Thread: Being expectant. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029512
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
When people gather before God are you expectant that he will meet with you? What about when we gather for corporate worship? Is it all just us bringing stuff (song, prayers etc) before God or do we/should we come with an expectancy that he will meet with us, even talk to us, share his own heart with us?
I'm not really keen on re-visiting past debates on charismatic worship which this could lead to but am genuinely interested on whether people agree with having an expectation of meeting with God (in all forms of worship) and if so what are their experiences?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
No. I never expect to meet with God. I constantly hope to meet with God, and openly invite relationship with God, within and outside of worship. When I gather to worship with others, it is about the joy of expressing our love of God in song and prayer and fellowship, of reminding ourselves to focus on Christ, and to recommit ourselves to his service.
Expectation inevitably leads to disappointment, in every area of life.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I think unless you have some kind of expectation/hope of an encounter with God when gathering for worship then you have a problem. That said, sometimes that encounter may not register at a conscious level, and some people may be in a place where they don't have that sense of hope/expecation, and they come to worship none the less out of faithfulness. Habakkuk3.17-18
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I have a problem ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Yes, me too. Not always, but more often than I'd like. On the expect/hope scale I tend to be more at the hope end, and the level of hope is often not high. (I also have to manage a level of possibly unfair scepticism about those who seem to have such frequent times of "blessing".) But in the end, I'm there both because I believe in a God who is worthy of worship, and in the possibility of some kind of encounter with God.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
When people gather before God are you expectant that he will meet with you?
No - and ever since I have stopped being expectant God hasn't bothered with me at all. A bit like a friend where you suddenly realised you were doing all the work, so you stopped and they never got in touch again.
quote:
Is it all just us bringing stuff (song, prayers etc) before God
Not for me - I simply sit at the back watch others bring stuff. But I enjoy meeting my friends and chatting during the after-Church coffee. I also enjoy joining in and helping with the luncheoun clubs, soup runs, food banks etc.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
Very many years ago & rather early in my pilgrimage, I was troubled by God 'not being present to/for me' in worship. I felt it was 'my fault' and I was 'doing it wrong,' etc. My spiritual advisor (a wise priest) charged me to keep going to mass and keep saying my prayers, telling me that God was there whether I saw/felt Him or not.
That helped me greatly at the time, and has done so many times since. It really boiled down to realizing that it wasn't all about me!
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I assume God is always present and aware of me, whether or not I am aware of God. And whether or not there's any institutional church nearby.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I stopped expecting, and learned it's okay. I'd like to, but it doesn't seem 'on'.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I always expect to meet God when I receive the Eucharist. I can't recall a time when it didn't happen.
Moo
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Polly:
How do you know if you have met with God? Is it just a state of exaltation that you interpret in this way?
In the sciptural tradition, "meeting with God" is often rather unpleasant, and I think is rather rare in terms of a direct meeting.
That said, if you believe as a matter of faith that God is present in the Eucharist, then you believe you have met with him, but somewhat under a veil. Which is what most of us can take.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
And there was I thinking from the title that this was a thread where Shipmates were going to announce the prospect of a happy event - but no, surely that would have been on the All Saints Board.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
@anteater
The short answer to your question is yes.
But when I read scripture especially the NT I think we are invited to be open to more than just meeting God through the Eucharist/Communion.
The question I am pondering is that what if we were more open and have an expectancy that God would speak to us through the Holy Spirit.
To speak and see healing, a specific word of encouragement an inspired word of wisdom and so on.
In our churches we do a lot to/for God (sing hymns, say prayers etc) but what if s/he wanted to communicate something to us? Would we be open to this or perhaps even come prepared that s/he might do this?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
He knows where I am.
The idea that we've got to have our radios on all the time, that if we're getting static we might be wrongly tuned - it doesn't sound like someone who wants to communicate, or cares if we hear. It's more like listening Iin to enemy broadcasts in MI6.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
For the first decade or so I was expectant. Then I was hopeful. Then I was open. Then I just watched and wondered what the hell was going on.
Sounds like quite a few here. I always hoped to meet God but I can't recall a time when I did.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I don't think I can give an easy, soundbite answer of why I go to church. But I'm pretty sure that the if I'd try to formulate a reason, it wouldn't be "to have an encounter with God".
[ 12. September 2015, 10:11: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There are two or three of us gathered together here. At this TIME ... therefore ... God has shown up. As Moo said, at EVERY communion. Including this one.
