quote:

---

as in: why would anyone want to pay to go and listen to a series of people talking about what Other people are doing wrong?

---

So that they can have their own views re-inforced and not think about other possibilities?
Or as Duncan MacLaren might put it, strengthen their plausibility structures?
 

---

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Hooray, a thread on this weird and wonderful phenomenon!

I've spent several days with a really dodgy internet connection trying to follow this on Twitter and would have started a thread here myself if I'd actually been able to reach the board....I've just spent 10 minutes trying to get on to Twitter but to no avail but I read on there the other day that at this conference there had also been some sort of negative comment about Catholics (of all shapes and sizes) with the words "false gospel" being bandied about.So I'm probably damned on both counts.....

This is reminiscent of the 1970s.
However the influence of the charismatic movement is now so embedded in church life that I would think this is fighting an old battle so what I want to know is why is there a resurgence of this stance now? I know several people who would take the same theological view with varying degrees of graciousness but this sounds like a last ditch stand for what some people hold to be "THE ONE TRUE GOSPEL. I think that often the timing of things eventually proves to have significant, so why now?

I am not cessationst just very cautious about some of the stuff that can be associated with the lunatic fringe and also no longer feel at home within charismatic culture but I have many dear friends within that forum for whom I have profound respect and who will find this hurtful/ offensive/ amusing!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think there is a resurgence of cessationism per se ... it's simply that Twitter, FB and blogs and so on gives more scope to spread news/views and so on and to add to the blogosphere ...

That said, I think old-school conservative style fundamentalism/evangelicalism (and yes, I know the two are distinct) is having a hammering from all sides.

Some of the ultra-Reformed in the US and elsewhere are very concerned about the New Perspective on Paul and even some of their own luminaries abandoning full-on conservative style neo-Calvinism. They're also a bit sick that some have even crossed the Tiber or the Bosphorus.

Meanwhile, at a more populist level perhaps, they've been losing ground to the charismatics for some time now. And the Emergent scene is worrying some of the dyed in the wool hardliners with its woollier take on things.

So it's hardly surprising they'll be chuntering and huffing and puffing and organising conferences and so on.

It's happened before. It'll happen again.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Frankly a plague on ALL their houses.

As an old-fashioned cradle CofE what I believe is between me and my maker, and the same goes for the people who go to church with me.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I s'pose that's rather the point ... the whole thing is simply an internal spat within a particular constituency that by no means represents Christianity as a whole ... although to hear some of its proponents speak you'd think it did.

I don't know why some of these people are getting so exercised about it.
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
I was raised in a cessationist church but am no longer one. I always struggled with the teaching that the Holy Spirit only speaks to Christians through the Bible and that teaching is one of the main reasons I walked away from Christianity for many years. In my experience this teaching can lead to some pretty heavy eisegesis, because the Bible HAD to have the answer to every specific issue.

However there are problems in the charismatic community, especially in churches that seem to teach everyone can have the gifts that Jesus and the Apostles did if they have enough faith i.e. raising the dead, prophesying - with the unspoken converse that not having these gifts means one lacks faith. These are dangerous teachings in my views.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
cljfgige cas cvaaw viwoe awlefkasdcm dlwkerh ahonl

oh sorry, what was that? it just came over me

I think I'll just keep turning up at church and singing with the choir the stuff that makes sense to me. We'll still be there when the phenomenon is over and everyone is burnt out, like we were last time, and the time before. Those who then want to find us will find us.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
( as in: why would anyone want to pay to go and listen to a series of people talking about what Other people are doing wrong?)

---

Exactly. The internet provides this service for free.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Hello again all the usual suspects

I'm sure there's a book on our shelves somewhere already with this exact title.

If there's a debate to be had today, it's perhaps not the cessationism/non-cessationism debate, which is really a non-starter for all but the most diehard cessasionists, but the issue of strange fire. At least the early charismatics made some attempt to justify their practices on the basis of Scripture. It seems to me that more and more of them are making little more than a superficial attempt to do even that. That indeed is "strange fire".
 

---

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Hello again all the usual suspects [Big Grin]

---

quote:

---

It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill (...) The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

---

quote:

---

Most people can live their lives completely oblivious to what does and doesn't go on in charismatic circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:

---

Most people can live their lives completely oblivious to what does and doesn't go on in charismatic circles.

---

This dove is dead, it would not Voom if you put 5,000,000 volts through it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm less comfortable with the likes of MacArthur and co.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:

---

Most people can live their lives completely oblivious to what does and doesn't go on in charismatic circles.

---

This dove is dead, it would not Voom if you put 5,000,000 volts through it.

---

I genuinely dont understand this last comment. I'm not taking the Mickey, I just dont understand what is being said. Can you expand?

---

quote:

---

Of course this should be done as graciously as possible, but I believe it is not the same as calling into question an individual's salvation. The Ship's own Purgatory is a great environment for constructive debate like this.

