldn't rule that out as a possibility either.

So what am I saying and what is my beef about?

I dunno really - perhaps I've just been around the block too many times and seen too much that strikes me as manipulative.

I certainly don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It's funny, but my own experience of liberal-catholicism has been that it is much more down-to-earth - almost too down to earth at times, than the kind of breathy only-in-church type of delivery that Daronmedway describes, although I don't doubt his account for one minute.

I s'pose my criticism of much on the more liberal side would be that there isn't often a great deal of 'there' there. At least with evangelical charismaticism and some elements of high sacramentalism there's a sense of there being some 'there' there.

On balance, I'm happy to live with the vatic and the sense of the numinous - I'd miss it if it wasn't there, but I want to steer a course between the Scylla of manipulative emotionalism and the Charydbis of uber-liberal lack of 'there'-ness.

Perhaps I'm wanting my cake and eat it. Perhaps I'm expecting too much.

On the whole Orthodox thing with hesychasm and so on ... people apparently glowing with the Uncreated Light and so on ... well, some Orthodox priests (and ex-Orthodox priests) have told me some pretty things from what they've observed in Greece and the Balkans - myrrh-streaming icons and so on ...

If I'm going to open enough to tolerate that sort of thing then the same must necessarily apply to the wilder and woollier things within my own tradition.

A degree of ambivalence is a healthy thing though, I think. Although, like Cliffdweller, I would agree that I can incline towards cynicism at times.

'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?'
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be offensive, but I simply don't understand why. Why would God deal with you in such a bizarre way? And what is so special about you that means God deals with you in this way and not anyone else?

I have a lot of respect for people who say they've listened hard and heard the small voice of God in their stilled soul. But I have trouble communicating with people who say that God told them to go to Tesco on Thursday to speak to a women in a blue coat about her gammy leg. Or who lets me see angels. Or who allows me to make claims about revivals that never (or hardly ever) are actually accurate. I'm tired of people who claim that there is going to be a nationwide revival which will start right here next Sunday. I've heard that kind of thing at least once a year since 1993. I don't believe it has ever happened.

If God really does speak in that kind of unreliable way, I'm not really very interested in listening.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
the long ranger,

I'm not sure to who your previous post is directed at but I'll venture an answer. I don't think God communicates with anyone by any means, mundane or spectacular, on the basis of 'how special they are'. That way of thinking about spiritual gifts would be a total non-sequitur as far as the nature of grace is concerned. And, after all, the charismata are particular manifestations of grace granted to individuals through individuals for the common good.

As to why God would relate differently to different Christians, I would venture a guess at it being something to do with what is best for that particular individual at that particular juncture in their spiritual life, both in terms of their personal welfare and the welfare of the gospel community of which they are a member.

God is a God who speaks and he doesn't just speak through the bible: he speaks through the gifts of his people.

[ 22. October 2012, 07:28: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
the long ranger,

I'm not sure to who your previous post is directed at but I'll venture an answer. I don't think God communicates with anyone by any means, mundane or spectacular, on the basis of 'how special they are'. That way of think would be a total non-sequitur as far as the nature of grace is concerned. And, after all, the charismata are particular manifestations of grace granted to individuals through individuals for the common good.

---

quote:

---

As to why God would relate differently to different Christians, I would venture a guess at it being something to do with what is best for that particular individual at that particular juncture in their spiritual life, both in terms of their personal welfare and the welfare of their contribution to gospel community of which they are a member.

---

quote:

---

God is a God who speaks and he doesn't just speak through the bible: he speaks through the gifts of his people.

---

quote:

---

the long ranger posted:
Interesting. I don't hear this 'common good' point coming through from your testimonies though, they seem to me to be examples of reinforcing the 'God and me' relationship. To put it another way, why does God need to speak to charismatics in this way when he doesn't need to speak to other Christians like this?

---

Well, the experiences that I've mentioned on this thread were undeniably "private" in the sense that they happened to me while alone. However, I would say that those experiences have had an impact on my theology and my ministry which (hopefully) have at least indirectly benefitted the body of Christ in some way. So, in answer to the question as to why the church needs such things my answer would be this: the church needs such things purely by virtue of its existence. The church needs officers to lead it. Church leaders are a charism to the church. The church needs people who will powerfully serve the body of Christ. Every church member is able to do this. The church needs people to undertake great endeavours in the cause of Christ: such endeavours are a charism of God to his church.

