homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Are 'power' prayers helpful? (Page 0)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Are 'power' prayers helpful?
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Noodling on this some more, I wonder if the problem we have identified here re: "power prayers", as well as the sometimes horrific abuses that Gamaliel and I have seen in the Pentecostal movement, stem from the tendency among Pentecostals to borrow selectively and not always mindfully. In this case, in my experience, many/most Pentecostals have embraced the "warfare" paradigm of God v. Satan/ angels v. demons, but have done so w/o adopting the (IMHO necessary) overarching understanding of Christus victor and open theism. Instead, you have an attempt to shoehorn the warfare paradigm into classical theism (either Calvinism or more conventional Arminianism) and substitutionary atonement. Which means you have to see Christ's primary work as "Godward" (appeasing God's wrath for human sin) rather than "Satanward" (rescuing humans from enslaving power of sin). And, because you have a classical understanding of divine sovereignty, you have to somehow see the results of your healing prayer (including non-healings) as "the way things are supposed to be". All of which leads to a whole lotta bad fruit.

Far better to either embrace an integrated classical/Augustinian paradigm OR an integrated openness/ Christus victor worldview than this ill-conceived mutant hybrid, perhaps.

[ 28. April 2013, 21:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rather, the Fall/corruption of nature begins in the very 2nd nanosecond of creation/the big bang. It is built into the fiber of the world as we now know it. ... So, yes, we are ill and our bodies decay and die for exactly the same reason there are destructive earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes-- because that is "the way things are." But "the way things are" is not the way they were meant to be. And it is not the way they will be in the new creation.

I don't get it. That seems to be saying that God could have made a perfect world and couldn't (or chose not to). Or else that a corrupting influence sneaked in during that very first nanosecond.

I agree that "that's the way things are". I also agree that "that's not how they're supposed to be" and that Jesus "will remake it as it ought to be". But - unless I have misread you - I'm not sure how this cosmology gets from the first state to where we are at the moment.

The Adam and Eve story at least offers an explanation, even if it's not one I "buy" in any literal sense.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Far better to either embrace an integrated classical/Augustinian paradigm OR an integrated openness/ Christus victor worldview than this ill-conceived mutant hybrid, perhaps.

Yes, yes, yes - cliffdweller, I've found your 'noodlings' on this thread immensely helpful, thank you. Although I share Baptist Trainfan's question regarding the 'how' of Boyd's proposed post-big-bang corruption of the cosmos. Like he said, the Adam and Eve narrative at least gives an explanation of how the corruption happened, even if we interpret it non-literally.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rather, the Fall/corruption of nature begins in the very 2nd nanosecond of creation/the big bang. It is built into the fiber of the world as we now know it. ... So, yes, we are ill and our bodies decay and die for exactly the same reason there are destructive earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes-- because that is "the way things are." But "the way things are" is not the way they were meant to be. And it is not the way they will be in the new creation.

I don't get it. That seems to be saying that God could have made a perfect world and couldn't (or chose not to). Or else that a corrupting influence sneaked in during that very first nanosecond.

I agree that "that's the way things are". I also agree that "that's not how they're supposed to be" and that Jesus "will remake it as it ought to be". But - unless I have misread you - I'm not sure how this cosmology gets from the first state to where we are at the moment.

The Adam and Eve story at least offers an explanation, even if it's not one I "buy" in any literal sense.

That was the last question asked at the conference, when everyone was tired and ready to go home, so I'm not sure the answer I heard from Boyd was as detailed as we might like (I'm guessing a more detailed response would be found in
Satan and the Problem of Evil which I haven't had a chance to read yet-- Boyd writes faster than I can read!).

But I think Boyd's answer would again just be the basic foundation of the open position-- that God chose to create an "open" universe-- one in which we (both humans and non-humans, e.g. angels) were free to choose good or evil. Freedom is essential to love-- love is not really love if it is not chosen. Boyd suggests that there is a certain metaphysical balance here-- that the degree to which we are capable of choosing good is limited to the degree to which we are free to choose evil. Once a freedom is given, it cannot be revoked. i.e. if you are free to choose good or evil, then you chose evil and God revokes/ undoes your evil choice, that means you never were free to choose evil-- God would always override that choice. The amount of power/dominion someone or some being is given is the range of their power/ability to do either good or evil (i.e. exceptional humans can do tremendous good-- or tremendous evil). Similarly, for metaphysical reasons, once a territory is given it cannot be revoked. So Lucifer was given dominion over earth pre-fall (Lucifer's fall that is), with the capacity/power to do tremendous good-- but of course, chose evil instead. Now God's task is to "do war" on Satan (which Boyd explains "Akido-like"-- turning the power of evil back on itself) in order to rescue humanity and all of creation from this corrupting power.

