quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
The idea that 'now is a time for prophecy' or 'now is a time for tongues' just seems completely contradictory and I wish we'd cut it out.

---

Why? If you believe both that these things are genuine, and if you take St. Paul's injunctions about worship being done "decently and in order" and about the "spirit of the prophets being subject to the prophets", then surely this is the right way to do things.

Is your difficulty that you don't believe in these things and think they are spurious (and, goodness, I have heard enough trite "inspired" messages to last me a lifetime)? Or is it more along the lines of "If the Spirit inspires, then one must not hold back and formalise what is uttered"?

---

In response, I would start by posing back the questions "what do you mean by prophecy" and "what do you mean by tongues"?

For some, 'prophecy' seems to be about either saying something nice about someone else or else making a prediction on their future (usually in terms as woolly as a horoscope). It seems rather far removed from the sense of an observation of the present and an expression of hope, couple with a warning, about the future, as we see in the Old Testament and in the apocalyptic sections of the New.

With tongues, my hunch is that 99% of what you hear in charismatic churches is gobbledygook that is aped from one another. I would love to see a proper study done on the phonemes used within charismatic churches to see if their is a common language within a congregation, within a group of churches and how they compare to the phonemes within individual languages with which a person is familiar.

As for the question of order, my interpretation is that things need to not be chaotic and unruly, but I cannot get my head around setting a schedule for the Holy Spirit. Is God really going to be confined to meet our clocks? This is linked to why I object to things like a liturgical calendar, as it flies in the face of Galatians 4. IMHO, the Spirit will do as it will, but it is neither a God of anarchy, nor of the timetable.

Well, that's my twopenneth. What do other shipmates think about the matter?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmm ... not a great deal these days. I've probably heard enough 'tongues' and so-called prophecy to last me a lifetime.

I still think there's something in it - although I might extend your 99% of 'tongues' being learned-behaviour, copy-cat (unconsciously) gobbledegook to 99.9% ...



The fact is, I'm not really interested in 'tongues', prophecy and so-called spiritual gifts these days - but I'd sit up and take interest if I came across an example that actually seemed to have some point to it - or which led to some definite change or tangible result - and I don't doubt that this can happen.

I'm a lot happier with liturgy, to be honest ...

I'm equally as happy visiting places where they go in for more apparently informal styles of worship ... I don't 'object' to that in any way ... it's just not where I'm at these days.

Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
But I will insist on God the Holy Spirit being referred to as 'he' rather than 'it'.

God is always personal ...
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Slightly tangential--

The use of a ordered liturgy or lectionary is no shackle on the Holy Spirit. He can and does work through these things, often to the dismay of the pastor who gets screamed at for deliberately choosing Bible passages to target one person's sin! (Yes, this happened to us, and the person would NOT believe us when we said those readings were all chosen long ago by people far away who had no clue what X and Y were up to. What made it worse was, the readings continued to target that particular sin for what? four Sundays in a row? The people will never forgive us)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure ...

I know it doesn't go on 'feelings' but I don't 'feel' any less charismatic, as it were - or any more or less 'spiritual' (however that's defined) now I prefer set lectionary readings and liturgies and so on to apparently informal, apparently Spirit-led worship of the kind charismatics go in for ...

For me, God seems just as real in the Daily Office as he did when I'd jump around and speak in tongues and so on ...

I'm fairly neutral about charismata these days. If it happens and is genuine - then great ...

But I wouldn't go around looking for it.

I know I've been critical at times on these Boards but I wouldn't criticise those who still want to worship in a way they believe is closer to the NT ... but I've long since given up trying to base current church practice on what are, after all, pretty ambiguous texts in 1 Corinthians ...
 

---

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
Interesting question in the OP. I am coming from a both/and perspective here - rather than either/or. e.g. prophecy and tongues aren't the only gifts - teaching is also regarded as a gift. However - wouldn't this be in the context of a pre-planned programme or at least a pre-prepared talk. But you would hope that both the teaching programme and the preparation and delivery of the message were all Spirit inspired, wouldn't you?

(Though to be fair to jump back to the Brethren, back in the day, even the preaching was spontaneous on the morning - a brother would just get up and share a sermon - as someone who preaches I have no idea how this worked and I wasn't old enough at the time to assess how helpful it was!)
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I will insist on God the Holy Spirit being referred to as 'he' rather than 'it'.

God is always personal ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Holy spirit is a "he" and not a "she"?