---

That's exactly my point! I agree that sometimes positions and praxis need challenging but GRACIOUSLY. And not in a general context but eyeball to eyeball so we see the human face of those with whom we disagree. The thing I read on Twitter was seriously questioning the salvation of others from the safety of distance and without listening to their story. And that hurts. I know, it's been done to me. By people at various ends of the spectrum. Only last year someone from a very reformed background grilled me about being Anglican and especially about coming from a Cathedral, determined to see how "sound" I was. At the same time some of my very charismatic friends believe I have sold out because I'm no longer part of that scene. Only when we really talk do we understand one another and give ourselves a chance to understand what has formed us and even then, though we might differ hugely and even hate what the other stands for, we can still behave with grace instead of this horrible territorial stance which keeps rearing its head when we attempt to stand our ground.
 

---

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
What is "Cessationism"?
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It's the belief that Charismatic Gifts (or at least the more spectacular ones such as Miracles, Tongues and Prophecy) ceased after the first generation of the Church - or when the Biblical Canon had reached its substantive form.

Often (but not necessarily) goes with "Dispensationalism", the idea that God has divided up spiritual history into several "Dispensations" or epochs.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
Best summary of the brouhaha comes from Rachel Held Evans, in a tweet dated 18 October:

"It's the evangelical apocalypse over there! All these white men yelling and throwing books at each other! :-)"



I'm a charismatic-lite Anglican who respects a lot of folk in the Reformed tradition.

I doubt that John MacArthur and I would agree on much. And yes, he has painted with one heck of a broad brush. Consigning a bunch of fellow fundies to hell, whatever next! Just as well we Christians no longer burn each other at the stake for realz.

But I can't object to his skewering of the pernicious prosperity gospel/Word of faith rubbish.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Never heard of the term "cessationist" before, but I am rather sympathetic to it on first brief reading. If they ever occurred in ways that left out then possibility of doubt. Miracles and other wonderful things are in short supply and when claimed are easily explainable by other rational means.

I wonder about the parallel with post temple destruction Judaism which reinvented itself. Christianity seems to be wanting to reinvent itself presently.

The miracle-emphasizing charismaticals and pentacostals etc have explored that end in thoroughly unbelievable ways. The total rejectionist Dawkins end has gone fully the opposite way, in likewise unbelievable ways. Is there then a synthesis to the pentacostal thesis, its rejectionist antithesis dialectic with this idea?
 

---

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :
 
Really interesting thread this.

For the beginner like me:

Which came first: cessationism or non-cessationism?

What is the main biblical support for cessationism?

What is main biblical support for non-cessationism?

Which "groups" (denominations or broader groupings) advocate cessationism and which non-cessationism?

Sorry if these questions are too basic or not answerable.

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The Orthodox would say that Pentecostalism was simply an over-reaction to the rather Latinate, Scholastic tendencies inherent within Western Christianity and, at best, sought to re-establish a sense of the vatic and the numinous, a sense of the immanence of God.

I'd go along with that to a large extent.

The problem is that the whole thing then became a 'scene'.

For the MacArthur's of this world, it simply represents another 'other' with which to get all exercised about.

The significant feature of uber-conservative Reformed evangelical Christianity (rather, perhaps than the broader Reformed tradition which is wider than the evangelical expression of it) is that it always has to have an 'other' to rail against.

If it isn't Rome then it has to be something closer to home.

I s'pose this is inherent within any movement or stream/strand that sees itself as the arbiter of the Truth. Orthodoxy needs heterodoxy to define itself 'against'.

The conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Reformed types need the charismatic evangelicals and the liberals and the Catholics and everyone else who isn't a conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Reformed type to define themselves against.

It comes with the territory.

There is no way around it. For Mrs Beaky's Reformed friend to get off their high-horse and stop giving her a hard time for attending the cathedral for worship they would have to cease being 'Reformed' as they see it.

Meanwhile, plenty of other Reformed people without those kind of hang-ups wouldn't have that much of an issue with Mrs Beaky going to the cathedral at all.

These people get on my wick. I once read a blog-post by an American conservative evangelical Reformed lady who had visited Canterbury Cathedral whilst on holiday and wrote about it on her return as if if were the very seat of Satan.

She clearly either hadn't understood what she'd seen or didn't want to understand it.

I suspect the latter.

I wish they'd all sod off, to be honest. MacArthur and the loopier end of the charismatic spectrum alike. The trouble is, they don't look to be about to do so.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

For the MacArthur's of this world, it simply represents another 'other' with which to get all exercised about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Liberals tend to emphasise the metaphorical, symbolic and allegorical aspects of the miracle stories ... or use them as evidence of social inclusion and so forth - people who were 'unclean' or marginalised being made 'whole' and integrated into the community and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All that said, I think there is 'strange fire' out there in the way that Eutychus has identified. I'd have no qualms in identifying much of what goes on around the Bill Johnson (Bilge Onson as one of our Shipmates has called him) and the Bethel axis as such.

There does seem to be some completely biblically indefensible activity going on in some quarters and it's even filtering into the mainstream charismatic scene within the denominational and historic churches.

Sometimes I think the entire charismatic well is poisoned, or at least tainted, by some of these newer developments.