The irrevocability of free choices is part of the metaphysical reality of things. In the same way that God cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor, God cannot undo free choices because that would mean they were made out of unfree freedom.

Now my head is hurting.

[Eek!]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rather, the Fall/corruption of nature begins in the very 2nd nanosecond of creation/the big bang. It is built into the fiber of the world as we now know it. ... So, yes, we are ill and our bodies decay and die for exactly the same reason there are destructive earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes-- because that is "the way things are." But "the way things are" is not the way they were meant to be. And it is not the way they will be in the new creation.

I don't get it. That seems to be saying that God could have made a perfect world and couldn't (or chose not to). Or else that a corrupting influence sneaked in during that very first nanosecond.

So again, just to clarify-- yes, Boyd is suggesting that a corrupting influence-- Satan-- acted during that first nanosecond. "Sneaked in" would not be entirely correct because God is not surprised by our free choices (even tho Piper would like to characterize the open position that way). God foresees all our infinite possible choices and all the subsequent choices/ consequences of those free choices. God has a plan in place (like a super master chess player on steroids) to insure his promised future in any contingency, but cannot foreknow which of those futures will actually unfold because the future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known, although they can be anticipated. So God anticipated the possibility of Satan's corrupting influence but also foresaw the possibility of a far different future had Satan chosen differently. But in either contingency God has a plan to rescue humanity.

If this is making your head hurt as it is mine, Boyd says that is "why we can't know why". We have finite brains, so are able to comprehend/anticipate a finite number of possible futures. Even a master chess player has a finite number s/he can "see out"-- a finite number of possible moves they can plan ahead for. But God is infinite, and so has an infinite capacity to anticipate our possible free choices and all the interrelated consequences.

Because our free choices are all interrelated in an infinitely complicated web-- e.g. a seemingly insignificant decision on the other side of the world a millennia ago impacting my free choice today, for example-- we can't possibly have the capacity to see how any particular event is related to that integrated interconnected web of free choices/ "natural" consequences of the Fall, etc. We "can't know why" we can only know the character of God, which is always for good, always for love.

Now my head hurts even more!
[Ultra confused]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919

 - Posted      Profile for Solly     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I remember reading David Watson's account of his struggle to be healed of cancer. He and his community were profoundly shaken when the expected healing didn't happen. Perhaps Newman's 'Mission' devotion is a better way - 'God knows what he is about'.
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Solly:
I remember reading David Watson's account of his struggle to be healed of cancer. He and his community were profoundly shaken when the expected healing didn't happen. Perhaps Newman's 'Mission' devotion is a better way - 'God knows what he is about'.

I must point out that I once heard on tape the last sermon that David Watson ever preached - January 1984, I think - and took copious notes (not sure if I still have them somewhere. I hope so). He preached on Psalm 91. The whole sermon breathed a wonderful sense of peace and confidence in God's sovereignty.

David Watson was a mature Christian leader. He was wonderfully frank about his struggles in his very moving book 'Fear No Evil', the book he wrote as he was dying. He eventually died in the peace of Christ. He had more maturity than the Vineyard movement which he was influenced by.

I haven't read much about 'open theism' but I am wary of it. While I'm not a fan of Calvinism, and dislike too heavy an emphasis on predeterminism, the idea that a sovereign God doesn't know the future really makes my hackles rise. That, to me, is like us projecting our insecurities onto Him. I think it's presumptuous.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I actually think there is a 'more excellent way' between the Scylla of full-on predeterminism and the Charybdis of an equally dodgy 'Open Theism' ... and I know I keep being accused of being overly Orthophile here at times, but I think the Eastern Churches do achieve some kind of balance on this one - even if they don't articulate it in quite the same way.

As far as I understand it, the Orthodox share the sense that God knows all things and knows the future with the classical Augustinian approach we're familiar with in the West. It's no accident, I don't think, that even though there are strong variances between the Reformed and the Orthodox traditions in many ways, the actual eschatologies are not dissimilar.

