|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "I'm getting a picture…"
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - I wasn't suggesting that you were going 'on feelings' and so on, Mudfrog, but I think the Mormon example is a salutary one. There are a lot of evangelicals around who act rather like Mormons in this respect - 'I've prayed the prayer, I feel in my heart that I've been saved ...'
It can be rather mechanistic, like the Islamic confession of faith, 'There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet ...'
I'm not saying that Muslims don't say it and mean it, but it can get very reductionist I feel, and certainly in some quarters of evangelicalism I believe it can.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Unlike (and I use this an an example) the 2 Mormon young women I spoke to once who, when I challenged them about a particular doctrine, showing them from the Bible why theirs could not be true, simply smiled and said, "I believe it in my heart."
Look, if they'll believe in Mormonism, they'll believe in absolutely anything.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Bigham Young himself was frequently cited as speaking in tongues--so do/did countless others in various sects, cults and religions. So what? Of what is it evidence? Many of them also 'see pictures' too. Now what?
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
You believe Christianity stands up to the historical test. That's fine as far as it goes, but what makes it true for you? Would you say you had a conversation experience?
I don't think that question makes sense - what makes gravity true for you?
I've had any number of experiences - though was born into a Christian family and so don't think it's particularly useful to think of a Big-Bang style conversion experience in that context.
What makes the truth of Christianity applicable to me? Because Christ says "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." and Christ never lies.
Gravity's true for everyone old son. Saying you believe what Christ said is one thing. Saying that you can have a personal relationship with someone who died a couple of millennia ago is something else altogether. You'd still have to be able to explain how you can tell the difference between an experience given because you know Christ, and something anyone could have who didn't know him.
How would you do that?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Gravity's true for everyone old son. Saying you believe what Christ said is one thing.
Either it's objectively true that Christ lived, died and rose again to atone for the sins of those who believe or it isn't.
"A burning in the bosum" doesn't make that more or less true.
quote:
Saying that you can have a personal relationship with someone who died a couple of millennia ago is something else altogether.
Not every tradition defines 'personal relationship' in terms of late 19th century romanticism.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White
You'd still have to be able to explain how you can tell the difference between an experience given because you know Christ, and something anyone could have who didn't know him.
Explain to whom? And why?
I certainly couldn't explain to anyone why I am convinced that certain experiences I have and have had are "of God" rather than merely psychological. I am certainly convinced by them, but I don't see any reason why I should have to convince anyone else. That is the nature of experience: it's personal.
Going back to my "taste of strawberries" comment earlier in the thread: I can't convince anyone of what strawberries taste like to me. Or take a food I dislike - broad beans. I doubt I could really explain my dislike of this food to a person who likes broad beans. They just have to take me at my word. Or I suppose they could force me to eat a plate of them, and observe my reaction!
I can only argue with others on the basis of evidence, such as philosophical, scientific and historical evidence. Of course, I can discuss experiences with others who have claimed to have had similar experiences, but even then we have to trust that we are both talking about the same thing.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, EE, but isn't there a danger of subjectivism and illuminism here? I've had plenty of experiences, and I'm sure these things can be helpful, but my faith isn't based upon these experiences, I would still be a Christian irrespective of whether I've had 'tangible' experiential experiences, as it were, or not.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Sure, EE, but isn't there a danger of subjectivism and illuminism here? I've had plenty of experiences, and I'm sure these things can be helpful, but my faith isn't based upon these experiences, I would still be a Christian irrespective of whether I've had 'tangible' experiential experiences, as it were, or not.
I wouldn't be a Christian if God was not real and made absolutely no difference whatsoever to my life. If God was merely an idea, which failed to deliver me from the hellish depression that I suffered as a teenager, I would not be a Christian. If the Holy Spirit was merely a cerebral construction, then what is the point of Him - or rather, should I say 'it' - if that is what the Holy Spirit is?
Are you saying that God cannot - indeed must not - be real in a Christian's life?
Is the Holy Spirit merely an idea? A construct? Does He become a danger the moment He is actually experienced?
What about all the Bible references to peace, joy, love, the power of God, the witness of the Spirit etc? How can we, for example, let the peace of God rule in our hearts (Colossians 3:15), if this experience could be merely an instance of "subjectivism and illuminism"? Or what about Romans 5:5 which talks about the "love of God which has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit"? Is that merely a concept, and nothing but a concept? Are our hearts simply our minds?
In fact, why bother being a Christian at all, if God cannot be real? Let's all call ourselves practical atheists then, and just smooth it over with a bit of Christian doctrine?
Of course the Christian life is experienced. Of course God is experienced. Of course we can tell the difference between merely psychological experiences and spiritual experiences when we renew our minds with an understanding of the word of God (see Hebrews 4:12), and as we walk with God in our Christian lives.
Presumably you think it is dangerous to have any experiences in life of anything at all. Do you not have any feelings for your family? Are your loved ones merely ideas and concepts and nothing more? After all, if experiences are so dangerous, then why not get rid of all experiences out of your life. I understand you write poetry. Why??!! Isn't that rather dangerous? Isn't that stirring up experiences? Are you not encouraging subjectivism and illuminism by so doing?
Come on, Gamaliel. Get real, will you.
[ 18. January 2013, 22:13: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm asking YOU to get real.
Nowhere have I said that God the Holy Spirit is a cerebral construct. I have said nothing of the kind.
All I'm saying is that we keep the experiential elements in perspective ... it's both/and not either/or ... of course there are dangers in a purely cerebral approach, but that's not what I'm advocating.
But there are equal and opposite dangers in the kind of illuminism and dumbed-down experientialism that characterises a lot of contemporary charismaticism ...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing it all off ... but I am - repeatedly - calling for higher standards, greater accountability and a lot more engagement with contextual and other issues ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At the risk of getting patronising, EE, can I ask how old you are?
It's precisely because I write poetry, appreciate art, architecture, nature and so on and so forth that I don't take a binary and illuministic, almost semi-Gnostic approach to all these things but a more sacramental approach in which all of life is sacred and all truth and all beauty is of God.
Charismatics have that sense too, of course, but it can become rather super-spiritual and binary - with any slight impression or intuition over-spiritualised.
At the risk of introducing a tangent, I well remember a quote in Andrew Walker's book about the restorationist movement in which a former member said, 'Why can't I have a cold without it becoming a spiritual issue?'
I'm just trying to strike a balance.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
At the risk of getting patronising, EE, can I ask how old you are?
Old enough.
And judging by the quality of the comment I responded to, wise enough not to be taken in by spurious arguments.
Now perhaps you may like to stop being patronising (which is, may I suggest, not very mature of you, dear chap).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
...I don't take a binary and illuministic, almost semi-Gnostic approach to all these things...
Who does? Certainly not me.
quote:
Charismatics have that sense too, of course, but it can become rather super-spiritual and binary - with any slight impression or intuition over-spiritualised.
Which Charismatics? All of them? Some of them?
Define 'charismatic'.
It isn't a mark of maturity to make such gross generalisations. I would have thought that someone of your heavily advanced years would know that by now.
quote:
I'm just trying to strike a balance.
No, you're not. You're on a crusade, driven by raw emotion, and not reason.
Oh the perils of hotheaded youth!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not on a crusade, I am not irrational and I'll admit though, that I can sound patronising at times.