---

#

If you don't mind me inquiring, what sort of "Strange Fire" have you heard about coming from Bethel... I'm honestly interested as Bethel has suddenly become quite big in many of the circles I'm in and I would be interested on your opinions on it...

Anyone else should feel free to respond as well...


[ 22. October 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: A Sojourner ]
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Sojourner:

If you don't mind me inquiring, what sort of "Strange Fire" have you heard about coming from Bethel... I'm honestly interested as Bethel has suddenly become quite big in many of the circles I'm in and I would be interested on your opinions on it...

---

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=018611
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=021782
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=020781
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
What a great thread. Thank you for coming to my little show tonight and I love you all. Gamaliel, would please run for vice-Pope? Co-Pope? Pope-in-waiting? Although admittedly I don't want the present one to go.

I'm post-cessationist, post-charismatic me. As tongues and prophecy and spiritual gifts in general, in fact anything written about by a Christian Jew to a few disparate groups of gentiles from peculiar cultures two thousand years ago, has little to teach us except how to find a way forward together all with our funny little ways.

Which those above all exemplify.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
My tanner's worth on this.

1. The argument that at the moment when St John put down his pen at the end of 22:21, instantaneously all prophecies failed, tongues ceased, knowledge vanished away and there could be no more miracles, wherever else it may come from, is untenable from scripture.

2. Some Pentecostalists are an embarrassment to the faith. Nobody can deny this. That therefore everything associated or influenced by anything from the Pentecostal movement must be utterly not-of-God is a non sequitur of spectacular proportions. If a tree produces only bad fruit or no fruit at all, that is an indicator. If a tree produces quite a lot of good fruit and a few that are bruised, or that the worms get into, that doesn't mean that the good fruit is also bad.

3. To call what appears to be good fruit, bad, is very dangerous spiritual territory to get into.

4. Svitlana, I'm interested in your idea of liberal cessationism. Technically, I think Gamaliel's answer is right. However, I think quite a lot of liberal Christianity is C18 deism in modern form with a deep fear and shock at the very thought that God might intervene in the world at all, or that the Holy Spirit might ever be more than a sweet influence, or the beneficent consequences of their own initiatives for peace and justice.

5. Because liberals explain away miracles, there's a tendency in some circles with a strong commitment to biblical authority to assume that the miracles are recorded merely to show that Jesus can do signs and wonders. That's true and it is one of the reasons why they are there. However, which ones the evangelists chose to record and how they tell them is very much driven by what that miracles might be saying about the good news. John describes the miracles he chooses as 'signs', but the same applies to the other three.

6. I've heard plenty of excellent sermons over the years, though, from people who recognise this, a lot of them being more thoughtful and theologically educated CofE evangelical clergy.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
What Enoch said. Also agreeing with Laurelin and MrsBeaky on how important it is that we Christians can disagree with grace and mutual respect, rather than calling each other's very status with God into question.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
This seems to be a charismatic thread where feelings aren't running high and where there is a lot of broad agreement.

I'm interested in SvitlanaV2's point about cessationism not being psychologically satisfying and I think that's an interesting one. It suspect it is psychologically satisfying to its proponents on a number of levels:

1. It avoids the psyching up and the 'guilt' ('We didn't have enough faith ...') that so often accompanies some (but by no means all) charismatic attempts to 'do the stuff' (to use a Wimber phrase).

2. It can be used to reinforce the view of one's group as a 'faithful remnant' and/or those too sensible to be taken in by over-egged or extravagant claims.

3. It can reinforce the view that one is in the 'right' and perfectly 'sound.'

Meanwhile, I agree with both Baptist Trainfan and Enoch that at their best there are charismatic evangelicals around who do take a broader and less simplistic view of the NT miracle accounts.

I also have sympathy with Enoch's view that much of contemporary liberal Christianity is simply a warmed-up version of 18th century Deism.

There is a way between the Scylla of fundamentalism and the Charybdis of full-on and (dare I say?) apostate liberalism.

But the channel can be hard to navigate at times without getting splashed by the choppy waters on either side.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Help me understand. In my parish there are some liberal people, i.e., marital equality for gay people, social gospel/ socialist, environmentalist, anti-military, who also believe in miracles, run a healing ministry, go to bible studies.

Are you folks using liberal to mean educated? worldly? or can rationally explain things?
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

For those who've not come across it, a new book is coming out next month with the same name, which is very strongly against the charismatic/pentecostal movements and seems (I have not had time to examine in full depth) to advocate cessationism.

..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Help me understand. In my parish there are some liberal people, i.e., marital equality for gay people, social gospel/ socialist, environmentalist, anti-military, who also believe in miracles, run a healing ministry, go to bible studies.

Are you folks using liberal to mean educated? worldly? or can rationally explain things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You make it sound like cessationism was dormant or something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that in the UK it's perhaps easier for cessationists and charismatics to live alongside one another than it is in the US. For a kick-off, there are fewer evangelical or theologically conservative Christians around over here so we've had to learn to tolerate one another and to co-exist.

---

The other thing is that Christianity in the UK is given to fewer extremes than other places.