God isn't very personal, rather disconnected, and a participant observer at best. Having come to distrust all these ecstatic experiences as some form of shared non-ordinary, non-material reality at least and shared delusion at most.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Though to be fair to jump back to the Brethren, back in the day, even the preaching was spontaneous on the morning - a brother would just get up and share a sermon - as someone who preaches I have no idea how this worked and I wasn't old enough at the time to assess how helpful it was!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I've heard from someone who knows that the speakers
a) had study bibles with in built notes
b) had their own notes on small pieces of paper inside
c) were usually one of a very small group of people week on week

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, one reading of the apposite passages in 1 Corinthians suggests that the apostle Paul wasn't so much trying to encourage spontaneous contributions at all, but to try to shut the Corinthians up and bring some semblance of order to the proceedings ...

ie. 'Don't all talk at once but let's have some order here ...'

I've also heard it suggested - even in full-on charismatic circles - that the 'everyone of you has a ...' thing suggests preparation and that people would come with prepared messages and insights and so on.

---

quote:

---

I won't go into the detail or name names, but family members belonged to a large 'new church' network where the central, national leadership were insisting that two guys - of whom the congregation were wary, had doubts - should be set into leadership alongside the existing elder/s.

One of the top guys from this network came and preached what was supposed to be a 'prophetic' sermon based on the calling of David - 'man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart' - which essentially told everyone to shut up and put up ... God had called these men and that's all there was to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the 'personhood' of God the Holy Spirit, what I am getting at is that many charismatics seem to reduce the third person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity to some kind of almost impersonal 'faith-force' rather like electricity, whose sole purpose seems to to equip them with spectcular powers and gifts.

---

Part of the reason I stick around with the charismatic church, in spite of what IMHO are its flaws, is that is has a much more thorough Trinitarian theology than the more ecclesiastically conservative churches.

There, you'll get a creed being mindlessly chanted which mentions the Holy Spirit, more as a tick-box exercise than an expression of faith, and maybe there are 2 Sundays a year when there's a special mention, but they are de facto cessationist. By all means, pay lip service to the Holy Spirit, but by no means allow there to be any disruption to The Way We Do Things Here(TM).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A stand-point which brings a whole set of assumptions with it, Sipech.

The reason I rather like the traditional liturgical approach is that it is more explicitly Trinitarian - the Trinity is named/invoked in the liturgy and, in the case of the Orthodox liturgy - it is made abundant clear that Christ is God and that God the Holy Spirit is God.

That doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that all the adherents of such churches are fully aware of the theology and the implications of all this - a lot of them aren't ...

But at least it's there in the liturgy itself.

I've come across plenty of charismatic evangelicals who are pretty hazy both on the deity of Christ and the deity of God the Holy Spirit ...

'Well, Jesus is sort of like God ... '



The bottom-line for me though is:

Do I trust the ancient liturgies?

Yes, I do. They've been developed and pored over for centuries.

Would I trust the kind of scholarship and preparation that someone like Baptist Trainfan would clearly bring to a sermon or the outline of a service?

Yes, I would.

Do I trust charismatic evangelical churches to weigh prophecy correctly and to put sufficient scholarly and thoughtful preparation into messages and sermons?

No, I bloody well wouldn't - and with good reason.

Obviously, the mileage varies and it is possible to come across theologically balanced, informed and sensible people in all the charismatic groups and churches I'm aware of. No question about that.

But the last few full-on charismatic services I've attended have been:

- Pretty chaotic and inchoate.

- Low on content and high on hot-air.

So, I'm sorry, I've been there, done that and have no intention of going back to it.

I have found a more excellent way ...



More seriously, if I were to judge these things subjectively, in terms of my own daily devotions, I get far more 'out' of these now that I've got used to using a kind of Daily Office and lectionary format than I ever remember doing when I'd pick up the Bible at random and start reading it or when I used to try and screw up some intense and highly spiritually-charged encounter in the way that was expected of us back in the day in my full-on charismatic period ...

If you gave me the choice of a week at New Wine or a week in a monastery, I know which one I'd go for.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

the more ecclesiastically conservative churches... There, you'll get a creed being mindlessly chanted which mentions the Holy Spirit, more as a tick-box exercise than an expression of faith, and maybe there are 2 Sundays a year when there's a special mention, but they are de facto cessationist. By all means, pay lip service to the Holy Spirit, but by no means allow there to be any disruption to The Way We Do Things Here(TM).