Whether I feel Him or not. And if I do, I won't be feeling Him. I will be reacting to my constantly unfolding story. Even though He's 'there'.
I invoke Him during horrible hymns and empty, hopeless useless, prayers of intercession, small group discussions that declare His healings and miracles that NEVER, EVER happen and NEVER will. Thank God!
And in MY Stendhal's syndrome reaction to a giant grey poplar. Which I used to get in the catharsis of singing 'My Jesus', but no more.
I'd like to get my feeling like expectation back. To let myself go. To worship, cry, laugh. And if I can, it won't be God interfering with my feelings in any way whatsoever. Except by reputation. By the hearing of an aspect of OUR story of Him.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@anteater
The short answer to your question is yes.
But when I read scripture especially the NT I think we are invited to be open to more than just meeting God through the Eucharist/Communion.
The question I am pondering is that what if we were more open and have an expectancy that God would speak to us through the Holy Spirit.
To speak and see healing, a specific word of encouragement an inspired word of wisdom and so on.
In our churches we do a lot to/for God (sing hymns, say prayers etc) but what if s/he wanted to communicate something to us? Would we be open to this or perhaps even come prepared that s/he might do this?
Hmm. I'm suspicious of confirmation bias if someone happens to have a 'word from God' after it has been suggested to everyone that words of prophecy should be expected.
When God talks to us, it comes out of the blue - I would suggest that if we try to manipulate the time and place, there will be a loud silence from God.
The Holy Spirit continually guides us if we continue to invite God's presence in our lives and do our best to serve and remain faithful. This means that words of encouragement etc arrive without a fanfare, in any setting or on any day.
This is not the same thing as 'meeting with God', the way I see it, which would be a sudden profound consciousness of God's presence.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He knows where I am.
The idea that we've got to have our radios on all the time, that if we're getting static we might be wrongly tuned - it doesn't sound like someone who wants to communicate, or cares if we hear. It's more like listening Iin to enemy broadcasts in MI6.
Not really, or at least isn't how it works for me. It's more like constantly communicating with a friend.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Polly: I don't want to discount the idea of a direct word from God, although I am suspicious of it as a manipulative device designed to stop all rational discussion, and make everything a vote of confidence for the person claiming divine afflatus. The early history of Mormonism is replete with this.
So if a person is simply encouraged by a Word to do something then there is no issue, since they are not demanding that they be publicly recognised as special channels. And if they are wise they will keep these things to themselves instead of boasting of their visions.
The problem is that most prophets I have come across are either seeking recognition or trying to push through a policy where they know they are likely to lose the argument.
The first are always saying things people like to hear. Or as the bible has it: smooth things. The only chari church I have been in showed this in that the only time I heard an unpleasing prophecy, the man who gave it was subjected to an amazing barrage of hostility. Who did he think he was to say that? He was always accepted before, but then he always said what people wanted to hear.
The second group are the ones who are told by God that the church must buy a minibus or extend the church. This precludes discussion. If you disagree, you are effectively saying that they are presenting there own ideas as the word of God. This of course is roundly condemned in the bible, and they are probably relying on you being too nice to accuse them of this.
Of course, none of this negates the example of, say, the Quaker John Woolman, who through one word led all the Quakers to free there slaves. But there aren't too many people of his stature about.
So to me it's one thing to look for direct experiences for personal encouragement, but another to want others to accept you as a prophet.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
anteater: The problem is that most prophets I have come across are either seeking recognition or trying to push through a policy where they know they are likely to lose the argument.
They first are always saying things people like to hear. Or as the bible has it: smooth things.
LOL, have they even read the OT prophets?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
should we come with an expectancy that he will meet with us, even talk to us, share his own heart with us?
What do you (and others who have said that they were hoping he'd come, but he didn't) have in mind?
God speaks to me in my emotions, I think. So, sometimes when I read / sing / hear the words of a hymn, or a bible verse, or the words of a preacher, or the words of a layperson - I get this feeling of 'THAT'S what I'm talking about' which is quite intuitive and somehow external. It's a welling-up feeling in oneself which feels like a response to an invisible and silent something which nonetheless has evinced from oneself a great feeling of some kind of 'rightness' of the thing which is happening. Some times it is intellectual or rational...a kind of agreeing with a proposition which previously one was only dimly aware of, or which was firmly opaque, but suddenly in a moment becomes hugely clear. Sometimes it immediately becomes opaque again, but hey.