I've grown up, though. I've come of age. I wish I'd done so sooner.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Look carefully, EE and you'll see qualifying words like 'can' ... I said that charismatics CAN ... etc. It's conditional. I'm not saying it MUST but it CAN.
Spot the difference?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Meanwhile, how about picking up on the Kerygmania thread, EE - no 'spurious arguments' down there, I trust ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Gamaliel -
OK, so I have an experience of God.
His love is "shed abroad" (good ol' KJV) in my heart by the Holy Spirit. Perfectly valid and biblical experience of something known as "spiritual life".
Right. So the conversation with a 'concerned tester' (CT) goes like this:
CT: "So, EE, you claim to have had an experience of the love of God, yes?"
EE: "Yep. It was wonderful. And still is."
CT: "That may be, but I need to test your experience, because I am not sure whether you had a real experience of God or whether it was just your hyperinflated imagination."
EE: "Oh, it was real alright."
CT: "But how can you prove that?"
EE: "How do you mean?"
CT: "How can you prove - scientifically - that you had a genuine experience of God?"
EE: "Well... given that it was a spiritual experience, I am not too sure. A brain scan maybe?"
CT: "No, I don't think that will work, because it will only show up brain activity. It doesn't prove that only brain activity is involved in the experience."
EE: "Oh dear. It seems we have a problem then..."
CT: "Yes, it seems we do."
EE: "Actually no we don't. You have a problem. I certainly do not, because I am very happy with the experience I had, and I am personally convinced that it was God."
CT: "But don't you understand, Sonny? You are not allowed to say that without the approval of the experts! We are, of course, soooo concerned to keep you on the straight and narrow."
EE: "Errmmm. Well what about the Bible then? Can't that confirm my experience?"
CT: "Well, yes, I suppose it could. But there are so many different ways to interpret the Bible. No, we need science to confirm it."
EE: "Well, CT, brain scan it is then. I suppose if God doesn't show up in my brain, then we'll have to assume he doesn't exist."
CT: "Oh, I wouldn't go that far, brother."
EE: "Ah, but isn't that what your 'testing' is saying? If we can't test the experience of God scientifically, then we can't accept it's real or valid. So therefore we might as well all become atheists."
CT: "Hmmm, I suppose you've got a point there, EE. Perhaps you're not such an emotional character after all!"
EE: "Yep, it's either untested experiences or atheism."
CT: "Oh dear. Back to the drawing board for me then..." (Slinks away, sulking)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You're missing the point.
Why are you assuming that God's love being shared abroad in our heart necessarily has to involve some kind of tangible or vatic experience?
Love is shown in action.
A carer wiping snot or shit from a loved one's clothing might not feel particularly loving or caring at that moment.
The important thing is the love and the showing of that love, not necessarily how we ourselves 'feel' about it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we have a Spock-like approach to faith or a distant, Vulcan style relationship with God - all I'm saying that it's not all touchy-feely and about our own subjective experiences - impressive or important though these might be.
T S Eliot was onto something in 'The Dry Salvages', one of his 'Four Quartets':
'The moments of happiness - not the sense of well-being
Fruition, fulfilment, security or affection
Or even a very good dinner, but the sudden illumination—
We had the experience but missed the meaning
And approach to the meaning restores the experience
In a different form, beyond any meaning
We can assign to happiness.'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Didn't Paul say something about the love of Christ motivating us?
Is there any significance that Gamaliel posted post number 666 on this thread?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Gamilel. While we're at it define "semi gnostic". What branch of Gnosticism did you have in mind? Maybe give us some references...
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
You're missing the point.
Why are you assuming that God's love being shared abroad in our heart necessarily has to involve some kind of tangible or vatic experience?
Love is shown in action.
A carer wiping snot or shit from a loved one's clothing might not feel particularly loving or caring at that moment.
The important thing is the love and the showing of that love, not necessarily how we ourselves 'feel' about it.
No, I am not missing the point at all.
When I read the following passage of the Bible, I don't sense that this is just a fancy way of promoting some kind of moral philosophy:
quote:
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope. Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
"Peace with God" - yep, that's just a neat mathematical formula. No experience involved.
"This grace in which we stand" - no real transformation of a person's life. Just a tidy doctrine that we can frame and put on the wall and fondly gaze upon (as long as that gazing doesn't involve any feelings at all!)
"Rejoice..." - yeah, that is what a computer 'feels' when it wins a game of chess.
"Hope does not disappoint..." - well, of course, we could never be 'disappointed' anyway, because that sounds like a feeling. So, really this is just a purely cerebral thing - more to do with the belief that one day the figures will add up, even if they don't at the moment.
"The love of God poured in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" - trust me - take it from a poet - this is just a flowery way of describing the action of wiping shit from a loved one's clothing.
I think I will publish a new commentary on the Bible: "The Robot's Bible".
It will surely be a bestseller and will sound the death knell for that evil experiential Christianity!
(It's a companion volume to "The Atheist's Bible")
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Gamaliel -
Oh by the way...
You mention about a carer wiping shit from a loved one's clothing. Well, I'm a carer at the moment, and I regularly wipe shit from the backsides of clients (not 'loved ones'). Frankly, I am not sure how well I would be able to do this job if the love of God had not been poured into my heart by the Holy Spirit!
Your views sound valid in the cosy comfort of a pampered middle class environment, but out here in the real world, God needs to be real as well (which He is).
Just sayin'....
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I take my hat off to you, EE and you have my utmost respect for the job I do. You're actually proving my point rather than gainsaying it ...
I think we're at cross-purposes here. You are reading more into my comments than is warranted - I keep saying that I'm not advocating an emotionless, Vulcan-style Christianity and yet you keep turning round and accusing me of the self-same thing.
I'm not a huge fan of the Puritans, but some of the stuff people from that tradition have written about 'the religious affections' and so on is pertinent here. You'd be well advised to read Jonathan Edwards on the topic - as indeed would I, it's a long time since I did so.
@Truman - I am, of course, using the Gnostic term in a very loose and polemical way. I would suggest, though, that there is something almost Gnostic, or at least semi-Gnostic - in the way some charismatics talk about transmitting or passing on 'the anointing' and so on.
I was being deliberately provocative, I am not for a moment suggesting that EE and your good self represent any particular branch or strand of Gnosticism - but I would certainly maintain that charismatic spirituality can incline in a very subjective and quite 'precious' direction - 'these are MY tongues ... these are MY experiences ... mine ... mine ... mine ...'
But hey ... as I've repeatedly said, I have no desire to rob EE or anyone else of their experiences. If they help him be a more effective care-worker then great ...
There's a fine line, that's all I'm saying and a need for vigilance and discernment. I don't always see that need exercised in charismatic circles.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I meant the 'job you do ...'
New Year's Resolution - must preview my posts ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Gamaliel. But what do you mean by "gnostic"? Gnosticism is a heresy - it's a false religion. You want to be really careful using terms that make you sound clever when you really don't have the first idea what you're on about.
Consider yourself "called" old son.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Gamaliel. BTW when you said There's a fine line, that's all I'm saying and a need for vigilance and discernment. I don't always see that need exercised in charismatic circles. I agree with you, but really it's a truism. Could say the same about Catholics and their doctrine of saints, Orthodox an their weeping icons, liberals and their non-theistic theology dressed up in Christian speak. Better to have something specific to tackle than these broad brush statements.