---

It's not necessarily so, though I grant you it looks that way from the outside. My experience of Lutheran churches (conservative kind) is that the Holy Spirit is active and paid attention to (and certainly treated as a person, not a thing!) but his activity isn't spotlighted most of the time. I think this is because culturally we have a--well, an embarrassment about talking about anything so very personal as the Holy Spirit's work, plus a horror of looking like rah-rah enthusiasts. But over a couple of beers, you can get Lutherans to loosen up and talk about Him, as well as their personal experiences interacting with Him.

[ 06. August 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Question:

Which is worse, a creed 'mindlessly chanted' (how do you know it's mindless? Can you see inside people's heads?) ...

Or gobbledegook mindlessly spouted which bears no relations whatsover to any 'real' language and which may not even be the same thing as what the NT calls 'speaking in tongues'?

I'm not a cessationist, but the non-cessationism of most charismatic services is equally as cessationist to all intents and purposes as those churches you accuse of being practically so ...

Because the vast majority of the spiritual gifts practised in such places aren't the real deal but plastic copies or cardboard cut-outs of the real thing.

They only have 'meaning' and application within their own context and set of expectations.

I've mentioned here before how Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist once 'analysed' a large charismatic gathering and interviewed participants afterwards - there'd been a string of 'tongues' and interpretations and prophecies.

Hardly anyone could remember the prophecies nor the 'messages' apparently decoded from the 'tongues'.

He concluded that the important thing from the point of view of the participants was that these things were there, available and had taken place.

Why? Because that was how they 'evaluated' the sense of the presence of God. If there were tongues and prophecies then that must mean that God was truly among them - irrespective of what could or couldn't be deduced from the utterances themselves.

If the locus and focus of the presence of God is seen in a different way - in the eucharist, say - or, in the case of the Quakers in a 'gathered silence' - then the emphasis changes.

What you may consider a meaningless ritual may actually be full of meaning and significance for the participants.

Conversely, what you might take to be God the Holy Spirit stirring things up 'from the norm' in a meeting may be nothing of the kind - it may simply be the overflow of enthusiastic expectation and 'fleshly' reactions to particular 'cues'.

Trust me, I've been there, I've done it.

I used to be rather pleased with myself when I used to walk around meetings praying over people and watching them fall over ... until I realised how easy it was to induce the conditions where these sort of things take place.

I'm not saying that there isn't genuine stuff out there - but what I am saying is that appearances can be deceptive.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Btw, can they tell when/if someone's faking it?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
They would claim so, Ad Orientem, but I've heard of experiments where recordings of people speaking in tongues in Pentecostal settings have been played to pastors alongside recordings of actors 'faking' it and doing the same thing and the results being pretty mixed ... they could identify some 'fakes' but by and large were unable to distinguish the apparently real from the phoney.

At any rate, the issue for me here is the assumption that some kind of disruption and 'disorder' is necessarily a sign of the presence and activity of God the Holy Spirit.

Why should that be the case?



How structured or apparently unstructured something is is no indication either way of the Spirit's particular activity.

I know for the Orthodox, the Liturgy itself is seen as pneumatic ...

I don't have an issue with that ... as it's rather like the Orthodox approach to iconography. There are strict rules and practices governing how icons are painted - nevertheless, both the 'personality' of the artist and the 'spirituality' of what they are attempting to convey both come through - however 'formulaic' the approach.

How do I know this? Because I know an Orthodox iconographer and also my twin brother, who is an artist, attended an icon-painting workshop in an Anglican context.

My brother found that the whole process ran completely counter to the 'expressiveness' and apparent 'freedom' that he was used to from his artistic training and background -- but was nevertheless deeply spiritual. He was struck by the depth and insight of the whole thing.

Mind you, he also observed that the mainly Anglican participants were all pretty introverted and that this form of spirituality may well have appealed to them on that kind of level ...

Which wouldn't surprise me ... but then more effusively charismatic forms of spirituality tend to appeal to extroverts and people who aren't of that personality type struggle with it.

My wife is very much an introvert and she struggled for years in a charismatic setting as she was made to feel that her diffidence and lack of desire to 'express' her worship in effusive terms was 'her fault' - that there was something 'wrong' with her.



I combine features of both -- I can be quite ebullient and sentimental ... so the charismatic thing can strike plenty of chords with me.

But I no longer restrict any sense of the vatic or the numinous to the apparently spontaneous.

FWIW, I once knew an interesting URC minister who combined - counter-intuitively perhaps - liberal theology with charismatic experience and practice - 'a smidgeon of Pentecostalism' as he liked to call it.

He wouldn't allow any of the popular charismatic choruses in his church - despite his wife's protests - as he believed them to be theologically unsound and slanted.

He once told me that he believed that the charismatics had actually marginalised God the Holy Spirit whilst believing themselves to highlight and celebrate his work and ministry.