I well remember attending a conference where both a Presbyterian and an Orthodox speaker were on exactly the same page on eschatological issues.

The Vineyard and other 'enthusiastic' charismatic-evangelical groups have, I think, a somewhat 'over-realised eschatology' as Chris Stiles has identified.

The fact that David Watson, as Laurelin states, had a more balanced view is because his roots went back further into the classic tradition.

I'm not suggesting that the Vineyard has shallower soil than the rest of us, but in some respects their roots don't go very far down ... they're not particularly 'deep' - if that doesn't sound too patronising a thing to say.

Cliffdweller has something of a hybrid approach, it seems to me, but can at least draw on the best of both worlds ... a solid Reformed background and an openness to Pentecostal experience. I'd cite Tom Smail in the UK as an example of someone who is able to combine both emphases.

Anyway ... on the 'warfare' issue. I think the analogy or 'trope' of warfare is a legitimate biblical one - we struggle with sin, with the world, the flesh and the devil. You find this kind of language in traditions as diverse as monasticism and the Salvation Army - although as Mudfrog has noted, an RC priest once suggested that the SA would make an excellent RC religious order!

For my money, though, the difficulty comes when it's allied with an over-spiritualisation of this issue. Spiritual warfare, in my view, is more about tackling our own weaknesses and inadequacies, about tackling issues of social injustice, on fighting for the rights of the down-trodden and marginalised.

It's got bugger all to do with marching around town and shouting and bawling at so-called 'principalities and powers'.

It's about 'fighting the good fight,' a militancy of approach. The Church Militant.

What happens in popular charismaticism is that these emphases are spiritualised and misapplied. So you get some of the daft instances that have been described upthread, people hectoring and bellowing at people and commanding them to be healed and so on ...

With all due respect to SCK and his sincerity, I think that earnest and well-meaning guys like him are barking up the wrong tree. They've got the wrong end of the stick.

--------------------
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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So again, just to clarify-- yes, Boyd is suggesting that a corrupting influence-- Satan-- acted during that first nanosecond.

Okay, I get you. I've read 'God at War' but not 'Satan and the Problem of Evil'. It's on the list... [Smile]

Thinking about it, the Adam and Eve story fits quite well with all this - humanity 'fell' and rebelled against God, in a cosmos where evil already existed. We sometimes forget that the Genesis story has evil (in the form of the snake) already there in the Garden of Eden before the forbidden fruit is eaten.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

I haven't read much about 'open theism' but I am wary of it. While I'm not a fan of Calvinism, and dislike too heavy an emphasis on predeterminism, the idea that a sovereign God doesn't know the future really makes my hackles rise. That, to me, is like us projecting our insecurities onto Him. I think it's presumptuous.

Proponents will insist that's not quite what they believe. Open theists believe God knows every possible future as if it were the only future. That God is not at all surprised by anything that comes to pass, he is never taken off guard.

That being said, it is a radically different paradigm, so some caution is in understandable and prudent.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
For my money, though, the difficulty comes when it's allied with an over-spiritualisation of this issue. Spiritual warfare, in my view, is more about tackling our own weaknesses and inadequacies, about tackling issues of social injustice, on fighting for the rights of the down-trodden and marginalised.

and to bring it back to the OP, it becomes more problematic in my view when we start using this approach to physical healing.

Firstly, I'm not sure why it then makes 'power prayers' more acceptable - though cliffdweller presumably felt it should. I'm also not sure how it works pastorally when prayer 'fails' (it seems to leave a weight of a counter possibility on the person praying whose prayer 'failed') - do we just encourage people to continue praying in the hope of an ever more unlikely alternate future?

[As a side note, I started off Augustinian because Luther made sense - but I stay Augustinian because Hume makes sense].

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact that David Watson, as Laurelin states, had a more balanced view is because his roots went back further into the classic tradition.

Yep. [Smile]

quote:
Spiritual warfare, in my view, is more about tackling our own weaknesses and inadequacies, about tackling issues of social injustice, on fighting for the rights of the down-trodden and marginalised.

It's got bugger all to do with marching around town and shouting and bawling at so-called 'principalities and powers'.

It's about 'fighting the good fight,' a militancy of approach. The Church Militant.