These feelings were sometimes like those I had when I was a science researcher - when a 'this feels a bit shitty' feeling I had been enduring over a certain model of something for some time, suddenly clarified and I saw why it was shitty and where I needed to go next. Rather like the lab experience, the church experience can be a bit sparse, and mostly filled with the 'there's something not right with this yet' sense of frustrated expectation.
I don't know much theology at all, but I suspect that 'formation' has something to do with training ones spirit to go 'YES' to the things of Jesus' spirit - rather than, for example, going 'YES' to the proposition that we should exterminate this or that racial group, or the like.
Is the absence of this sense of 'YES' what you mean by God not showing up - a kind of indifference? I've been through (years) long chunks of this, but like in the lab, in the end I got a clear sense of what was shitty, and the release was quite something. I have the advantage of being a bit of a mess, which paradoxically seems to help since a big joyous YES most absolutely an extremely external sensation for me
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He knows where I am.
The idea that we've got to have our radios on all the time, that if we're getting static we might be wrongly tuned - it doesn't sound like someone who wants to communicate, or cares if we hear. It's more like listening Iin to enemy broadcasts in MI6.
Not really, or at least isn't how it works for me. It's more like constantly communicating with a friend.
Could you slip in a word asking if he intends to pop by?
That's probably unfair. For all I know God's speaking to me amidst all the voices in my head. But which one's him? It seems so speculative and post facto. If he's in there, I wish he'd be a bit more obvious!
[ 12. September 2015, 22:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But which one's him?
If you're not sure, a good guess would be the one we usually call "conscience."
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But which one's him?
If you're not sure, a good guess would be the one we usually call "conscience."
Well that's what they taughg me when I was small, but plenty of people here have got very upset when I've applied that principle.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
I'm too really aware of the possibilities of abuse when talking about this whole area.
The thing is should we continually discount any kind of hope or expectation of meeting/hearing from God in our daily lives and corporate worship because of such abuses? Being made more cautious is one thing but to reject the notion is another altogether.
My initial question is based on an interpretation of the NT where the early church seemed to be open and willing to receive, that they had an expectation God would speak into (what ever this meant) a given situation.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
There's lots of people who expect to meet God in the Eucharist ("real presence") - why not anywhere else?
I often meet God in the guise of other people
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Polly: My initial question is based on an interpretation of the NT where the early church seemed to be open and willing to receive, that they had an expectation God would speak into (what ever this meant) a given situation.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Can you give examples?
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There's lots of people who expect to meet God in the Eucharist ("real presence") - why not anywhere else?
I often meet God in the guise of other people
Me too. And also in the Eucharist, Scripture, Writings,Creation or even synchronicity.
Should we be expectant in our approach to God? Or is being open a better way of looking at it so that we can be wise in discerning possible self-delusion?
I fully identify with Polly's concerns about possible abuse which is why I long ago adopted a position of "It is up to each individual to discern the presence/ voice of God in their life, not for others to foist their assertions of such events upon other people"
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
should we come with an expectancy that he will meet with us, even talk to us, share his own heart with us?
God speaks to me in my emotions, I think. So, sometimes when I read / sing / hear the words of a hymn, or a bible verse, or the words of a preacher, or the words of a layperson - I get this feeling of 'THAT'S what I'm talking about' which is quite intuitive and somehow external. It's a welling-up feeling in oneself which feels like a response to an invisible and silent something which nonetheless has evinced from oneself a great feeling of some kind of 'rightness' of the thing which is happening. Some times it is intellectual or rational...a kind of agreeing with a proposition which previously one was only dimly aware of, or which was firmly opaque, but suddenly in a moment becomes hugely clear. Sometimes it immediately becomes opaque again, but hey.
<snip> ... the church experience can be a bit sparse, and mostly filled with the 'there's something not right with this yet' sense of frustrated expectation.
This
And sometimes in the ways things fit together. One service where I was leading the intercessions, which I had put together after praying the readings and events, but not in consultation with anyone else. The sermon used as a final key phrase the responses I'd independently chosen for the prayers.
For me it's the spaces in the service when I can hold things up and listen for the still small voice that are important. Too much noise and busyness drowns that out.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
Just to address some of these later posts, when I say I feel / sense nothing in church services that is when speaking of meeting God or having a relationship.