This sort of compact came closest to breaking during the Toronto years where animal impersonations became de-rigour in places like HTB.

If Terry Virgo started claiming that he saw the glory of God manifested in the corner of his church or Stuart Townsend claimed that his son could walk on water then things might be different (Bill Johnson and Kevin Dedmond respectively). Even those in the UK who have taken on the whole Bethel School of Prophecy approach have a don't scare the horses attitude to the wilder claims of that movement.

TBH I don't really see the Reformed as being beleaguered at all - they have always been relatively small in number. What has happened is that MacArthur et al have a wider audience. He has always struck me as a kind of man of out time - I can imagine some of the Early Church Fathers being similar in personality.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I agree with all of that apart from the bit about the Reformed not being beleagured. They look beleagured to me.

Or at least, a particular sub-section of the more conservative Calvinistic types are.

Some Reformed don't mind being beleagured. It simply confirms them in their view-point that they're the Elect and have cornered the market on the Truth.


 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Among some Reformed cessationists there's the underlying fear that charismatic activity ultimately opens the way back to ... (cue scary music) darn-DAHN-DAHNNN ... Rome!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with all of that apart from the bit about the Reformed not being beleagured. They look beleagured to me.

Or at least, a particular sub-section of the more conservative Calvinistic types are.

Some Reformed don't mind being beleagured. It simply confirms them in their view-point that they're the Elect and have cornered the market on the Truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I do take your point about the parallels in terms of apostolic authority between the RCC and some charismatic movements, but still...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with all of that apart from the bit about the Reformed not being beleaguered. They look beleaguered to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with all of that apart from the bit about the Reformed not being beleagured. They look beleagured to me.

Or at least, a particular sub-section of the more conservative Calvinistic types are.

Some Reformed don't mind being beleagured. It simply confirms them in their view-point that they're the Elect and have cornered the market on the Truth.

---

But what about at the liberal Reformed end of things, such as the United Reformed Church? Aren't they 'beleagured', if in a rather different way? Only the other day I was talking to an Anglican theologian who said that the URC were declining so rapidly they'd soon have to merge with another denomination. I didn't have to prompt her into that assessment either. It's just that we'd just attended a joint CofE/URC service.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I was teasing to some extent, SvitlanaV2. What I'm getting at is that the conservative Reformed types are beginning to feel themselves beleagured in a way that the more liberal ones have felt for years ...

With the Reformed thing in general, it tends to go in phases. There was a resurgence, it seems to me, in reformed flavoured evangelicalism in the immediate post-war period in the US and in the UK about 20 years later. There was another spurt of reformed evangelical activity in the 1980s which wasn't as noticed as the parallel impetus among independent charismatics.

We may well be due for another fillip within conservative reformed flavoured evangelicalism ... some pundits have predicted that.

As for Anglicans feeling beleagured ... I'd say that was generally the case everywhere except for some of the thriving suburban parishes down south and in cathedrals. In rural, semi-rural areas they're experiencing melt-down ... although, as I've said on these boards before, here in Cheshire some rural parishes are benefitting from an influx of people from the towns who are fleeing drum'n'bass worship or the demise of surpliced choirs ...

The further away from the towns you get, though, the more desperate things become ...

On the Catholic thing, South Coast Kevin, don't forget that one of the key cessationist texts 'Counterfeit Miracles' by B B Warfield published in 1918 was largely aimed at counter-acting RC claims - relics, Marian apparitions and so on.

See: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_counterfeit.html
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry to double-post but on the Catholic charismatic thing, I've read that there are probably more former charismatics in the RC church than practicing charismatics as it were.

I've had no direct experience of the charismatic scene in Catholic circles but would be interested in hearing from Shipmates who have.

To all intents and purposes, though, contra-South Coast Kevin's perception, the RCs, in theory at least, regard their worship as 'charismatic' in the sense that they believe that a miracle takes place during Mass.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I guess I'm a liberal (although I wouldn't call myself that outside of the Ship), but I'm not sure if liberals 'explain away the miracles'. It's true that we tend to read them differently than 'literalists', we don't see them as some kind of journalistic accounts, but usually we do leave quite a lot of room for Mystery in our faith.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I'd accept that point too, Le Roc.
 

---

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
As a brand-new shipmate on board just wanted to say thanks for this thread. Just come across the "Strange Fire" phenomenon and enjoyed following this thread. I had no idea about some of the terms - for example had never come across the whole "word of faith" thing before. So thanks!
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Welcome, Jammy Dodger! And don't be afraid of getting involved and sharing your views. What's your take on the Strange Fire book / movement; do you think it offers a necessary corrective to some Christians' emphasis on spiritual gifts* or are they (to use a loaded phrase ) quenching the Spirit?

*I really mean the obviously supernatural spiritual gifts. Things like speaking in tongues, quick / instant healing etc.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I know the question was aimed at Jammy Dodger but the 'corrective' element struck a chord. FWIW, here are a few of my thoughts on that one ... just off the top of my head musings ...

For my own part, I'm not sure the 'Strange Fire'/cessationist thing is a healthy corrective - or even a necessary one - although I can certainly instead the motivation behind it.