IHMO ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well consider yourself 'rebuked' old son
I do know what I'm talking about and I can give specific examples.
Your opinion doesn't quite sound so 'humble' to me ... but I'll let that slide.
If you're going to start about me trying to 'sound clever' then I could have a go at you trying to sound matey with all this 'old son' schtick.
Two can play at that game.
I'm rather continue this in Kerygmania rather than here in Purgatory I think, because some folk here are getting rather precious about their experiences - and that's where a smidgeon of Gnosticism can start to creep in ... IMHO
And yes, we can have a go at RCs, liberals, Orthodox and anyone else - it's all up for grabs. That's the beauty of these Boards.
It's just that this thread is specifically about putative pictures and messages and so on that are current in charismatic evangelical circles - the circles I happen to know most about.
I'm not the first to suspect some elements within that movement of slightly Gnostic elements - plenty of people have said the same. That's different to accusing them of full-on heresy - which is NOT what I am doing. Stop being so literal ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Gamaliel - third time of asking Gamaliel me old mate - what do you mean by "Gnosticism". Fraid the line "I know what I'm taking about" is just hot air unless you can back it up with some substance.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What I mean by Gnosticism, Truman, is probably exactly the same as what you mean by Gnosticism ie. a set of ancient heresies based on the idea of secret or hidden knowledge and often characterised by an overly 'dualistic' approach which could be inclined to see matter as evil and the spiritual as pure, unsullied and to be attained by various esoteric practices ... and so on.
Lots of variations, but all heresy.
Now, when I've used the term in this discussion I've used qualifiers such as 'almost' and 'can be' - which for some reason that's beyond my ken (I don't have the Gnosis ... ) both EE and your good self seem to filter out or overlook.
So I'll say, for instance, that some aspects of charismatic practice in some charismatic circles can be almost Gnostic in tone and you immediately react as if I'm accusing all charismatics of heresy. That's not what I'm doing and not how I'm deploying the term.
For the record, I don't regard the charismatic scene as heretical at all - although I would say that certain strands within it - such as the Word-Faith teachings of Hagin, Kenyon, Copeland and the like are certainly heretical.
I would also suggest that elements within the charismatic movement that are currently kosher could easily drift - if they haven't already - into borderline heretical territory.
I'd recommend you read 'Charismatic Renewal: The Search For A Theology' by Andrew Walker, Tom Smail and Nigel Wright.
They collaborated on a critique of what were then current charismatic trends back in 1996 in the wake of the 'Toronto Blessing'. They approach the renewal very much as 'critical friends' and it's a very sane and balanced approach.
They refer to some (not all, but some) aspects of Wimber/Vineyard methodology as having almost Gnostic properties ie. the idea that you can 'catch' and transmit the anointing or the blessing as if it's something contagious or something that can be conjured up by means of the right techniques ...
Now, they weren't saying that the Vineyard was heretical or that Wimber was heretical - far from it - but what they were warning about was a tendency towards a semi-Gnostic approach in some sectors of the charismatic renewal - allied to an unfortunate degrading of the Person of God the Holy Spirit to the level of some kind of impersonal 'faith force' or power-force rather like electricity rather than the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, One in Essence and Undivided.
Does this answer your question?
I'm not trying to be clever, I'm not trying to score points, I'm not on a crusade.
But I am concerned about historic, creedal Christianity and I am concerned about good praxis. If these things are threatened from within the charismatic scene then I'll have something to say about it, just as much as if these things are threatened by a loose liberalism or a rigid fundamentalism or whatever else it might be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Does that answer my question? Not really. Describing something as "semi" or "almost" gnostic still doesn't say anything until you explain what you mean by "gnostic". At the third time of asking you finally came up with a half baked attempt at a definition. You start with a definition of Gnosticism which you then tell us doesn't apply, then refer us to a book which uses the same terminology that you do.
For your point to be credible you're going to have to make some reference to some strand of Gnosticism and make a direct link between that and some of the charismatic practices you're describing.
But I'll leave you to it. At first glance you sound clever, but after a bit of probing, you don't seem to look much beyond headlines and summaries of ideas.
But what the heck, it's just a chat room after all.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I might respond by suggesting that anyone who thinks that Bethel has anything substantial to teach us clearly doesn't know what he's on about - but that would be cheeky of me ...
So I won't.
Listen, old pal, I am more than capable to giving you an overview of Gnosticism - and I suspect it wouldn't be a million miles of your view of it.
I will try again.
I am using the term Gnostic in an analogical way. There are none of the original Gnostic groups still in existence, so any resemblance between their practices and contemporary ones can only be comparative.
Agreed?
The book I referred to was written by a theological academic and two experienced church leaders/practitioners - and yes, I was using the same terminology as them. Why does that invalidate it?
The particular aspects of Gnosticism that are pertinent here are:
- The claims to special revelations and secret knowledge that can somehow be unlocked by those 'in the know'.
You might disagree but I can think of some charismatics I've met who give that impression. They are not full-on Gnostics of course, neither are they heretical, but their tendencies can take them in that direction.
I have named strands within the charismatic movement which I (and many others) might consider heretical - namely the Word-Faith stuff.
I could name tendencies within the charismatic movement that I believe could be heading towards a borderline heretical position ... and Bethel might well be one of them. I'm not saying they are, but given their track-record I am suspicious. There have been threads on that here before and we could cite those if you wanted.
I freely admit that I am posting headlines and summaries of ideas. I can certainly lay my hands on more in-depth material if I had more time - I tend to post in and amongst other things.
I'm not trying to sound clever, I'm just speaking as I find.
I'm sure this won't satisfy you either.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
This is a response to a comment in Kerygmania (re tongues), but is more appropriate here (and admittedly comes dangerously close to the rim of hell):
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
What's the big deal?
I hope to respond to your earlier post later (concerning my numbered points) and also your unjustifiable assertion that I am just making the data fit my preconceived expectations, but I would like to respond to this rather casual and nonchalant question that you have often asked: "What's the big deal?"
Let's cut to the chase, shall we?
Let us suppose that a literary critic said to you: "I think, Gamaliel, that you have to accept that your poetry has no literary merit and is, in fact, a load of crap."
How would you feel?
You might protest, but this literary critic just says: "What's the big deal? Why are you getting so upset? Your poetry could be a load of crap. Just accept that. After all, there is a legitimate school of literary criticism that suggests that this is the case."
You may try and protest and appeal to another perfectly legitimate school of literary criticism, which affirms that your poetry is really rather good. But he nonchalantly waves your protests away by saying: "Ah, but you can't prove that, can you? Literary matters are all so ambiguous! We can't really be certain. So just accept what I say and really I can't understand why you are getting so upset about the fact that really you have been wasting your time writing all this stuff."
I imagine that you would either tell him to f-off, or just shrug your shoulders, tell him that he is entitled to his stupid, ignorant and vapid opinion, and hope he will just bugger off.
Or let's get a bit more personal, shall we?
Suppose someone told you that your feelings towards your loved ones were not really 'valid'. In order to be valid they had to be scientifically 'tested' against the latest theories from psychology. This person told you: "Look, you have to just accept that your feelings towards your loved ones might be seriously bogus. They may not be genuine at all, and you could just be making them up - perhaps through some method of stirring them up. Oh you're upset at my saying this, are you? Why? WHAT'S THE BIG F***ING DEAL??!!!"