His view was that most contemporary charismatic worship is overly Christocentric ('Jesus is my boyfriend') with God the Father given the occasional look-in during the sermons - and with God the Holy Spirit tacked on at the end during the so-called 'ministry time' that was becoming de rigeur in charismatic circles.

Broadly, I think he's right.

Which is why I think that most charismatic services these days are unbalanced from a Trinitarian point of view and why we need liturgy to get us back on track.
 

---

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I've heard from someone who knows that the speakers
a) had study bibles with in built notes
b) had their own notes on small pieces of paper inside
c) were usually one of a very small group of people week on week

---

That certainly agrees with my (very limited) experience.

---

Thank you both.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... If you gave me the choice of a week at New Wine or a week in a monastery, I know which one I'd go for.

---

Gamaliel is that comparison entirely fair? I would like to spend a week in a monastery, but if what was on offer was a week in tent outside Shepton Mallet, I'd rather spend the week at home.

Apart from that, I've agreed with everything you, Baptist Trainfan and Lamb Chopped have said.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't do tents.

But I'm not sure if I do hard beds, early rising and plain food, either ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't mind loitering within tents ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Now, be careful, that could so easily be misinterpreted!
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I seriously thought of becoming a monk back in my Trad RC days. Some traditional Benedictine monestary would have been right up my street.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I can imagine that, Ad Orientem ...

I've only met one or two Benedictines and I've been impressed by them, I must say.

@Baptist Trainfan ... yes, it was a deliberate play on words ...

Meanwhile, on a more serious note -- irrespective of our 'take' on contemporary charismata, I'm wondering what biblical basis we have for considering them to have been delivered in an apparently spontaneous or unpremeditated kind of way ...

If I understand Sipech correctly, he objects to charismatic services having a 'set time' for the exercise of spiritual gifts - presumably he would rather see or hear them exercised in a more fluid and spontaneous fashion?

Back in the day, with the charismatic renewal in the Anglican church, this was how I first encountered spiritual gifts in a 'mainstream' - rather than in a Pentecostal - setting and I must admit I found them rather more convincing in that context. I don't know whether I would find them quite so convincing if I had my time over again ...

All that aside, though, what basis do we have for expecting them to be delivered/used in a more fluid or apparently informal way?

Clearly the Day of Pentecost was a one-off in terms of the 'tongues of fire' and so on ... only some claim to have seen instances of this phenomenon in subsequent centuries -- I'm wondering whether the hesychast 'uncreated light' thing is an example of that?

The only indication we have of 'unruly' behaviour in that instance was that they were taken for drunken men - 'These men are not drunk as you suppose ...' on account of the unintelligibility of their speech to all those other than the speakers of the languages in which they spoke, 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

Unless we take the apparently 'wild' behaviour of some of the 'sons of the prophets' or the 'school of the prophets' in the OT as indicative of how people behave under the influence of the Spirit - Saul stripping off and lying out all night appears to have indicated to some people that he was, 'among the prophets ...'

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/19-24.htm

We don't see many contemporary 'prophets' taking their kit off and lying outside all night in the cold ...

So, my question is, where does this notion come from that charismata have to be exercised in a rather 'enthusiastic' or rumbunctious or apparently spontaneous way?

How 'ecstatic' are these things?

Sure, we've got Peter's sermon disrupted in the house of Cornelius in Acts 10 - but by and large I don't see a great deal of NT evidence for things not being done 'decently and in order' ... and there were exceptional circumstances in the Acts 10 case too ...

It strikes me that unless we can demonstrate a clear biblical reason as to why church meetings/services have to be apparently informal and 'spontaneous' it all boils down to an issue of personal taste or the expectations within our particular tradition ...

Certain charismatic churches 'expect' things to be noisy and disruptive - as it were - and that's what they get ... because it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's also very easy indeed to set up an expectation for a kind of 'charismatic liturgy' where the repetition of familiar songs and actions achieves the desired result in terms of people either falling over or laughing or whatever else or coming out with tongues, prophecies and so on as per the 'mores' and expectations within that group.

I really don't see what the issue is.

If you act in certain ways you get particular results - and that applies to any form of church service - be it a lively happy-clappy one or a more formal liturgical one -- they both achieve a particular result and evoke or induce a particular atmosphere.

I can't see how it can be otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't do tents.

But I'm not sure if I do hard beds, early rising and plain food, either ...