Sure I can be moved and often are by the words of a few hymns. But much more importantly for me I can see the fingerprints of God in all sorts of places outside meetings.
If there is a God - and I have no idea if there is - then the places I see his / her fingerprints can often be in everyday life - kind actions, good relationships, the majesty of the natural world, the uncontrived joy of how children can just enjoy messing about. Now that is tangible.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I expect nothing but non-magical experience. And funnily enough that's what I get. And that's what I know is happening in everyone else no matter how they can't not interpret it.
Excluding non-magical thinking from my religion, my faith has done nothing but benefit me with no loss apart from the pain of change, the loss of identity, the transient emptiness ... and the loss of fellowship, of the meeting of minds. Because most believers cannot not think magically.
Which makes for a very big loss ...
Unfortunately it has done little to dent my arrogance, my lack of impulse control in the face of ... magical thinking.
And by magical thinking I include whatever process makes a person able to accept hostile de fide traditions which were arrived at initially by ... magical thinking.
So I expect I'll be lonely ... and funnily enough ...
And of course I can get by in services and home groups. Usually ...
Magical thinking is the human default. My default. Reasoning without it and retaining faith is obviously unusual. But gaining traction.
At our home group last Monday, the refugee crisis came up and what part intercessory prayer can play. For me it's nothing apart from exploring what we can actually do, which is virtually nothing, but that is more than God can possibly do otherwise. Which He is obviously nothing. In any situation. He NEVER heals. NEVER stops evil. Magical thinking leads to the bizarre denial of that in many ways. Because He 'could'. Not a premiss I accept at all. And the fact that He APPARENTLY never does is because we don't have His omniscient view and we don't know His 'will' in the matter. He didn't stop a child from dying BECAUSE the consequences of their living would have been worse. Every time they die. But obviously every time they live it was in accordance with His omniscient ineffable will regardless of what evil happens in their future lives.
This from a polymath.
Sigh.
Thinking that we experience God in ANY magical way in determining what is de fide, through what happens in the mind during religious rites to life and death isn't helpful - apart from getting through the pain of the day, as a mantra - and there is no such thing as neutral. But it's universal.
I expect that this is going to make following the trajectory of the next ten thousand years and the couple of tens I might have and this thread and others 'interesting'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Whenever I go into an empty church building I always expect to find something - however humble - that will trigger some kind of Godward thoughts or awareness. Same if I go for a country walk.
It's the same in church services of whatever kind and stripe and irrespective of how much extraneous dreck there might be.
I agree with Raptor Eye that having more expectation than that ie that God is there in some way whether we are aware of it or not - gets into presumption.
On the real presence thing - yes, I get that but I also get God being in other people - both/and.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yeah but is He really present in other people?
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Polly: My initial question is based on an interpretation of the NT where the early church seemed to be open and willing to receive, that they had an expectation God would speak into (what ever this meant) a given situation.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Can you give examples?
Yes - here are a few texts.
Acts 3 v 1- 10, Acts 8 v 26 - 40, Acts 12 v 1-18
These are just a few examples and there are a number more similar to these.
I think it's also right to acknowledge that the book of Acts records events over a large period of time. The thing that strikes me is that despite this and assuming there were periods of expectations not being met the early church continued to have an attitude of openness and expectancy.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Polly: Yes - here are a few texts.
Acts 3 v 1- 10, Acts 8 v 26 - 40, Acts 12 v 1-18
I'm afraid you've completely lost me. I haven't got a clue what these Bible texts are supposed to be examples of.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Polly: Yes - here are a few texts.
Acts 3 v 1- 10, Acts 8 v 26 - 40, Acts 12 v 1-18
I'm afraid you've completely lost me. I haven't got a clue what these Bible texts are supposed to be examples of.
Ok - FWIW here are my thoughts on the above texts.
Acts 3 v 1-10
Peter and John must have passed the guy by the gate a number of times going to the Temple. Why speak healing on this day? Why not before? They would have had to have been open to the Holy spirit in order to speak the healing and expectant that it would happen.
Acts 8 v 26 -40
Philip had left one big 'party' to travel onto the wilderness road. Whatever he was expecting and thinking his mind must have assumed that he wasn't just there for the scenery and God would speak to him about something.
Acts 12 v 1-18
After James had been executed the church prayed with a hope and expectation that somehow Peter would be kept safe.