And he continues...
"It's clear to me that several studies from renowned psychologists seriously call into question the kind of feelings you claim to have for your loved ones. Why don't you read these studies? What are you so afraid of? What are you running away from?"
And so on and so on ad nauseam...
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Frankly, Gamaliel, this is exactly what you sound like at times. You seem utterly determined to undermine a very personal aspect of someone's life, and then when they get upset, you just blithely say: "What's the big deal?"
The big deal is that you are on a personal crusade, and you can't support it with any kind of sensible biblical exegesis - hence your need to take refuge in the principle of 'ambiguity'.
The simple fact of the matter is, Gamaliel, that you have no moral or logical right to criticise any particular interpretation of the Bible, unless you can come up with something a bit more solid that refutes it. You can't refute it with 'ambiguity'!
So why don't you start respecting other people's personal experiences (instead of judging them with all sorts of unsubstantiated assumptions)?
(By the way... if you're feeling upset, do feel free to ask me how old I am again. The answer is somewhere between 13 and 93. Take your pick as your imagination leads you...)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Firstly EE, I don't hold out any great literary pretensions for my poetry, so if a learned Professor told me that my poetry was 'crap' it wouldn't upset me that much ...
As to where my poetry does stand, it's been published in several nationally respected magazines. That's good enough for me.
I'm not expecting a contract with Faber & Faber or Jonathan Cape or to be anthologised into the 22nd century.
Listen, if I've offended you, I'm very sorry. You've clearly got a lot of emotional investment in your apparent ability to speak in tongues. I have said time and time and time again that I am not out to deny you that. You can speak in tongues as much as you wish ... it's got nothing to do with me.
What I'm saying 'what's the big deal?' over is the way that you seem to be suggesting that my exegetical approach is flawed or that I'm wrong to question or investigate these things in the first place ... the aura of sanctity you seem to erecting around the whole thing ... and also that you seem surprised and needled by the fact that I appear to be able to live with some ambiguity around these issues.
That's the context.
If people really are speaking in tongues in the same way as they did in the 1st century then sure, that would be a big deal ... or as big a deal as it was back then - the apostle Paul didn't seem to consider it of prime importance ...
I still think that you are interpreting the data within the framework of your particular paradigm and I can't see why that is such a big deal either. We all do it. You aren't alone. I do it, every single poster on these boards do it. It's about being human about being alive in particular places and at particular times and belonging to particular Christian traditions - be they RC, Orthodox, Protestant, evangelical, charismatic, whatever else.
I really don't understand your problem with what I'm saying here.
Unless you're assuming that by accepting that you are operating within a particular contextual paradigm that somehow automatically invalidates what you are saying - of course it doesn't.
I agree with you that it is difficult to address these things if they get personal ... and here I acknowledge that I may have needed to trodden more carefully at times as I've clearly hurt your feelings. I won't compound that by saying, 'So what? Man-up why don't you?'
If your feelings have been hurt then I apologise. I don't mean to hurt your feelings - but I am trying to explore these issues and I'd like you to consider why I might be taking a different tack and a different 'take' now than I might have done in my 20s and 30s.
I won't patronise you by trying to guess how old you are - but it may have a bearing. I'm 51. When I was 21 or 31 I might have argued along the lines that you have done ... that's not to say I'm older and wiser and know better ... I've just come - or am coming - to different conclusions.
I'm less emotionally attached to the idea of tongues/prophecy and so on as I would've been 15 or 20 years ago ... which might explain why I can discuss these things without getting upset. Age can bring a certain sense of objectivity - as can distance. I'm not as closely involved with full-on charismatic stuff. I'd suggest though, that the impetus and energies that I enjoyed and exercised in my more full-on charismatic days are now being channelled or deployed differently - into creativity and poetry, for instance (not that I claim divine inspiration for my poetry) into an appreciation for liturgy and iconography and architecture and so on ... (again, not that I am claiming 'direct' vatic inspiration for those things either, necessarily).
Can you see where I'm going with this?
It's not meant in any Gamaliel = wise, EE = unwise sense.
It's neither right nor wrong, just different ... although there are truth claims and objective tests and so on that I think we should consider insofar as they will take us ...
I know I'm touching on sensitive ground, but can I honestly say that I love the Lord less now than when I was big on the speaking in tongues thing? No, I don't think you can quantify these things that way ... an old married couple might be just as much in love in their 80s as they were in their 20s ... it might be expressed differently but the level of love and affection and so on might be deeper ... or the same only expressed differently etc.
I am in no way out to knock your relationship with God, call into question your piety or your faith. That is not my intention in the least.
If you've taken it that way, then I apologise, but I might also wonder why you are engaging in robust debate about these issues if you can't take a few knocks to your world-view or paradigm.
I know people who have left poetry-groups and writers' groups because they can't take criticism. The 'critics' sessions I've attended have been 'no-holds-barred' - I share my poems with people I know will be rigorous and will not spare my feelings. I know they'll say, 'This line, Gamaliel, it doesn't work because ...' and not 'Oh, there's lovely Gamaliel ...'
Our mileage may vary.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am not out to stop you speaking in tongues, I am not out to make value-judgements about your relationship with God.
Heck - now I know what you do for a living I've developed a respect for you - not that I disrespected you before - and I think, 'You're a better man than I am Gunga-Din.'
I've been made redundant and had to start again - with some humiliation involved in that ... but I haven't had to go out and wipe people's arses for a living - so, old son, to coin a Truman White phrase, I've got every, every, every respect for the work you do and the undoubted professionalism and commitment you bring to it.
It's not right or wrong, but I appear to be able to 'step back' a bit more than you can in order to look at these things - sometimes askance.
It's all up for grabs. No holds barred.
I have a lot of sympathy for the position you have just articulated but I wouldn't be true to myself if I didn't say that I disagree that my exegesis isn't sensible - the onus is on you to prove that it is - nor that I am 'taking refuge' in ambiguity.
I am not criticising anyone's interpretation of the Bible - questioning it isn't the same as criticising it (at least in the way that you seem to understand criticism).
I'm not refuting anything, I'm asking questions, I'm working with the available data. I thought you'd appreciate that.
I'm not disrespecting your experience of speaking in tongues either - I used to speak in tongues a lot at one time. Because I now take a somewhat different view of what might have been happening there doesn't mean I'm disrespecting the practice nor my younger self for engaging in it ... 'Stupid Gamaliel, fancy swallowing that ...'
It all made sense in the context in which I operated back then. It doesn't so much now.
As for how old you might be, I'm probably going to be way out, but judging from your responses I'm guessing at somewhere between 22 and 35.
I'm quite prepared to be put right if I'm out on that.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Peace man, chill.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I won't patronise you by trying to guess how old you are - but it may have a bearing. I'm 51. When I was 21 or 31 I might have argued along the lines that you have done ... that's not to say I'm older and wiser and know better ... I've just come - or am coming - to different conclusions.
I'm less emotionally attached to the idea of tongues/prophecy and so on as I would've been 15 or 20 years ago ... which might explain why I can discuss these things without getting upset. Age can bring a certain sense of objectivity - as can distance.