---

Fortunately, not much of that (well aside from the early rising, but usually not much earlier than regular work-day rising) in monasteries

I have not much experience of male orders but even the very enclosed and traditional female orders have comfy beds and nice food nowadays.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Gamaliel - better not go for the (Anglican) Franciscans then given that they go to New Wine!

How do you think this (your comments on charismata) fits into charismatic Catholics/Anglo-Catholics?
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, my question is, where does this notion come from that charismata have to be exercised in a rather 'enthusiastic' or rumbunctious or apparently spontaneous way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Fortunately, not much of that (well aside from the early rising, but usually not much earlier than regular work-day rising) in monasteries

I have not much experience of male orders but even the very enclosed and traditional female orders have comfy beds and nice food nowadays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, my question is, where does this notion come from that charismata have to be exercised in a rather 'enthusiastic' or rumbunctious or apparently spontaneous way?

---

..... The irony, of course, is that often what passes for a spontaneous Word of the Lord shows clear signs of someone having planned what they were going to say.

---

Two other things. Prophecy (today) does not have to be couched in poor King James Bible language; nor prefixed by "Thus saith the Lord," which immediately sets up an unspoken challenge to anyone who might wish to evaluate it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes - although to be fair, Baptist Trainfan, that doesn't happen so much in charismatic circles these days and - also in fairness - it was also something that the 'house churches' tended to avoid doing - as do charismatic Baptists in my experience ...

The cod King James English and 'Thus saith the Lord, yea verily, yea verily ...' stuff was very much the hall-mark of the older Pentecostal denominations and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the practice has largely died out there too to be replaced by more contemporary idioms.

To all practical intents and purposes though - other than on some memorable occasions where duff prophecy was confronted, by and large there was little redress in my experience when 'prophecies' went wrong -- and the example I gave from my brother-in-law's former church is the most egregious among several examples I could cite of congregations being manipulated by apparent prophetic words and direction from church leaders.

Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that the danger of that is endemic in all Pentecostal and charismatic churches -- we used to have some former members of the Apostolic Church in our outfit - you know, the Pentecostal denomination founded in Wales in 1908.

They used to tell lurid stories of 'prophecies' being used to direct and send awkward or contentious people out of the way ... the Apostolics had a thriving work in Nigeria so - putting it bluntly - if the leadership had someone awkward on their hands a sure fire way of removing them from the scene was to say, 'Thus saith the Lord - I am calling you to Nigeria my daughter/my son ..'



Now, I'm sure it didn't happen as bluntly as that -- but I'm sure there was some truth in the accusation too ... I've come across Apostolic or former Apostolic Church people who believed that the charismatic movement as a whole was diluting and toning things down by dropping 'Thus saith the Lord ...' a prophecy was a prophecy and should not be gainsaid or couched in provisional terms ...



The way that this kind of approach lies open to abuse is obvious.

Coming back to other questions and comments ...

@Oscar the Grouch - yes, absolutely, I think there are cultural and traditional reasons for the way that 'prophecies' and 'words from the Lord' and so on are couched in the way they are.

Those church groupings which value apparent spontaneity will consider that to be the 'norm' and their practice will line up with their expectations.

As for charismata in RC or Anglo-Catholic circles ... I've met individuals from these traditions who are charismatic in experience and practice ... but I have never attended a charismatic service in either of these traditions so I can't comment on how things are 'done'.

I met an RC priest once who is regularly called upon to serve Mass to a charismatic Catholic gathering - although he has reservations about some of their practices ...

He told me that their services are indistinguishable from what has become 'the norm' in charismatic settings within the Anglican, Free Church and 'new church' contexts ie. fairly loud amplified music, the kind of soft-rock style and the same songs as you might hear at New Wine, Soul Survivor or Hillsongs and so on.

He didn't like the 'noise' as he believes that these people mistakenly equate noise and hustle and bustle with 'freedom in the Spirit'. He was also squeamish about the practice of some RC charismatics of praying in tongues at the Elevation of the Host ... he felt this was rather irreverent. Silence was the most appropriate response.

Other than that, I can't comment on how these things 'work' in more sacramental settings.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... He didn't like the 'noise' as he believes that these people mistakenly equate noise and hustle and bustle with 'freedom in the Spirit'. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Silence was the most appropriate response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

A woman once told me that a young man she didn't know all that well came to see her to say, 'God has told me we ought to get married'. She declined to agree with his understanding of the divine will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
A woman once told me that a young man she didn't know all that well came to see her to say, 'God has told me we ought to get married'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I don't think that charismatic and contemplative prayer are mutually exclusive - in some ways I think charismatics and contemplatives meet in the middle somewhere ...