I'm not sure your way of categorising charismatics and non-charismatics in particularly helpful. There is a sense in which all Christians are charismatic: we all have gifts which are signs of God's grace in our lives.

I would prefer the term "continuationist" if I had to label my position, which basically means that I believe that the charismata and the phenomena seen in the book of Acts and spoken of in other NT text are, to some degree, a continuing part of church life today either in actuality or in potentiality. I would also say that holding a theologically continuationist position would make one more expectant (and indeed desirous) of such experiences of the charismata. And, it's also fair to say that it would also make one more likely to explain unusual phenomena as being manifestation of the charismata. However, I still think that a positive desire for experiences of the charismata make it more likely that one will have such experiences.

After all, the Apostle Paul does counsel desire (cf. 1 Cor. 14.1) as an appropriate disposition of heart concerning the charisms, particularly prophecy. And God is in the business of answering prayer, which involves the expression of one's desires to God, including a desire for charisms, church offices, and good works.

[ 22. October 2012, 08:28: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Yeah. I'm afraid almost none of that works for me, though.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In theory I don't have that much of an issue about what Daronmedway is saying and claiming - but in practice it triggers a lot of alarm bells. It could easily lead to illuminism and a kind of puffed-up sense of spiritual pride - for all the talk (and platitudes?) about grace ...

I can't speak for Daron but I know for a fact that when I was involved in full-on charismatic fellowships I began to feel rather pleased with myself if I 'operated in the gifts' - as they would have put it in those days. Ok, so all the rhetoric surrounding this was that it was all for the benefit of the 'body' and not for individual edification and so on and so forth but it practice I think it tended to favour (on the whole) the more extrovert or attention-seeking among us - although I wouldn't generalise about that too rigidly.

There are always exceptions to any general rule.

My own view these days is that all Christians are 'charismatic' to a certain extent - whether they label themselves as such or not. What more full-on charismatics are doing, it seems to me, is articulating this stuff in a more dramatic or vatic way than would be the norm across the full Christian spectrum per se. Indeed, when you actually unpack a lot of what charismatics say it isn't actually that different to what anyone else might say - it's simply put in more highly charged terms.

I would agree with the long ranger that 90% or so (perhaps more) of charismatic utterances and claims that I've heard over the years are complete bollocks - but I'd still maintain that there's a core of genuine spiritual gifts and so on going on out there. The difficulty is discerning when and where these are operating and to what end.

Like I say, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - but there's an awful lot of bathwater to drain before you reach the baby.

On many levels I would like to find common ground with Daronmedway and I'm sure I would get on with him very well indeed in 'real life' - although I don't think I get on 'badly' with him here aboard Ship particularly either.

I'm not sure I'd want to go to the kind of churches he favours nor the meetings and services he might attend - but then, as he says, we're all at different places and stages. It would be very easy to get all patronising and say, 'Ha! I've gone through the immature charismatic stage and have come out the other side!' but that creates more problems, I think, than it actually resolves.

So that leaves me in a quandary all ways round.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, I must have cross-posted with Daronmedway and the long ranger or else not noticed their posts before I responded.

I like the 'continuationist' idea - if we are dealing with an immanent deity then anything is, of course, possible.

I s'pose I'm somewhere in between the long ranger ('none of this works for me') and Daronmedway - 'all of this works for me' ...

I agree that there is a charismatic dimension. I agree that all Christians are 'charismatic' to some degree - however that is defined - I agree that 'officers' (as Daron puts it in his reformed way) are (or can be) charisms for the church ...

So what's my beef?

I s'pose my beef is the way it so often works out in practice. And I'd guess that's the issue the long ranger has too. You can only take so much revivalism. By the time you've heard your 145th revival prophecy or over-egged claim you can be forgiven for feeling somewhat jaded.