Although it's a rather grotesque generalisation, and somewhat unjust to young people, I tend to think that angry denunciations and sweeping statements are more characteristic of hotheaded youth than the more mellow wisdom of age. As is tact and the lack of a need to engage in mind games with others and impatient attempts at psychologically reconstructing their outlook and motives (as in: "Why can't you just admit that you could be wrong?"). A truly mature person will just express his view about something and leave it at that, without trying to accuse someone of pride or some other base attitude when they don't immediately sign up to that opinion. Maturity respects another person's free will. That is why I tend to be rather more merciful to charismatics than I used to be. It's so easy to judge others, and make assumptions about their motives, whereas age will instruct us to hold back and try to get our facts right before we plunge in.
But, hey, I am sure someone with a three year head start on me knows all this stuff!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I might respond by suggesting that anyone who thinks that Bethel has anything substantial to teach us clearly doesn't know what he's on about - but that would be cheeky of me ...
So I won't.
But you just did me ol' china. Bethel = bad is pretty binary don't you think? Like I said in Kerygmania, there's nutty stuff coming about of Bethel, but take a more nuanced approach and you'll find it's not not uniform. Danny Silk's stuff on a culture of honour is well worth the money.
The particular aspects of Gnosticism that are pertinent here are:
- The claims to special revelations and secret knowledge that can somehow be unlocked by those 'in the know'.
You might disagree but I can think of some charismatics I've met who give that impression. They are not full-on Gnostics of course, neither are they heretical, but their tendencies can take them in that direction.
I have named strands within the charismatic movement which I (and many others) might consider heretical - namely the Word-Faith stuff.
So that's it? Some groups give the impression of tendencies that can take them in a semi gnostic direction? With that many caveats it's hardly a point worth making. Anyway, since EE exhibits none of these tendencies and isn't part of any of these groups saying that in a reply to one of his posts sounds a tad off to me.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - where did I say EE was semi-Gnostic?
I don't think the semi-Gnostic concern is 'oh, is that it?' I think there're grounds for genuine concern ... the problem with a lot of this is that full-on flakey (Mormons etc) is a lot easier to detect than closer-to-home-flakey ... and I think that's where the problems arise with a group like Bethel, precisely because it isn't a case that Bethel = bad in any binary sense.
I wouldn't touch Bethel with a barge-pole, but your mileage may vary as they say on the Ship.
I'm happy to accept that I'm making some pretty broad generalisations here - even the Mormons aren't all bad in a Mormons = bad sense ...
But you get my drift.
I'd also defend myself against the charge of 'angry denunciations' - although not 'sweeping statements', I have made a few of those - it's not me who is getting angry here, it's EE who is getting upset because, rightly or wrongly, he feels that I'm criticising something that is very precious to him.
I've had quite robust conversations on The Ship with RCs about transubstantiation, with Mudfrog about the SA's view of sacraments and all manner of other issues besides - and I'm sure they've all found me a pain in the neck, but none of them have flounced - they've simply engaged in robust debate - which is what this particular Board (Purgatory) is all about.
I might compound any injury I've caused by expressing surprise that EE is just three years younger than me - because the way he's arguing here is very reminiscent of the way I argued in my 20s and 30s - that's not to say I'm more 'mature' than he is, I can be very immature at times ... but still ... let's keep the main thing the main thing and stick to the point.
If I've made ad hominem remarks in EE's direction, he's done the same in this direction too - not that I'm keeping scores ...
Truman White the same.
And yes, I did tease you just then, Truman White, by saying that I wasn't going to do the very thing I went and did ... I do that a fair bit on these Boards and sometimes get called on it - but I'm generally doing it ironically - not that this lets me off the hook, of course.
At any rate, forgive me if I've given this impression but my posts in EE's direction have never been intended to elicit a 'why can't you just admit you're wrong?' response. I'm not expecting him to go, 'Right, it's a fair cop, I'm going to stop speaking in tongues now because Gamaliel is no longer convinced about the whole thing ...'
Why would I do that?
All I'm doing is engaging in debate. I'm not playing mind-games or anything of the kind.
EE doesn't seem to be open to any other possibility that his 'tongues' are anything other than a supernaturally endowed gift based on his interpretation of certain verses in 1 Corinthians 14 - which may or may not be the correct interpretation of those verses.
EE might be right. Who knows? If it turns out that he is I'd be the first to congratulate him.
I can't see why a position of that kind should cause you guys so much angst.
It's not as if you're damaged in anyway by what I do or don't think about spiritual gifts.
Anyway - if you want me to expand on the semi-Gnostic thing, Truman, then I'm happy to do so. I'd need to dig out some sources but it was something of a tangential point. I would concede that there is something 'going on' in 1 Corinthians 14 about 'enquirers' or 'unbelievers' or the 'uninformed' as some versions have it - the references in 1 Corinthians 14:16 - '.. he who occupies the place of the uninformed ... (NKJV) and in v.23 where we read about the 'uninformed or unbelievers ...'
This COULD be taken to imply that there are Christians who remain 'uninformed' (about what? spiritual gifts?) as well as those who are unbelievers and not of the household of faith - and I've heard these verses used to assert as much - that there is a difference between charismatic or 'Spirit-filled' Christians and those who aren't.
To me, this smacks of the slippery slope to Gnosticism (or semi-Gnosticism, rather) - 'we have special knowledge and special endowments, we have spiritual gifts and you don't ...'
Charismatics often protest that they aren't setting themselves up as 'special' Christians or implying that those who haven't had the same charismatic experiences as they have are 'second-class Christians' or anything - but in practice and the cold light of day, this can be what happens.
It's by no means restricted to charismatics. Calvinists can be snooty about non-Calvinists, Orthodox about the 'heterodox' or even the non-canonical Orthodox, RCs can be snooty about Protestants, Protestants can be snooty about Catholics, evangelicals of non-evangelicals, non-evangelicals of evangelicals ... and so on.
That's another issue in all of this ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Will you three *please* take your personal gripes to hell - and kindly don't import arguments from other boards.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I might respond by suggesting that anyone who thinks that Bethel has anything substantial to teach us clearly doesn't know what he's on about - but that would be cheeky of me ...
So I won't.
I'd disagree with that. Unless we are fully conversant with every aspect of hype, self-indulgence dressed as spirituality, false teaching and self-deception, there is always something to learn from Bethel.
Going back to "pictures", I'm still left with the questions I had at the start of this thread. So far, they remain unanswered, though I guess no-one is obliged to satisfy my curiosity. But in case anyone would like to have a stab at them, they come down to these: Why did God suddenly decide to start communicating by this method, in very recent times? Why - when he has so many methods of communication - would he choose a method where so very often 1. the initial recipient isn't sure (s)he has heard from God, 2. other people aren't sure it's from God, 3. people have to try to work out what the picture means, 4. it may be impenetrable, bizarre, inaccurate (in the unlikely event there are any clearly discernable details) or most commonly, trivial. Why would God suddenly choose the haphazard, vague and chaotic approach, when communication had previously been so important to him?
Going on to tongues, that raises a few questions, as well. Why do people feel the need to 'prepare the ground', tell people to 'speak out the first thing that comes into their heads' and exert peer pressure? Does God need that kind of help, if he's imparting a genuine gift? Why do so many churches have parts of the service where people are encouraged to speak in tongues, despite no expectation of interpretation for each of the many doing it...why are the biblical injunctions routinely ignored? Why - when there is an interpretation - is it so often either just vague pleasantries, or perhaps snippets from scripture interspersed with vague pleasantries?