---

quote:

---

So, I 'get' what RCs are getting at with Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament (for instance) even though I might have some qualms about the practice ... or I can see how the Stations of the Cross can be something that isn't performed by rote year after year but something that can grow and intensify in significance ... or how prayers around a table with bread and wine and some ritual - whether it be full-on bells and smells or a simply Brethren-style prayer - can be the 'very gate of heaven' ...

---

Indeed.

And in the end, it's all window-dressing. What really matters is that we actually meet with God. It doesn't matter how, in my opinion.

My mystical, contemplative side long had a fascination with the aesthetics of Catholic Christianity. Fascination with the aesthetics doth not a conversion make: there was too much in the way doctrinally I could never accept - I am, at heart, a dissenter. But I could certainly appreciate the sense of reverence, and of course the contemplative tradition.

My one experience of Orthodox worship was fascinating but I also found it very alien: I wasn't against it, I just couldn't relate to it. I guess I'm just too Western. The singing of the Russian choir was absolutely glorious though.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes -- I'd go along with all of that, Laurelin.

It's interesting - and no disrespect to middle-ground Baptist types - I once met a student who'd grown up in a rather 'beige' and MoR Baptist church - it wasn't full-on evangelical, charismatic or full-on anything much ... but a group of sincere and stolid believers ...

Through a friend, she visited an RC church where they were doing the Benediction/Exposition thing and it blew her away ... so much so that she became an RC. Her parents were startled and suspicious at first but they gradually came round.

I'm not saying this is right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent - simply that whilst our spiritual antennae may all be set differently, we can generally recognise 'when we get a signal ...' as it were.

For her, the RC Exposition thing acted on a level that went beyond the 'cognitive' and operated on a gut level ... her own Baptist background was strong on rationalisations and statements - but conveyed little sense of the numinous.

So, whilst what she encountered freaked her out to a certain extent it also struck her that there was something 'very real' going on ...

I think these things can be window-dressing - but that the window-dressing can also convey and impart part of the package as it were ... provide part of the retail experience and the sense of wanting to buy -- if we can put it in such mercantile terms.

Before anyone thinks, though, that I'm carrying more of a candle for the Catholics than the Baptists, I'd also add that one of the most memorable and almost mystical experiences I've had in relation to the Lord's Supper/communion was in a very unprepossessing Baptist chapel in South Wales when the enormity of what we were doing and how - in some indescribable way - it represented something cosmic and universal came home to me very powerfully.

No flashing lights, no bells, no smells, no stiring music or anything of that kind - just a chap saying a few words and reading the 'words of institution' and whoosh ... epiphany ...

To me, both that and the experience of the girl who became RC are both 'charismatic' ... and both were pretty orderly in terms of the way the activity was conducted.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, whilst what she encountered freaked her out to a certain extent it also struck her that there was something 'very real' going on ...

---

quote:

---

I think these things can be window-dressing - but that the window-dressing can also convey and impart part of the package as it were ... provide part of the retail experience and the sense of wanting to buy -- if we can put it in such mercantile terms.

---

I like your window dressing concept. Whether fancy robes and classical organ and theatrical liturgy, or casual informality and modern music and chaotic sounding words no one understands, or three hours of preaching in a sing song voice punctuated with "amen brother, preach it!", or a room of people in total silence, or many other styles -- it's window dressing - inviting, enticing, but not itself the substance on offer.

Different people will be attracted to different windows. Some respond to the new and different (to them, even if it's centuries old). Others are attracted to the familiar (to them). Some of us have changed needs/responses once or more in life, and will cease responding to one window but find a different window intriguing.

No matter what the window dressing, some never get beyond it to the substance. In that sense they are all empty, meaningless.

People are attracted to different windows, none of the window dressings are objectively better than the others. Alas we humans tend to think "my way is objectively the best way" instead of delighting that other people have found a way that works for them even if not for us.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, but I also think some forms of window-dressing are more suited to the 'product' than others -- I do think that personal taste and personality type comes into it and agree that our responses and likes/dislikes can and do change over time -- but mileage will vary over what we consider positive, neutral or positively harmful ...

If we were to change the analogy from window-dressing to what's called 'physical evidence' in marketing theory - one of the original 7Ps alongside Product, Place, Price, Promotion (for 'product' marketing) with People and Process and Physical Evidence added to that for 'service' marketing ... then we could see some forms of 'window-dressing' being an integral part of the service as it were.

Not that I'm wanting to be so reductive as to boil the Gospel down to a readily packaged 'deal' of some kind ...