To be quite frank, I find it remarkable that the admirable Cliffdweller and Polly don't feel the same to a certain extent. I find it very hard to believe that they haven't witnessed the same level of crap as the long ranger and I have done.

Either they are both very thick-skinned (which I doubt) or they've moved in far more balanced circles (again, which I doubt) or they're turning a blind eye to some of the kookier aspects.

Either that or the long ranger and I are just inveterate cynics. In which case there's no hope for us ...
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I agree, I think the language of the charismatic has infected much of the rest of the church, to the extent that there is a large 'sub-charismatic' rump which shares some of the language, if not the practice, of the charismatics.

I think there are also many people who have charismatic experiences irregularly - at special events and meetings and camps they do things that they would not normally do in their churches.

For me, the two symptoms of that are the 'relationship with Jesus' phrase and the Blessings theology, both of which, I believe, seek to put emphasis onto the individual and their beloved status with God. To this, I'd say I have a two-gospel response. For the weak, and hungry, and poor and sick, and old there is a gospel of love. That there is a God who wants to hold and heal and build and help.

But there is another gospel for the rich and healthy and self-satisfied. And it doesn't involve God constantly telling you how much he loves you.

Of course, this is on a good day. Some days I struggle to even believe that.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I know this will be a bit of a red rag to a bull but I think that Arminian Charismatics with their emphasis on free will tend to fall into the trap of Revivalism with the attendant guilt tripping. Coming from a more Reformed position mean that I look to the likes of Jonathan Edwards, rather than Charles Finney, for my understanding of Revival.

And this tends to result in a more, for want of a better word, submissive rather than coercive understanding of Revival. Revival is God's business. We can't make it happen. We can want it. We can pray for it. But we don't look to human measures and means to the actualisation of it. We look to God's sovereign will.
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
One old charismatic vicar I used to know told me that he was both Arminian and Calvinist. I think what he meant was that he used Arminian language when talking to non-Christians and Calvinist when speaking to Christians.

My experiences therefore have been in situations where neither one nor t'other are particularly dominent. I have only recently met a Reformed charismatic in real life, which I took to be a very unusual and confusing breed.

In my experience, revivalism has little directly to do with Arminian theology. But your mileage may vary.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You can only take so much revivalism. By the time you've heard your 145th revival prophecy or over-egged claim you can be forgiven for feeling somewhat jaded.

To be quite frank, I find it remarkable that the admirable Cliffdweller and Polly don't feel the same to a certain extent. I find it very hard to believe that they haven't witnessed the same level of crap as the long ranger and I have done.

---

In my case, it creates a certain kind of ambivalence. When asked for an opinion, currently I'm saying that if I have any sort of "big picture" expectation, it's something more akin to captivity and exile; possibly quite a long period of that before any equivalent of revival/restoration.

This has a kind of shockwave effect. It does have the value of being a biblical narrative; a consequence of division, a complacence about inequity. Justice is not exactly rolling down like a river. And there is a good deal of religious bullshit about.

My ambivalence may just be another way of saying I'd rather just get on with what I can see makes some sort of sense, has some sort of value. Don't think the speculation, either way, has any real impact on my day to day expression of faith. I'm more a "keep on keeping on" person.

If anything akin to revival happened, there would be a lot of joy, but a lot of ongoing headaches as well. Revival is an evangelist's dream, a pastor's nightmare. Thought everyone knew that.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Barnabas, I don't think everyone does know that ...

@Daronmedway - no, it's not a red-rag to a bull at all. I completely agree on that aspect. Indeed, for a season I found myself drawn towards full-on Calvinism for those very reasons. There's a dose of Calvinism in my spiritual DNA. I agree with George MacLeod (sp?) of Iona Community fame - 'Calvinism is a virus, you never fully recover from it.'

In my case I keep taking the odd sip of the Orthodox medicine to counter-balance Calvinism's more baleful effects ...



There are, of course, very positive aspects in the Reformed tradition and I would highlight the aspect that you've alluded to here as one of them.

I would tend to look to the likes of Jonathan Edwards too in instances of this kind. I would also add that the Reformed tradition has a less damaging eschatology too than that often found in Arminian charismatic circles - which are more likely to be influenced by dispensationalism and foolish speculation about the rapture and other attendant ills.