And putting pictures, tongues and, indeed, impressions together - why is it that these things - which represent the vast majority of the 'output' of Charismatic churches - so rarely have anything approaching a clear supernatural origin? Leaving aside the fact that both pictures and impressions are recent constructs, it does seem odd that a movement which trumpets the power of the Holy Spirit, seems to focus almost exclusively on things which lack the divine imprimatur...things which can be so easily replicated by 'the flesh'.
I've been following the 'tongues' thread, on which there's been some interesting comments on a subject which is biblically quite open to debate. There is a lack of clarity in the scriptural record, which does seem to leave room for different interpretations. But looking at how tongues are 'passed on' to newbies, and how they are so often used in the corporate setting, I really can't see that as a legitimate or valid response, even on the most liberal understanding of scripture.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes ... I'm still waiting for the same thing, The Rhythm Methodist. I've been called to Hell now so I'll rant there, but I'm still waiting for a sensible consideration of charismatic praxis from those who make a big deal out of these things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry, TRM and Gamaliel, but I do rather think that I've answered all the above points in previous posts. Of course, you may feel that my answers are in error or not valid, but then, I feel that you are unduly sceptical about supernatural gifts, and I don't find it necessary to imply that you haven't made your position clear. Maybe it's just that I'm particularly poor at articulating what I believe, so maybe one final attempt should be made. Here goes, then:
quote:
originally posted by TRM
Going back to "pictures", I'm still left with the questions I had at the start of this thread. So far, they remain unanswered, though I guess no-one is obliged to satisfy my curiosity. But in case anyone would like to have a stab at them, they come down to these: Why did God suddenly decide to start communicating by this method, in very recent times? Why - when he has so many methods of communication - would he choose a method where so very often 1. the initial recipient isn't sure (s)he has heard from God, 2. other people aren't sure it's from God, 3. people have to try to work out what the picture means, 4. it may be impenetrable, bizarre, inaccurate (in the unlikely event there are any clearly discernable details) or most commonly, trivial. Why would God suddenly choose the haphazard, vague and chaotic approach, when communication had previously been so important to him?
The first thing to say is that I don't think your initial premise holds water. There are ample scriptural examples of God speaking to people pictorially. The word "picture" might not be scriptural, but the phenomenon certainly is. If you remember, I quoted Ezekiel's "dry bones" account as an example, but there are plenty of others. Furthermore, many such pictorial disclosures require "further work" to be done on them before they reach their full import. Again, the Ezekiel account is very much a progressive revelation, involving a dialogue between the prophet and God. This suggests to me that God actually wants us to be involved with Him in the revelation process, that we are more than just passive recipients a la Moses. I think it underlines the high importance that He puts on relationship, but it may also be that process is important for us to truly "own" the revelation. As for the enigmatic nature of some prophecies or pictures, I think that if we were to discount this as one of the modes in which God communicates, we would have to excise large portions of both the Old and the New Testaments. Does God always speak enigmatically? By no means. Is enigmatic revelation common in scripture? I think you know the answer.
quote:
Going on to tongues, that raises a few questions, as well. Why do people feel the need to 'prepare the ground', tell people to 'speak out the first thing that comes into their heads' and exert peer pressure? Does God need that kind of help, if he's imparting a genuine gift? Why do so many churches have parts of the service where people are encouraged to speak in tongues, despite no expectation of interpretation for each of the many doing it...why are the biblical injunctions routinely ignored? Why - when there is an interpretation - is it so often either just vague pleasantries, or perhaps snippets from scripture interspersed with vague pleasantries?
I'm not sure how to answer these points, because they are not typical of any charismatic community which I have encountered. I first spoke in tongues when I was decidedly anti-charismatic, and it was a huge surprise to me. I had no vested interest in glossolalia, far from it, and I have never heard of anybody being "coached" in tongues IRL, though I assume it must occasionally happen. I have also never encountered a public utterance (that is, excluding people praying sotto voce) that has not conformed to the Pauline injunction, that to be accepted, it must be followed by an interpretation. Indeed, you seem to accept this as the norm, as you go on to complain about the inappropriateness of interpretation.
quote:
And putting pictures, tongues and, indeed, impressions together - why is it that these things - which represent the vast majority of the 'output' of Charismatic churches - so rarely have anything approaching a clear supernatural origin? Leaving aside the fact that both pictures and impressions are recent constructs, it does seem odd that a movement which trumpets the power of the Holy Spirit, seems to focus almost exclusively on things which lack the divine imprimatur...things which can be so easily replicated by 'the flesh'.
Here again, you are taking as read that which is, in fact, disputed. I'm really not that interested in "proving" the supernatural origins of charismatic phenomena. They are tools for ministry, not validations of a particular theological perspective. Do they build up, do they lead to maturity, do they increase holiness amongst the faithful, do they result in the various expressions of faith to which Martin not drew attention upthread? That is the only validation which seems, to me, to matter ultimately.
[ 22. January 2013, 14:04: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
@Jolly Jape - thanks for taking the time to address those questions. Your input is much appreciated, even if we have rather dissimilar perspectives. I would say, though, that what you perceive as my undue scepticism about spiritual gifts, is more about what are portrayed as gifts, rather than any disquiet regarding gifts themselves.
I think it's clear from your post, that our respective experiences of charismatic churches are very different. I have indeed encountered many instances of people being pressurized, even cajoled, over tongues. I've seen the liberal application of peer pressure, and the insistence that people speak out the first thing that comes into their heads. I've heard (literally) hundreds of people speaking in tongues all at once - more of a cacophony, than sotto voce.
RE. pictures, you say: quote:
There are ample scriptural examples of God speaking to people pictorially. The word "picture" might not be scriptural, but the phenomenon certainly is. If you remember, I quoted Ezekiel's "dry bones" account as an example, but there are plenty of others. Furthermore, many such pictorial disclosures require "further work" to be done on them before they reach their full import.
Yes, there are indeed ample scriptural examples of visions. Often breathtaking revelations, and never any doubt as to divine authorship. There are no tenable scriptural precedents for pictures, and there is no contextual congruence between those great scriptural events, and what we see today.
You use the example of Ezekiel, which is a perfect illustration of my point. This was a remarkable incident, accompanied by a dialogue with God himself. It was a profound event. It wasn't something of the order of, "I think I'm getting a picture of a budgie", or whatever. Nobody had to sit around trying to ascribe a meaning to it, and nobody wondered if it actually came from God. Pictures are not claimed to be visions, perhaps for the obvious reason that there is no real resemblance. And just because God has sometimes used visual communication, that doesn't - of itself - lend any credence to the notion that he has now started using these pictures. If someone actually had an experience of similar magnitude to that of Ezekiel....if they were personally instructed by the Almighty in a comparable way to the prophet, then they could claim a biblical precedent. I had all this out with Wimber, 20-odd years ago. He didn't have the first clue about establishing precedent, and claimed every biblical reference to 'fall', 'laugh' or 'cry', for example, was somehow a precedent for Toronto. There is no tenable connection between modern pictures, and biblical visions...it really is as simple as that.