We are none of us disembodied beings - we are all hot-wired to respond to physical stimuli of one form or other - and our responses to those are going to be conditioned by a whole range of criteria.

Like you, I was initially very freaked out and put-off by my first exposure to things charismatic - but gradually I became acclimatised to it.

The same applied when I first encountered more 'Catholic' forms of worship - I was attracted and repelled in equal measure at one and the same time.

In the case of the charismatic - I stuck with it and perservered.

The same is true with more sacramental forms of worship. Like Laurelin I found Orthodox worship rather strange and inaccessible at first - but I feel fairly comfortable with it now because I've been exposed to it a lot more over the years -- it still feels rather alien but if I were to attend Orthodox Liturgies week by week it'd start to feel less alien and exotic and more the 'norm' ...

Same with anything else. I thoroughly 'enjoyed' (if that's the right word) an Anglican choral evensong I attended a few weeks ago ... whereas 20 or 30 years ago I'd have probably thought it was 'dead' or contained 'meaningless repetition'.

What's changed in the interim? The 1662 Prayer Book hasn't, the anthems and settings they used on that occasion haven't changed ... I've changed.

Yes, different strokes for different folks but there is just as much cultural baggage, expectation and 'forms' in evidence in an apparently casual and unstructured charismatic gathering as there is in a 1662 Prayer Book service - it's just the structure is a lot more obvious in the latter ... and, at the risk of sounding patronising, many of those engaged in the former won't actually realise just how formulaic the activity they are engaging in actually is.

All charismatic activity will routinise over time.

That is inevitable. That's how we are wired. There is nothing wrong with that. We can't help it. We are human beings.

No disrespect to the Salvation Army, for instance, but why do we think they've developed a particular 'look and feel' over the years? Because that's what happens. Why do we think they've put great store on things like the 'penitent form' and so on? Because nature abhors a vacuum and in the absence of what we might consider the 'regular' or traditional sacraments they have effectively developed new ones ...



I'm not saying anything about the 'validity' or otherwise of these things - simply making the observation that forms evolve.

Is a poem any the less effective if it sticks to a set form rather than being written in free-verse? The form itself may heighten its emotional or aesthetic impact.

I'm not saying that charismata doesn't exist - although I would say that there's probably a lot less of it around than some people imagine and a lot more of it than others will allow - simply that there doesn't seem to be any logical or biblical reason that I can see why charismata shouldn't operate in an 'ordered' way ...

I don't make any claim towards 'prophetic' insight and what-have-you but on those occasions where I did 'prophesy' or bring a 'word from the Lord' (and I never used the 'thus saith the Lord' formulary or claim) whatever it was didn't simply drop into my mind at random ... it generally 'formed' from something I'd been thinking or meditating on or some scriptural passage or verse that seemed apposite to the circumstances.

I didn't just walk into a meeting and 'bingo' -- here come the prophecies ...

Looking back, I never really couched them in the standard forms and language that charismatics are prone to use either ...

But that's another issue.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm likely to be out and about over the next few days so it'll give a chance for others to post on this thread rather than me hogging it with hobby-horses ...



FWIW in the meantime though, I don't have an issue with the 'idea' of charismata per se - but I can't say I'm particularly impressed or convinced by much of what passes for them these days ... and looking back to the early '80s when I first encountered charismata etc I'd seriously call a lot of it into question ...

The issue for me isn't so much how services and meetings/gatherings are organised as the content ... what we need right across the board it seems to me - from the liveliest of charismatic churches through to the most traditional of liturgical/sacramental settings is proper catechesis.

A former cathedral chorister once told me that he never received any cathechetical instruction during the whole time he sang in a cathedral choir ...

On the other hand, I still hear evangelicals and charismatics using very loose and imprecise theological language when it comes to dealing with Trinitarian matters and often even having a very hazy idea about crucial issues such as the Divinity of Christ.

Something is not right in the state of all our churches.

Whether we have 'contributions' and apparent 'words' and 'prophecies' throughout a meeting or at a set-time put aside for the purpose is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned - what matters is the content of those contributions and utterances - and for the most part in my experience they tend towards harmless pious platitudes at best or wonky and potentially harmful wrong-end-of-the-stick cloud cuckoo land pronouncements at worst.

Hence my current position of seeing the 'charismatic' expressed in a different kind of way -- working in and through the normal, everyday means of grace and normal, everyday way we live our lives.

That's a view that strikes me as commensurate both with the Orthodox, the Reformed and the RC tradition ...

But who am I?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well ... been away - back now ... seems I'm the only one interested in this topic!