I'm sorry for the really brief response and realise that there is a whole lot more to say about these texts.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We should expect what the first circle expected, two thousand circles out? There is no further record of such events even in the lifetimes of the apostles. What is the point of such expectation that will never be met? When there are more important things we should expect of ourselves?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Polly: Ok - FWIW here are my thoughts on the above texts.
Hmm, if you feel that these texts say anything about the early church being open and willing to receive God then that's your right of course, but to be honest: to me it seems like an eisegesis you put into them.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
@Le Roc
I'm sorry but you don't get to level an accusation of eisegesis without explaining yourself why you think that.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think there is a short circuit in our communication here. I'm not entirely sure how we can resolve this.
Our conversation started when you said "My initial question is based on an interpretation of the NT where the early church seemed to be open and willing to receive, that they had an expectation God would speak into (what ever this meant) a given situation."
Maybe it's because English isn't my first language but that sentence isn't very clear to me, neither grammatically (one clause starting with "where" and another one starting with "that", what is the relationship between them?), nor in terms of content (willing to receive what? what kind of given situation?)
I find your position interesting, but I didn't understand this sentence well. So I asked "I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Can you give examples?", hoping that these would improve my understanding of what you said.
As an answer to my question, you pointed to three texts from the book of Acts. I don't see very well how these texts relate to what you've said before. These texts don't really say anything about the church being willing and open to receive. In fact the first two don't mention the church at all. The third one might, but the connection with being willing and open to receive isn't very clear.
Based on our conversation so far, I suspect that you referred to these texts because you believe they say something about the church being willing and open to receive (what exactly?). But I might be wrong, because I don't really see why you brought up these texts and what they have to do with what you said before.
My view is that these texts don't say anything with the church being willing and open to receive. Of course it is OK to interpret them in this way, but in my view this is eisegesis (I'mn not saying that there's anything wrong with eisegesis)
But I'm not sure if this has helped in any way to clear up our conversation, or if it has increased the confusion instead ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Polly:
I think that the reason many people think that God is speaking directly to/through them, is due to a poor understanding of spontaneous thoughts.
We are all aware when WE decide to think about something, or solve some problem, and this will usually be taken to be HUMAN thinking. But often thoughts pop into our minds apparently from nowhere. We may suddenly 'have the thought' (as opposed to think) that, say, a friend is in danger, or I should sell everything and become a missionary. Or whatever.
Whilst I would never say I could prove this, there is a school of thought that in more primitive times is was assumed that these thoughts originated from a power outside us. And it must often feel like this, especially when they are really troubling, as with OCD sufferers.
And I get the impression that charis are much more likely to attribute these intrusive thoughts to an external source. Which I think is unwise.
But it doesn't make you a bad person.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Those Acts instances aren't about church services as such nor do they imply that the people who had supernatural (or supranatural) 'words' or guidance were necessarily 'expectant' nor that a sense of expectancy increases the likelihood of these things happening.
I am open to the possibility of these things but don't think of them being on tap nor conjured up by us going 'gnnnnn' and trying to work them up.
I know you're not suggesting that but all too often that's how these things are pitched.
Also, I do wonder why we see church services as the main forum for this sort of thing
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I meet God in the Eucharist *and* others, it's just that in the Eucharist it is somewhat different in the level of intimacy involved.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Le Roc posted:
Based on our conversation so far, I suspect that you referred to these texts because you believe they say something about the church being willing and open to receive (what exactly?). But I might be wrong, because I don't really see why you brought up these texts and what they have to do with what you said before.
Yes you are partly right. My initial question concerns the church (in its broadest sense and not just on a Sunday) and whether we are encouraged by scripture to be open and expectant to the Holy spirit to speak through us.
In regards to the Acts 3 text the questions I have include how did Peter and John know to speak healing into this mans life on this day? They must have passed him numerous times at the Temple Gates.
The text concerning Philip leaving Samaria where so much was going on asks the question whether Philip in his obediance was also expectant. Was God going to lead him to the desert road just because or was there a purpose about to be revealed?
Then the last text I quoted is actually a group of believers gathered and praying, interceding for the release of Peter. They believed in prayer something would happen but it seems as if they were't sure how it would happen.
On a general note we could ask why we pray? Amongst the many reasons there are I believe that there is the point that God invites us to pray and ask because he promises to answer. I realise there are so many questions surrounding this issue and many of these have been discussed on this forum.