Nor is the on-going dialogue between God and Ezekiel in any sense comparable with the practice of people sitting around trying to work
out what some image - which has drifted into someone's mind - might mean. There was, indeed, an unfolding revelation for Ezekiel....a major revelation: but can this ever be a precedent for what happens now? Did Ezekiel come up with a picture in his head, and first try to work out if it was from God? Did he sit around with his friends, trying to attribute some meaning to the dry bones? Was his experience profound - was there a hugely important message....or was the valley of dry bones just a prelude to some vaguely warm and fuzzy trivia, which God thought would make Ezekiel feel a little more upbeat?
And as there is no scriptural precedent for these pictures, I think we're unavoidably left with the alternative - that God is either doing something new, or that he is not involved at all. If we say he's involved, then I believe those questions still need answering: "Why did God suddenly decide to start communicating by this method, in very recent times? Why - when he has so many methods of communication - would he choose a method where so very often 1. the initial recipient isn't sure (s)he has heard from God, 2. other people aren't sure it's from God, 3. people have to try to work out what the picture means, 4. it may be impenetrable, bizarre, inaccurate (in the unlikely event there are any clearly discernable details) or most commonly, trivial. Why would God suddenly choose the haphazard, vague and chaotic approach, when communication had previously been so important to him?
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be fair, Jolly Jape, I think that both TRM and myself have made it clear that we are not sceptical about the continuance of supernatural spiritual gifts, but what we are sceptical about is the way that some clearly jejune or ho-hum, so-what? type things are passed off as being spiritual gifts ...
I don't doubt that your experiences of the charismatic scene have been different from ours. You're an Anglican and the Anglican way of exercising these things is, more often than not, a lot milder than what one might encounter within Pentecostalism or in the restorationist house-churches.
To be fair, most charismatics these days seem a lot more subdued and less excitable than they were back in the day ... it was tongues, tongues, tongues all the way when I first became involved with restorationism back in the early '80s.
I don't doubt that you started speaking in tongues without apparent external coaching or pressure, neither do I doubt EE when he says the same. That's not my experience, I was effectively cajoled into it - but I know plenty of people who have apparently started speaking in tongues without that kind of pressure. Which is why, quite frankly, I'm prepared to cut such charismatics more slack.
I can understand why EE's got uptight and upset with me - and a lot of it is down to the way that I post and the rhetorical devices I use - as well as the fact that I can be a pain in the butt.
But believe you me, I am prepared to give some of this stuff the benefit of the doubt - mainly because I've met and known plenty of sane charismatics as well as having been through some very manipulative experiences too.
With respect, though, having been through all of that and also having seen the more milder forms of charismatic praxis in Baptist and Anglican circles, I've still not seen a great deal that has been all that convincing.
I won't rehearse the stuff about inane 'pictures' and 'catch-all' words-of-knowledge, because I've done that over and over again and you all deserve a break.
I don't know where this leaves us - I'm really not as sceptical as you imply but that doesn't mean that I'm implying that you're completely credulous either.
I'd be interested to know how many of the people who speak in tongues where you are first started doing so on their own and apparently spontaneously rather being induced into the practice on an Alpha course or at some kind of hot-house atmosphere mass-rally. Not that I'm asking you to conduct a poll.
I remain open to the possibility of these things but pretty agnostic too ... not a position I thought I'd be in even 10 years ago. One has to ask where this is, why the increasing level of scepticism?
Perhaps, just perhaps, it's because I've yet to see much evidence of these things delivery the value and results that are claimed. Not in any quantifiable sense.
Personally, I feel far more 'edified' by a communion service or some well-made points in a sermon - or even by reading a poem or visiting an art-gallery or listening to choral music (or other types of music with a bit of 'soul') than I do by hearing what generally passes for spiritual gifts in our parish. So much so, I hardly bother attending any of the services where these things are supposed to be in evidence.
Does that tell you anything about me, or does it tell you about them? Or doesn't it tell us anything at all?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thinking about it, Jolly Jape, I think that your experience and that of EE - in apparently starting to speak in tongues spontaneously - is actually quite unusual.
In the studies that have been done in this area the researchers found very few people who hadn't been 'induced' or coached into the practice in some way. You say that it might happen in a few instances - I'd be prepared to bet - if I were a betting man - that it happens that way in most instances.
In the charismatic church I was part of for 18 years the most common way for new converts or transfers from non-charismatic churches to begin speaking in tongues was for hands to be laid on them for them to be 'baptised in the Holy Spirit'.
People were then encouraged to speak out whatever came into their heads or to start uttering random sounds in the expectation that these would coalesce into what sounded like 'speaking in tongues.' On occasion, people would be instructed to follow the sounds that the others or the leader was making and to 'copy' them - but this appeared rarer among us than it was among the classic, old-time Pentecostals at that time. I was never comfortable with that practice.
All that said, there were occasionally spontaneous outbursts - whether in public or private and on a few occasions I can remember people seeming to be 'hit' as it were by some kind of overwhelming force and the tongues just babbling out of them in a startling but impressive manner ... now that was rare but it did happen. Not that it meant that people would 'stay the course' as it were. I know people who had that kind of dramatic 'infilling' as we would have called it who later lost their faith or else got into naughty things ... cheating on their wives and so on ...
Not that this invalidates their earlier experiences ... but it doesn't quite ring true somehow - in terms of what's being claimed.
So, with the greatest respect, Jolly Jape, within the broad swathe of charismaticdom, I suspect that your experience is more of a minority one that TRMs or mine.
Even in the milder and more moderate charismatic renewal in the Anglican and Baptist churches, it seems to me that people are - by an large - 'coached' into these things. By that I don't mean anything as brusque and as obvious as used to happen in Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal circles, but there were gentle hints and tips, suggestions as to how to get going etc.
As Komensky has observed, studies of glossolalia have also found that even if they haven't been 'coached' or manipulated (in a nice way or an overt way into the experience) most contemporary tongues-speakers have started doing so in a milieu where this was expected. They've overheard tongues many times, they've been in meetings where these things have been going on.
There are rare instances of people who haven't - I know of two or three - and EE and your good self might be further examples.
Just making an observation.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As ever G, TRM ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) & JJ, you know I love you, but there's NOTHING in it. Trying to get to Ezekiel from the blizzard of Sunday service unfalsifiable chaff (with extra prophecy courses) whilst ignoring the social gospel and being unable to talk like grown ups on the elephant in the room of damnationism ... is leaving me more and more ... exposed under the light in an empty room that everyone pretends is full.
If we ignore Charismatic Evangelicalism (which is neither), what do we have left? What do we lose?
Our - false - identity.
Is there a picture of the true one to replace that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Welcome back, Martin.
Yes, there is sometimes a link between a neglect of the social gospel, and a preoccupation with spiritual manifestations. Certainly, I have known those who have become deeply self-absorbed (and ineffective in the community), even as they convince themselves that God is working powerfully through them.
That's one of a number of reasons that I believe things like pictures and impressions are unhelpful. They may engender a false sense of spirituality...perhaps even becoming a substitute for the kind of love which compels one to take action. And I do tend to the view that all the social gospel really is, is the natural outworking of a love which demands to be expressed.