What's happened to Sipech?
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well ... been away - back now ... seems I'm the only one interested in this topic!

What's happened to Sipech?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well ... been away - back now ... seems I'm the only one interested in this topic!

What's happened to Sipech?

---

Rapture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Really? how do they handle the transition from childhood to semi-adulthood (teenager-ism) then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I was told by my grandparents, speaking of late C19 early C20, that confirmation classes in those days included learning by heart and being able to recite the catechism in the 1662 BCP.

---

quote:

---

...but it does just sound like the vocalisations X Factor contestants put in their songs or something

---

This aspect of 'order' in charismatic expression has interested me for a while, as a musician. How is it that the Holy Spirit can (and apparently regularly does) inspire folks to sing-in-the-spirit over Csus2-G (repeat), but does not often move worship band and singers to (say) Fmaj7-Bm7b5-Em7-A7-Dm7-Db7-Cmaj7...

But with that X-factor comparison, P. suggests something which makes me wish I'd been alive and attending charismatic worship in another era
 

---

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :
 
I read a book recently which helped me to work out some of the reasons I struggle in charismatic worship. It's called 'The Introvert Charismatic' by Mark Tanner. Lots of what I struggle with is style rather than substance within charismatic circles.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think there's a lot in that, Jenn.

What I find with many allegedly 'non-charismatic' settings is that they are just, if not more, charismatic in actuality - it's simply not expressed in the kind of extrovert way that is de rigeur in contemporary charismaticism - and also the sense of 'presence' and the numinous is 'realised' or articulated in a different way - but is none the less real for all that.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
How is it that the Holy Spirit can (and apparently regularly does) inspire folks to sing-in-the-spirit over Csus2-G (repeat)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
There was a time - it may still take place - where quite often during the 'singing in the spirit' section of the service at various conferences, the dominant note the congregation were all singing in would oscillate between the tonic and the major third. I often wondered if the entire setting was transposed to - say - some part of Asia - whether people would more naturally oscillate between the tonic and the minor third ..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

It's a feature of being human, alas, not a feature of being charismatic, so it can't validly be used to "prove" them somehow less God-aware or less God-responsive or less intelligent (or whatever the complaint is) than non-Charismatics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
There was a time - it may still take place - where quite often during the 'singing in the spirit' section of the service at various conferences, the dominant note the congregation were all singing in would oscillate between the tonic and the major third.

---

Or whatever kind of tonality is culturally relevant to that congregation. God communicates to us in ways we relate to.

---

I would have thought something similar relates to tongues-speaking - I would not be surprised to discover that it generally uses the phonemic structure or speech sounds of the speaker's native tongue. If true, this would suggest that it is dissociative behaviour rather than a true foreign (or angelic) language. This does not necessarily mean that it is not "inspired", merely that it is (rightly) a human construct as much as a divine one.
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
A friend who grew up amongst English pentecostals commented to me that in his experience (and mine I guess, more recently amongst charismatic RCs) the phonemes normally sound a bit 'middle-eastern', as judged by someone who doesn't speak such a language.

We were both struck by the absence of, for instance, German sounds in such utterances. Coming from the Saarf East, I also note the general absence of diphthongs

I guess my Thomas-like expression of disbelief 'unless I see the wounds in His hands...' is shaping up to something like 'unless I hear someone scat singing in German over a praise band spontaneously jamming a-la Monk / Mingus...'

So, if that happens in a shack near you, I'd find it hugely edifying to attend.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
The Didache (late C1st) sees the prophetic within the context of Eucharistic ministry. Especially after the Eucharist, which it speaks of as a sacrifice or offering.

Assuming 1 Corinthians follows the pattern of their worship the passages on the Charismatic follow those on the Eucharist.

The liturgy of Revelation is less clear, as it ends with the marriage supper of the lamb.

On balance, from scripture and from early Christian writings the appropriate place for the exercising of Charismatic gifts is as part of the post Eucharist thanksgiving.

Where we have the notices.

It is worth noting that Catholic theology has never denied the operation of the Charismata. The questions (and renewal) centre around the availability and frequency of those gifts.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Cool - good to hear from you again, Edward.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
I am never far away.

I have over the last few years been re-engaging with charismatic within a different theological framework, because I could not ignore the evidence that the early church remained charismatic and liturgical.
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 

quote:

---

It is worth noting that Catholic theology has never denied the operation of the Charismata. The questions (and renewal) centre around the availability and frequency of those gifts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I am never far away.

I have over the last few years been re-engaging with charismatic within a different theological framework, because I could not ignore the evidence that the early church remained charismatic and liturgical.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0