But if we hold the view that God does speak to us today the question I am asking is whether we are open and willing to hear?
quote:
Anteater posted:
I think that the reason many people think that God is speaking directly to/through them, is due to a poor understanding of spontaneous thoughts.
I feel I have responded to your post above but please let me know if you want me to clarify anything else.
quote:
Gamaliel posted:
I know you're not suggesting that but all too often that's how these things are pitched.
Also, I do wonder why we see church services as the main forum for this sort of thing
Absolutely agree about the comment of some having a too narrow of church and seeing it only as something on a Sunday.
However I did specify more generally about church being whenever people gather and wherever this occurs. The texts I mentioned carry this implication.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I can see that but I don't see Peter and John at the Beautiful Gate type incidents happening very often - and never at all in my experience and I've knocked around with charismatics for 30+ years.
I must admit, I have an issue with your 'speak healing' terminology as it sounds rather like the kind of language that health-wealth style charismatics use - "Father we speak healing in the name of Jesus!"
The simple answer, I suppose, is that we aren't Peter and John - but that in itself raises other questions.
I do believe that God can and does intervene - anything less than that strikes me as Deism. By the same token I'm wary of the kind of presumption and what the Russians call 'prelest' that seems to accompany so many contemporary charismatic claims.
It's a bit like the sons of Sceva, 'Jesus we know and Paul we know - but who are you?'
My own take would be that 'these signs follow those who believe'.
We don't follow the signs, but they might follow us. It could well be that if we follow Christ faithfully and diligently he may graciously choose to use us to be a blessing to others by the exercise of some spiritual gift. But we shouldn't presume upon it and go round trying to conjure these things up or make them happen.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel posted:
I must admit, I have an issue with your 'speak healing' terminology as it sounds rather like the kind of language that health-wealth style charismatics use - "Father we speak healing in the name of Jesus!"
Two things:
Firstly if we focus on the result then I think we miss the point. In the incident of Peter and John they had to be open to the Holy Spirit and willing to be used by him. Without this I am not sure the healing would have happened.
Secondly I was merely describing what occurred by saying 'speaking healing' rather than prescribing a formula for all time. I am with you in regards to those who use a phrase in this way.
quote:
We don't follow the signs, but they might follow us. It could well be that if we follow Christ faithfully and diligently he may graciously choose to use us to be a blessing to others by the exercise of some spiritual gift. But we shouldn't presume upon it and go round trying to conjure these things up or make them happen.
Absolutely but my point as I stated above that if we are to ever see God working through us (agreeing that He sometimes does so despite us) then we need to foster an attitude of openness and expectation that he can use us.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Polly: My initial question concerns the church (in its broadest sense and not just on a Sunday) and whether we are encouraged by scripture to be open and expectant to the Holy spirit to speak through us.
Thank you, I think I understand a bit better what you're saying now. I can see that you see these texts from Acts as an inspiration to be open and willing to receive as a church. I have no problem with that. The only thing I'm saying that you have to apply a couple of layers of interpretation to these texts to come to this conclusion. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Gamaliel. Ah HAH! I don't believe God CAN intervene, how does that make me a deist?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
If God 'cannot' do something then it rather limits his capacity of being God, I'd have thought ...
God choosing not to is another matter.
I have no idea whether you are a Deist or not. Only you can tell me that.
Coming back to Polly - yes, I can see what you are getting at and agree in principle.
The problem I have is how we go about maintaining that sense of open-ness that you are talking about without tumbling into the kind of language and false expectancy that I think we would both deplore - from what you've said here.
As yet, I haven't really worked out an answer to that. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater but I no longer feel comfortable with these ideas as they are commonly expressed.
I don't know what to do about that. If anything.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
God not being able to do utterly impossible things doesn't limit Him in the slightest. Except from deviating from empowering love.
It is UTTERLY impossible for Him to randomly intervene in invisible cases. In random grains of wheat in a blizzard of chaff. It is UTTERLY impossible for Him to intervene and make it look like He didn't. It is UTTERLY impossible for Him to intervene in anyone's feelings, thoughts, healing, situation, tradition.
And to achieve His ends through love in Christ.
That isn't deism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, perhaps I'm ignorant, but it sounds like practical Deism to me.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
But perhaps I'm missing something ...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No Gamaliel. You ain't. In your strong benevolence.