Not misuse, but right use ...

That said, whilst I'd still consider myself a continuationist I don't see a great deal of evidence for the more supernatural gifts - tongues, prophecy, apparently instant healings and so on on - although I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of them happening.

Whilst I remain open to the possibility to there being 'genuine' tongues in operation, most seem to result from peer pressure, expectation and suggestibility and a certain amount of copy-cat or learned behaviour. I know of several instances where this hasn't been the case, but by and large that's what we find. People speaking in tongues apparently because it's the thing to do in the circles in which they move ... and 'tongues' are very easy to transmit, replicate and fake.

The same applies with prophecy where the bar seems to be lowered where any nice, pious thought can be construed as a 'prophetic word'.

Equally, the apparently instantaneous remission of illnesses and physical conditions in response to prayer is just as elusive.

But what, it seems to me, the cessationist counter-charge does is to reduce everything to a cerebral set of propositions ... it becomes all about a set of 'right' doctrines and particular 'takes' - the church as a Bible study club with a particular form of conservative neo-Calvinism as the ultimate aim.

I do believe that there are links between spiritual gifts (or all kinds) and creativity ... and to an extent I find the same impetus and energy I used to put into apparently exercising spiritual gifts in my more full-on charismatic days has now been channelled into other areas - creative writing and so forth.

I'm not sure this is anything to worry about or that it displays some kind of declension in my spirituality and so forth. But that would be for other people to judge.

I think the 'corrective', if you like, in the more sacramental traditions - Roman Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the higher reaches of Lutheranism - comes in the form of the Eucharist - which is essentially a pneumatic act. If the presence of the Living and Risen Christ is represented, realised and 'enacted' in the Eucharist week-by-week then it takes away the impetus to go dashing after this, that or the other special gift or experience.

For more conservative evangelical types, the study of the Bible and inspired preaching may also 'correct' what may become a charismatic imbalance.

I would suggest, though, that whatever else they might be, the Pentecostal and charismatic movements have themselves been a corrective to an overly Scholastic and cerebral approach in Western Christianity - both Catholic and Protestant. The emphasis on the immanence of God is something we should value and retain.

In summary, I don't believe that contemporary claims to tongues, prophecy and healing are 'Strange Fire' so much as simulacra of the real thing ... with the occasional genuine spark and flame flickering among the hot air and bluster.

What would strike me as 'Strange Fire' are those things that go beyond what can legitimately be deduced from scripture - and I think that groups like Bethel have teetered on the brink of that and now tumbled down the other side.

To the Law and to the Testimony. Every man to his tent, O Israel.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I think the 'corrective', if you like, in the more sacramental traditions - Roman Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the higher reaches of Lutheranism - comes in the form of the Eucharist - which is essentially a pneumatic act. If the presence of the Living and Risen Christ is represented, realised and 'enacted' in the Eucharist week-by-week then it takes away the impetus to go dashing after this, that or the other special gift or experience.

For more conservative evangelical types, the study of the Bible and inspired preaching may also 'correct' what may become a charismatic imbalance.

I would suggest, though, that whatever else they might be, the Pentecostal and charismatic movements have themselves been a corrective to an overly Scholastic and cerebral approach in Western Christianity - both Catholic and Protestant. The emphasis on the immanence of God is something we should value and retain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Forgive me, but very often in your posts, SvitlanaV2 I get the impression that you regard the CofE as very distinctive in some way, certainly compared with the Methodists. Around here the evangelical and low-church Anglicans are almost indistinguishable from the Methodists in all but the most insignificant aspects. I come across Methodists who feel a lot more 'Anglican' than many Anglicans. The same goes for the URC.

---

quote:

---

I am concerned about some of the groups and tendencies within what I'd see as the 'stranger fire' end of the spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

As for what to 'do' about it, I'm not sure I'm suggesting that I, or anyone else, should 'do' anything other than simply get on with things and what our own hands find to do, as it were.

I'm certainly not advocating chasing around trying to change these people's minds. People have to come to their own conclusions and make their own mistakes.

---

quote:

---

On the Anglican thing, there are probably as many different facets as there are Anglicans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QB]

quote:

---

[/b]

---

It's just that you talk sometimes of being 'concerned' at what some Christians are doing. To me, there's not much point in being concerned unless there's something you can do about it, or unless you entertain hopes for change from other quarters....

---

Not to sound too much like a Bible Basher, but if you are concerned about something you could always pray about it...

That is something, and at least you are trusting it to the one person who can actually do something...

Of course, I am just repeating what everyone so please forgive me from interrupting what is a fascinating conversation.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I am sometimes concerned about what goes on in some quarters ... but then, I've got enough sins and weaknesses of my own to contend with ...

And no, I don't pray enough either.

Meanwhile, well, if the Methodists and the URC are to be reabsorbed into the CofE then there'd have to be more internal changes within the CofE to accommodate that. Both at the High and the Low end of the spectrum.

My own guess would be that there are more likely to be more local ecumenical partnership type arrangements where you might find Anglican/Methodist/URC congregations merging in a particular locality rather than any major initiative at an overall institutional level.