So - please don't misunderstand me. I may be taking the occasional antidote against my former Calvinistic bent but this is because I believe Calvinism to be responsible for a different set of ills than Arminianism. Both have inculcated guilt-trips and substantial harm in my view - as well as, equally, acting as a spur towards all manner of good works and initiatives.

It's a mixed picture.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@the long ranger - hmmmm ... in my experience revivalism has almost everything to do with an Arminian theology - whether it is acknowledged as such or not.
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@the long ranger - hmmmm ... in my experience revivalism has almost everything to do with an Arminian theology - whether it is acknowledged as such or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Looking at it from the other direction, I'd think that there are many Calvinists who would disown the Charismatic Calvinist because of the charisma.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I still find a Charismatic Calvinist something hard to understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
]Why? I'm not a Calvinist (well, card-carrying TULIP-ite anyway) but there seems no contradiction between belief, for example, in limited atonement and ongoing belief in spiritual gifts sovereignly distributed by God for upbuilding and strengthening individuals and the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
The non-charismatic Calvinists I've met would (probably) say that this kind of individual revelation elevates the individual above the bible. See this for an example.

---

quote:

---

I'm now wondering the extent to which the Reformed tradition is representative of Calvinists..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
These days a lot of people claim to be 'Reformed' because it seems to be in-vogue - but in reality all this means is that they believe in 4 parts of TULIP, and pretty much ignore everything else in the wider 'Reformed'/'Calvinist' tradition.

---

A tradition which in living memory has given us Karl Barth, the Iona Community, Taize, Don Carson, New Frontiers, Fred Phelps and Mark Driscoll. In Calvin's house there are many mansions.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not convinced it is particularly 'in vogue' to claim to be part of the Reformed tradition.

I think there is a tendency for recovering or rebounding charismatics and Pentecostals to lay claim to aspects of Reformed theology. I've known several people who have switched from a rigidly fundamentalist Pentecostal position to an equally rigidly fundamentalist conservatively Calvinist one.

They are two sides of the same coin, the same bad penny ...

Mercifully, there is a lot more breadth to the wider Reformed tradition than that - as ken has identified.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Many mansions and not many fireplaces.

Cold Calvin, cold, cold Calvin ...

The Alan Turing meets Mr Spock of Western theology ...


 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not convinced it is particularly 'in vogue' to claim to be part of the Reformed tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be offensive, but I simply don't understand why. Why would God deal with you in such a bizarre way? And what is so special about you that means God deals with you in this way and not anyone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
... Or, I suppose, are you saying that God offers the spiritual gifts to people with fundamentally dodgy theology?

---

ISTM that through the amazing graciousness of God the Father, he sends the Spirit to work through all sorts of people who might be regarded by others as having 'dodgy theology'. As well as charismatic Calvinists, there are charismatic RCs, (who have dodgy theology according to some). How far down the dodginess path one has to go before God will not do that is a question that I couldn't even speculate on. God is, after all, sovereign in His acts.

Thanks to (I think) Daronmedway for the term 'continuist'. I think I will use this for self-identification instead of 'non-cessationist' which I have been using up to now, in order to distance myself from the more off-the wall, emotionally gushing, manipulative, and possibly self-delusional associations of the description 'charismatic'. I'm with Gamaliel about the vast amounts of bathwater, and still believe that somewhere there is a baby...
Angus
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Doh! That should be 'continuationist'. I knew I should have referred back to the original post.

[ 22. October 2012, 17:09: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Or, I suppose, are you saying that God offers the spiritual gifts to people with fundamentally dodgy theology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@the long ranger - both things can be true, of course, at one and the same time ...

Particularly when you are drinking beer ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Or.. to put it another way.. how do Charismatics understand the charisma exhibited by people they fundamentally disagree with? I

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Not terribly helpful, ken, given there is another verse in Matthew which says the exact opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@The Cliffdweller ... why do you have to be an evangelical with all that implies to be amazed that God spoke to the Magi through the stars?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Doh! That should be 'continuationist'. I knew I should have referred back to the original post.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0