And ... quack. QUACK-quack-quack-quack. Quack.
quote:
Wikipedia: Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. Because God does not control or interfere with his self-sustaining Creation, its component systems work in concert to achieve the balanced natural processes that make up the physical world. As such, Human beings are "free agents in a free world." A "free agent" is someone who has authority and ability to choose his/her actions and who may make mistakes. A "free world" is one which ordinarily operates as it is designed to operate and permits the consequential properties of failure and accident to be experienced by its inhabitants. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles)—phenomena which deists regard with caution if not skepticism.
Except for God being transcendent only. He is surely immanent. And therefore panentheistic. The link being Jesus again. All revelation and supernatural manifestations around Him, including starting with Mary, are a given.
So I'm an immanentist deist. I completely accept the divinity in the hypostatic union of Jesus and the authenticity of the first circle accounts of Him.
I don't believe that anyone since the first and inner second circles has experienced anything supernatural and therefore there is NOTHING supernatural about Tradition or any other charismatic claims.
For me God's immanence is a corollary of his omnis. He can't NOT be fully present, as close as our carotids, fully empathic. But He CANNOT respond to our expectation.
Do I have doubts? Of course
How else is the immanence of the Holy Spirit experienced? I don't know. I just don't know. But look at any hint of Him in our peripheral perception and He isn't there. His dew disappears with the sun. In our Traditions, in our charisms.
Yet He is THERE. Here. Fully present.
So that's why I squirmed against deism. I'm only 99.9999% deist.
Does He originate and sustain the realisation of grace in Christ? Beyond the magnificent power of the story? Isn't the story sufficient?
Mother Theresa experienced one breath of the sense of the transpersonal from God. I'd rather believe that she reacted to her story of Him. It's heartbreaking. She spent the rest of her life grieving for it whilst living to the fullest possible extent, spending herself without restraint, in the Spirit of love she didn't feel incoming. How awesome.
Why would He break our hearts?
You couldn't want for a more Spiritual human person. That she WILL bask in His love, that she does in her next now, is more real than my tearful feelings transferred from her story.
To be honest, I can't NOT believe in God, THE best case God. Is that just my wiring? My disposition?
I thank God for it whatever.
The Spirit YEARNS with ours. Howls silently with us in the pitch dark out of reach. That's good. Enough.
[ 17. September 2015, 21:49: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He knows where I am.
The idea that we've got to have our radios on all the time, that if we're getting static we might be wrongly tuned - it doesn't sound like someone who wants to communicate, or cares if we hear. It's more like listening Iin to enemy broadcasts in MI6.
Not really, or at least isn't how it works for me. It's more like constantly communicating with a friend.
Could you slip in a word asking if he intends to pop by?
That's probably unfair. For all I know God's speaking to me amidst all the voices in my head. But which one's him? It seems so speculative and post facto. If he's in there, I wish he'd be a bit more obvious!
I know this is late, sorry.
The more it happens, the less it is about words and the more it is just about being in God's presence. I realise that is probably less helpful for you, I'm sorry.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
"touched by his noodly appendage, nestling in his ragu"
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, I quite like the apophaticness (apophaticity?) of that, Martin.
I'm with you on the panentheism too.
Our Orthodox pals may well relate to some of that too - but would draw a line at the Deist elements.
I s'pose my 'take' these days - and it's work in progress of course - is very much along the lines that you've outlined except I would be open to supernatural / supranatural elements beyond those initial first and second circles you've outlined.
It strikes me that anyone with a more 'realised' or real presence type view of the eucharist is going to incline towards a more supernaturalist and supranaturalist view - but it might well be that because they make the eucharist the main focus of encounter with the Divine then they are less likely to be interested in the kinds of 'words' and impressions / promptings and leadings that the OP alludes to.
That said, there have been plenty of mystics and charismatics within more sacramental settings - as well all manner of strange visions and odd things like incense-weeping icons and such like ...
Posted by spookydoo (# 14491) on
:
I think we should be expectant.
But the time to reflect on our spiritual growth (that we expected to see from that constant expectancy) should be at communion time - 'let a man examine himself'.
Perhaps talking about how we examine ourselves at that time will contribute to this discussion. For me, I reflect on my growing knowledge of God through his word, my involvement in the life of my local church, reflecting on God's provision and his spiritual protection.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0