The default assumption here, seems to be the the CofE would have the upper-hand in such an arrangement ... that might not necessarily be the case 'on the ground' however hoity-toity the actual Establishment might be.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
A. Soujourner

I was going to mention prayer, but it does seem like an awkward thing to bring up on a thread like this, doesn't it? Cessationists might pray about theology, but moderate Christians pray about poverty and social justice..... There's no rule to say that this is how things have to be, but that's how it feels.

Gamaliel

I've come across a number of LEPs, although I've not been part of one. What I've heard is that the CofE does tend to have the upper hand, but I suppose that depends on circumstances. In the long term, though, I don't think LEPs will prevent the likelihood of denominational mergers. Most of the commentators seem to expect this to happen.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A. Soujourner

I was going to mention prayer, but it does seem like an awkward thing to bring up on a thread like this, doesn't it? Cessationists might pray about theology, but moderate Christians pray about poverty and social justice..... There's no rule to say that this is how things have to be, but that's how it feels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A. Soujourner

I was going to mention prayer, but it does seem like an awkward thing to bring up on a thread like this, doesn't it? Cessationists might pray about theology, but moderate Christians pray about poverty and social justice..... There's no rule to say that this is how things have to be, but that's how it feels.

---

No. It's not "how things have to be" and it's not even "how things often are." It "feels" like a wild-eyed conclusion you've jumped to with very little evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A. Soujourner

I was going to mention prayer, but it does seem like an awkward thing to bring up on a thread like this, doesn't it? Cessationists might pray about theology, but moderate Christians pray about poverty and social justice..... There's no rule to say that this is how things have to be, but that's how it feels.

---

No. It's not "how things have to be" and it's not even "how things often are." It "feels" like a wild-eyed conclusion you've jumped to with very little evidence.

---

Well, I don't think prayer was mentioned on this thread until A. Sojourner brought it up.

But we're in the realm of impressions, not 'evidence'; I referred to how something felt to me, rather than attempting to make any objective assessments. I fully accept that your impressions are different from mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Not really 'a tradition other than my own'. Apart from Cessationists (whom no one on this thread is defending) I referred to 'moderate Christians', which covers a whole swathe of traditions, really. I was formed in a theologically moderate denomination and I remain within that orbit, even though I'm quite critical of 'moderate' church culture as I know it.

---

quote:

---

It's a long time since I attended a service among what could be termed a signed-on-the-dotted-line 'cessationist' group - the Plymouth Brethren, say, or the FIEC (Fellowship of Free Evangelical Churches).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If we're talking about public, as opposed to personal, private prayer, then liturgy has to come into it. In all public worship settings however far up or down the candle, public prayer forms part of the liturgy. It's all liturgy. Even someone getting up and babbling in tongues in a Pentecostal church is liturgy.

Liturgy doesn't have to be written down to be liturgy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I'm not a flag-waving advocate for the CofE, for instance, I just happen to worship at my local parish for the most part (with occasional visits elsewhere) because it's the nearest church and my family are involved there. Yet even I find some of your comments/speculation about what does or doesn't go on in Anglican settings rather baffling at times. As though you're assuming things about Anglicans that aren't necessarily the case.

The same applies now with some of your assumptions about the way cessationists pray or the sort of subject matter they might choose.

Forgive me, but it can come across as rather sweeping and pigeon-holing, as if it's possible to slot everyone from whatever background or tradition into a neat, quantifiable pigeon-hole of some kind. Life isn't like that. Things are a lot more messy.

---

quote:

---

A plague on both their houses, both the charismaniacs and the conservative, fundie cessationists ...

---

To some, this sort of comment would seem no less offensive than what I've said!! And no less 'sweeping' in its condemnation.

As for my inaccuracies and lack of knowledge about the CofE, the sad thing is that for someone who isn't an Anglican I interact and worship often with local Anglican churches. My interest in general church culture leads me to material that focuses on the CofE. Yet to judge from what you say it's not really helping me to understand the CofE at all. There's an unfortunate message in that, somewhere.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for poverty and social justice, the old view was that evangelicals were less focused on these issues than more liberal Christians, but that's not the case now.

---

Yeah, it was precisely that sort of unchecked presumption I was talking about. I don't know where your "old view" is coming from, but the reality is actually the reverse:


evangelical roots in social activism
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I know what SvitlanaV2 meant, but the original conversation was about prayer - and in most (if not all) churches much of what constitutes or what is understood by prayer includes a public, vocal element ... and that can't help but be liturgical to some extent or other.

Heck, have you not heard the saying, 'spontaneous, extemporary prayer isn't worth the paper it's written on'?



Seriously, the liturgy thing is a bit of a red-herring in this context.

SvitlanaV2 was speculating that cessationists might spend a greater proportion of the time they spend praying (however that's done) in prayer about particular theological concerns than other Christians might ... particularly as they (or some of them) are organising conferences to combat what they see as nefarious influences.