That's not to say that you can't be charismatic and be passionately involved in the lives of others - but I have personally known quite a few individuals who've become somewhat obsessive, and who have seemed to lose that sense of urgency they once had, for the practical application of love.
Isn't it essential to lose our false identity....however that is manifest? And even if we don't yet have a picture of the true one, surely it is preferable - and more spiritual - to utterly reject the comfort of the false.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
There is no tenable connection between modern pictures, and biblical visions...it really is as simple as that.
Of course. What will it take for these things to end? How much hurt and deception are people going to endure before every congregation where these shenanigans happen finally stands up and shouts 'no more!'?
I agree TRM with the implication that Wimber is to blame for a great deal of this. Certainly in the UK the pars of the C of E that embraced the Toronto cult (for it is thus) held Wimber up as nothing less than a modern Apostle. Sandy and Nicky at HTB positively gushed about him. Having said that, theologians--even the evangelical ones-- did not rate Wimber as any kind of theologian. Getting back to an earlier point, once engrained in a culture (and in this case, the pop culture that dominates great swathes of Charismanistan) it is virtually impossible to remove.
We have, in this thread, allowed too much of the discussion revolve around the cognitive dissonance of a few pratictioners, who, come hell or high water, will defend such practices irrespective of any evidence or even examples of real damage caused by such practices.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This relates to the point I made to Truman White somewhere or other about our attitude towards Bethel - which seems to have replaced the Vineyard as the predominant source of innovations charismatic.
It's a lot easier to deal with Mormonism or the JWs than it is to deal with something skewiff closer to home.
The CofE was never going to take to loud, brash, Southern or Mid-Western US style Pentecostalism. But it would take things from an engaging, soft-spoken, apparently non-threatening Californian - which is what Wimber was.
My recollection of the mid-80s - when the Wimber thing first 'struck' - was that the charismatic renewal in the Anglican church here in the UK was effectively in decline - the Fountain Trust had folded - or was about to fold - the restorationist house-churches were the new kids on the block and seemed - to those of us who were young at the time, to be the way of the future. 'Come out of them and be seperate!'
It wasn't long before the 'new churches' became mired in authoritarianism - and in some quarters imbibed elements of the 'prosperity-gospel'.
So when Wimber hit the scene he appeared to be offering something that was democratic - anyone could do it, you didn't need to be a loud pulpiteer - accessible to UK culture and which apparently yielded results.
What looked like some to be mass-hypnosis appeared to others to be a 'move of God.'
This was 10 years before the Toronto thing and people often overlook the mini-version that took off for a while in the mid-80s.
So, I'm not surprised that Wimber had such appeal. He didn't shout, he didn't rant, he seemed to offer a gentle, laid-back style.
Ultimately, though, there was just as much suggestibility and peer-pressure going on there as there had been with the older, holy-roller style Latter Rain stuff and traditional Pentecostalism.
It was just packaged and presented differently and therefore appeared more credible. Even today, I wouldn't write all of it off.
But you're right - it can be a red-herring. I tend to think that those charismatics who are involved with social issues/relief issues etc etc aren't involved because they're charismatics but despite being charismatics ... the same could, of course be true of RCs, MoR Anglicans, conservative evangelicals or anyone else ... they're involved with this stuff irrespective of affiliation or label.
Someone suggested to me once that the contemporary charismatic movement would go the way that the Quakers did - ie. after the initial 'enthusiasm' of the 17th century they settled into a principled quietism with an emphasis on good-works and social issues. I've yet to see evidence of that happening with contemporary charismatics but who knows?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
OK, a straw poll (OK, 2 of us). Myself, in a group of five people, when praying. Never actually heard tongues before that night, and, as I say, at a time when I was quite theologically hostile to charismaticsm.
My wife, again in a smallish group, whilst being prayed for to be filled with the Spirit, but tongues not mentioned.
Neither of us had sufficient exposure to "audible" (as in, more than muttered) tongues to be able to imitate, neither of us sounds anything like "shecameonahonda" or anything similar. My tongue seems to contain lots of sounds not normally associated with English, more like Hebrew, or Arabic (in sound - I'm not saying it is Hebrew or Arabic) with plenty of the "Ch" sound of, for example "chanukah". I draw no conclusions from the above. The practice of "coaching" is something I haven't encountered (apart from having seen it on TV in a documentary on Alpha - not the David Frost one), but, of course, I accept that psychological pressure may be applied in more subtle ways. I just don't believe it is that significant. If we're going to follow Occam on this, then I think the manipulation thing falls. Sometimes a duck is just a duck. Is the practice identical to NT practice, I suspect it is, but I don't believe that it is possible to prove it one way or another. I am, however, convinced that it is a genuine psycho-spiritual phenomenom, and it seems at least not unreasonable to me, in the light of the fact that we have to have to call it something, to use the usually accepted term.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't doubt your experience, Jolly Jape - I am simply suggesting (although I can't prove it) that it is rather on the minority side within charismaticdom overall - although probably relatively common within your own particular circles compared to others I might name.
To be frank - and I think I've said this upthread - the only reason I am prepared these days to still acknowledge that there is some 'there' there in claims of speaking in tongues and so on is because of the experience of people like your good self.
At one time I might have suggested that experiences like yours were the 'genuine' article and that all the others that came as the result of inductions/coaching, suggestibility and so on were probably not the real deal at all.
I'm not so convinced that it's as simple as that and I'd be prepared to accept that - if we are dealing with a genuine psycho-spiritual phenomenon - and I see no real reason why we aren't or mightn't be - the 'real' thing happens in any setting - despite the manipulation or cues/prompts etc.
I'm happy to live with the ambiguity.
For some reason this seems to upset some people (EE particularly) and I get called to Hell over it - but yes, I have been a pain in the neck so that's fair enough.
But leaving aside my annoying characteristics - if such a thing is possible - I think this is the nub of it ...
ie - there is 'something' in all of this which may or may not be the phenomenon we read about in the NT.
It is not restricted to Christianity but occurs in other spiritual contexts.
It may be a psycho-spiritual phenomenon.
It is certainly harmless in and of itself and may be of theandric and thaumaturgical benefit to its practitioners (yes, I had to look those up ...)
If so, it is more likely (IMHO) to be the real deal in those instances where it apparently happens spontaneously than those where the practice is induced by various means.
That would be my take.
With the following caveat:
However, if we do accept that the above is the case, there are downsides and associated dangers/issues:
- People can become obsessive about these things and neglect both the 'normal' means of grace and wider charisms or engagement with society etc.
(The same would be true of any religious practice)
- It can lead to a them-and-us mentality ... a kind of neo-Gnosticism at the extremes.
- It can be divisive within congregations.
Now, of course, we could equally say that the NT itself gives us checks and balances how to deal with those issues.
It may sound mealy-mouthed and ambiguous to some - but so be it. Those are the conclusions I find myself drawing from the available evidence at this point.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Martin, your pm box is full
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think I'm in as many minds about it as you are Gamaliel, more probably.
I believe in God, still - but I believe God is in and through natural life, not outside it. I don't think there is any 'super'natural.
I still pray in tongues - in fact it's one of the few ways I am still able to pray. (Always in private, usually silently) I find it brings me close to God (So do painting and sex but I can't do either of those in the car on the way to work!)
When people pray in tongues in Church I feel uncomfortable - not so much for me but for them and anyone around who hasn't heard it before.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