All I'm saying is that the organisers of such conferences might - when they're organising such events - but I don't believe that they'd spend their waking, prayerful hours praying about these issues any more than Anglicans only ever pray about social issues or evangelicals only ever pray for 'people to get saved' ...

The point I was making on the liturgy side is that as far as the outward, vocal, public prayer of any church I've ever encountered in any tradition - evangelical, non-evangelical, cessationist, charismatic, liturgical or apparently non-liturgical or whatever else - most of the prayers I've heard could be interchangeable and prayable in each of the other contexts -with adjustments for style and language.

Go to most churches this Sunday and you'll hear public prayers on pretty much similar themes irrespective of what tradition they represent.

I bet if I went to your Vineyard church this Sunday I could probably hear prayers that would fit the general mould almost anywhere else. That's not to find fault or say that they should or shouldn't ... simply that they'd almost inevitably be concerned with the same kind of issues ... things happening in the world, things happening locally, specific concerns pertinent to that congregation etc etc.

What I wouldn't expect to hear would be a prayer that particularly or specifically advocates some particular theological standpoint or practice - at least not directly.

I can't imagine rolling up at your church on Sunday and hearing someone praying, 'Father we thank you for all the other Christians out there but we're aware that they don't all share our views. We ask Lord that you open their eyes that they might see things exactly as we do and have the same emphasis and concerns as we do in the Vineyard, Amen.'

Can you?
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I'm not a flag-waving advocate for the CofE, for instance, I just happen to worship at my local parish for the most part (with occasional visits elsewhere) because it's the nearest church and my family are involved there. Yet even I find some of your comments/speculation about what does or doesn't go on in Anglican settings rather baffling at times. As though you're assuming things about Anglicans that aren't necessarily the case.

The same applies now with some of your assumptions about the way cessationists pray or the sort of subject matter they might choose.

Forgive me, but it can come across as rather sweeping and pigeon-holing, as if it's possible to slot everyone from whatever background or tradition into a neat, quantifiable pigeon-hole of some kind. Life isn't like that. Things are a lot more messy.

---

Yet you said this in an earlier post:

quote:

---

A plague on both their houses, both the charismaniacs and the conservative, fundie cessationists ...

---

To some, this sort of comment would seem no less offensive than what I've said!! And no less 'sweeping' in its condemnation.

---

It was harsher than what you have said, yes. But it was based on a solid argument-- preceded by a discussion of real, verifiable distinctives of the two traditions involved. fwiw, as a charismatic, I find that less offensive than when you seem to just make stuff up from God knows where.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 




Ok, I know I'm prone to hyperbole at times and my 'plague on both their houses' thing was an example of that. Note though, that it was directed at extremists on both sides - both full-on, extreme cessationists and full-on, extreme charismaniacs.

It wasn't intended as a sweeping judgement on cessationists in general nor on charismatics in general. Heck, I would never include our friend South Coast Kevin among the 'charismaniacs' for instance.

Also, I'd suggest that it is so hyperbolic and over-the-top that it's obvious that I was exaggerating to make a point.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not surprised you're finding it hard to get your head around the CofE. I do too and I attend an Anglican church ...

No, what rankles at times ... and it's only a mild irritation, is that you sometimes make these very sweeping speculations about the clergy/laity divide or how the CofE offers respectability and how evangelicals are less likely to emphasise social action (which has annoyed Cliffdweller who doesn't get easily annoyed it seems to me) etc etc and then get all hurt when people 'call' you on it.

I probably do the same thing over other issues and in different ways.

Get over it already.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, Cliffdweller's nailed it. 'From God knows where.'

Some of it seems based on assumptions from sociological reading and speculation ... which is fair enough. But at other times you give the impression - and please correct us if I'm wrong - that you're simply pulling things out of the ether that may or may not have any real grounding in reality.

That's fine, as far as it goes, I suppose, but it's hardly surprising when people get narked by it.

'That guy's an evangelical, therefore he's less likely to be interested in social issues ...'

'That person's a cessationist, I expect they spend more time than other Christians do praying about other people's theological discrepancies ...'

'That bod' over there is CofE. I expect they were attracted to it because they thought it was more respectable than the Pentecostal church down the road ...'

And so it goes on.

Don't let us stop you thinking aloud and exploring and throwing things out to see who'll salute them or shoot them down ...

But you can see why it might rankle if someone were from one of the situations/traditions listed above and the cap didn't fit.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Sorry, I'm not following this line of argument very well. I have no real idea of which (if any) denomination / grouping might pray more about theological matters. Having said that, I did just see reference here to a tweet by John MacArthur that said:

'We're not trying to divide the body of Christ with this conference. We're trying to identify the body of Christ.'

Not so much praying about people's theology but using it to ascertain whether or not people belong to Christ. Which is a far worse thing to do, I'd say...
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Okay. I don't think it's worth looking for any links or trying to give any more explanations, because some of you clearly think I've abandoned all sense at this point!

I'll let you lot put your sophisticated heads together and get on with it. I look forward to reading your further contributions.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Okay. I don't think it's worth looking for any links or trying to give any more explanations, because some of you clearly think I've abandoned all sense at this point!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This works against the social contract by causing us to have to run down numerous rabbit trails chasing after these wild-eyed unsubstantiated rumors, disrupting that free-flow of conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This works against the social contract by causing us to have to run down numerous rabbit trails chasing after these wild-eyed unsubstantiated rumors, disrupting that free-flow of conversation.

---

Aye, but one person's wild-eyed unsubstantiated rumor is another's common-sense point of view. Which is where it maybe becomes worth starting another thread!

---

That would have to be a hell-thread, since the discussion would simply be "someone is making stuff up". Probably not worth that.

Let's just carry on, but try to avoid making stuff up, 'k?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Indeed. I must admit, I would defend SvitlanaV2 against any accusation of 'wild-eyed'-ness. That's not how her observations come across to me. They can be rather sweeping at times - as can mine - and full of generalisations but I wouldn't say they were 'wild-eyed' ...

Anyway, this is a side issue ...



On MacArthur's thing about determining who does and doesn't belong to Christ, well yes, that is a more serious issue.

In a sense, one could say that both the RCs and the Orthodox effectively de-Church everyone else by claiming themselves to be The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic ChurchTM ... but both would hasten to add that by so doing they are not making a value judgement as to whether any of the rest of us do or don't belong to Christ.

MacArthur seems to be saying, at face-value at least, that some charismatics are not even Christians.

I've heard, second and third hand, that this is indeed the attitude taken by certain types of very reformed flavoured cessationist evangelicals in the USA.

It's a tricky one. It depends, of course, what they mean and who they are talking about.

I would have no hesitation, for instance, in identifying certain forms of health-wealth/prosperity/Word of Faith people as heretics.

I have no qualms, no compunction about using the 'h' word in that context.

But what I'd be saying in that context is that they are 'heretical Christians' rather than not being Christians at all. There is a big difference.

Anyway, whatever the case, the whole 'Strange Fire' controversy is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned as I'm not really that interested in self-identifying either as a charismatic or non-charismatic. I no longer find the term 'charismatic' particularly helpful.

That doesn't mean that I'm ex-charismatic or anti-charismatic or anything of the kind. I'd be more than happy to visit charismatic gatherings or fellowships from time to time but it's no longer where I'm at in terms of church culture and spirituality - but neither would I write it all off or deride it either.

I do try to reserve what ire I have for the more extreme end - the health-wealth bunch or the Bethel brigade ... and it does concern me that some emphases from the edges do make it into the mainstream at times.

But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it or start 'praying against' it and so on, still less bothering myself about mugging up on all this Strange Fire nonsense. It's a bit like the political shenanigans over in the US ... neither the Democrats nor the Republicans emerge with any credit.
 

---

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
a tweet by John MacArthur that said:

'We're not trying to divide the body of Christ with this conference. We're trying to identify the body of Christ.'

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would have no hesitation, for instance, in identifying certain forms of health-wealth/prosperity/Word of Faith people as heretics.

I have no qualms, no compunction about using the 'h' word in that context.

But what I'd be saying in that context is that they are 'heretical Christians' rather than not being Christians at all. There is a big difference.

---

Exactly. I would shy away from even using the 'h' word but I agree with your point; ISTM it's perfectly possible to consider a person's beliefs to be way off-beam without calling into doubt their state with God.
 

---

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
In the (entirely out of context) words of Pope Francis, "who am I to judge?"
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I agree South Coast Kevin. Please don't misunderstand what I mean by the 'h' word, though.

I would have had more qualms about using it at one time but I don't now because I don't always use it in a perjorative sense ie. it can refer to beliefs that are sincerely held but which lay outside the generally accepted core of Christian belief.

Technically speaking, though, an Orthodox priest once told me that someone can't really be considered a heretic unless they have consciously chosen to be one ... ie they are technically not heretics if they are simply misguided or have misunderstood some aspect or other.

They are only heretics if they fully understand mainstream Christian teaching but have chosen to reject it for some reason or other.

It is also possible for people to be heretical in certain aspects of belief and not in others. So, for instance, in the case of the Word-Faith crowd I would say that they were most definitely heretical in terms of some of their beliefs about the atonement (although the mileage varies) and perhaps, at the extremes, in aspects of their Christology.

But on other aspects they are no more or no less heretical as anyone else.

That's what makes these things so complicated.

All that said, I certainly wouldn't pontificate about the eternal salvation of someone in one of these outfits. That's not my call.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do try to reserve what ire I have for the more extreme end - the health-wealth bunch or the Bethel brigade ... and it does concern me that some emphases from the edges do make it into the mainstream at times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do try to reserve what ire I have for the more extreme end - the health-wealth bunch or the Bethel brigade ... and it does concern me that some emphases from the edges do make it into the mainstream at times.

---

I tend to reserve my ire for those that allow the Overton window to be shifted on these things. There are plenty of people who claim to be 'taking what is good and engaging critically with the rest'. I have yet to see any critical engagement though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
What do you mean by the reference to the Overton window? I googled it and that didn't help!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Simple really, what I meant is that they shift what comes to be seen as acceptable due to the sources that they use.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0