I agree with all of this, but I still do think there is a place for actually commanding the dark powers just to bog off. I mean, Martin Luther did once throw an inkwell at the devil. [Big Grin] [Cool] Yeah, I know Luther had issues. And medieval baggage to boot. Even so, I can't quite discount his experience there. In addition to the principalities and powers that are at work, for example, in an oppressive regime.

I'm a cautious charismatic, a questing one, I suppose. I've certainly seen much silliness in this area, much bad practice and probably a lot that was harmful.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Proponents will insist that's not quite what they believe. Open theists believe God knows every possible future as if it were the only future. That God is not at all surprised by anything that comes to pass, he is never taken off guard.

Oh, OK. [Smile] That doesn't sound quite so heretical ... [Biased]

quote:
That being said, it is a radically different paradigm, so some caution is in understandable and prudent.

Indeed.

And really ... all this philosophical stuff makes my head hurt. [Help]

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Firstly, I'm not sure why it then makes 'power prayers' more acceptable - though cliffdweller presumably felt it should. I'm also not sure how it works pastorally when prayer 'fails' (it seems to leave a weight of a counter possibility on the person praying whose prayer 'failed') - do we just encourage people to continue praying in the hope of an ever more unlikely alternate future?

Not following your assumptions here?

I'm more open to the spiritual warfare paradigm now than I was before the conference, but still don't know that the "power" vocabulary is helpful, although I appreciate Boyd's point re: "if it is your will..." I don't know at all what you mean by "counter possibility".

I think encouraging people to continue praying is always a good idea.

Bottom line, as I said both before and after my conference semi-metanoia, is that it is essential to have a mature theology of suffering, especially if you're going to wade into the turbulent waters of healing prayer. I think the traditional Augustinian/ classical theism paradigm gives one such framework, I also think the more radical warfare/open theist paradigm gives an arguably more satisfying framework to understand non-healing. The real problem, as I said before, is the weird hybrid of the two that tries to mesh warfare theology with Calvinist sovereignty, leading to the very bad fruit we've talked about here.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I can continue a bit on the tangent, the power/warfare vocabulary here still troubles me. Post-conference, I find the paradigm appealing, especially the way it favors Chrisus victor as the primary means of understanding not just the atonement, but Jesus' entire mission and ministry.

But the imagery bothers me. Even though Boyd is very clear that the "war" is always against "powers & principalities" and never, ever against any human (Boyd even carries his pacifism into the animal kingdom, not eating any meat, etc.) I still worry about the old "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail" thing. If the primary way we understand Christ is "God at war"-- even if that war is vs. the things we all agree are evil-- abuse, violence, disease, death-- and the "weapons of the Spirit" are not at all the weapons of this world-- how does that shape us in subtle and subconscious ways? Wouldn't it lead us to approach our "enemies" in a "warlike" manner?

That doesn't seem to be the case with Boyd (indeed, his encounters with Piper would make one think Piper was the one with a "warfare theology"!). And yet, imagery and metaphor are powerful, and our imaginations can often be surprisingly literal about these things...

All of which I think goes to the question of whether or not we should be using "power" vocabulary in healing prayer.

otoh, I think there is something of comfort to the ailing/grieving person we're praying for, when we join with them in saying "this is just evil" and affirming their instinct that something is seriously f****d up with the world where this sort of thing (childhood cancer, say) happens.

[ 29. April 2013, 12:34: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I may throw in another two penneth here:

There is the issue of God listening to Satan in Job to consider, and the possibility of Satan as being of use to God.

Plus ISTM that our own inner struggle between good and evil and resistance to temptation does lend itself to our benefitting from the command 'Get thee behind me Satan!' This is not prayer, however, is it?

I think that the Christus Victor metaphor can be helpful in some ways, but that it like all metaphors falls down as soon as we try to turn it into a narrative. We all have potential for both good and evil in us, we're not one or the other. If God wanted the world to be paradise now, God could make it so, and could have made it so 2 nanoseconds after Creation.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
otoh, I think there is something of comfort to the ailing/grieving person we're praying for, when we join with them in saying "this is just evil" and affirming their instinct that something is seriously f****d up with the world where this sort of thing (childhood cancer, say) happens.

Totally agree with this. It makes sense pastorally. And I think it is OK theologically.

I believe in God's sovereignty. I believe He knows the future, and moreover, has planned it. His overall plan, after all, is the healing of the entire creation.

At the same time, I think it is healthy to acknowledge, in anger and bewilderment and pain, the very real casualties of the war that we find ourselves in.

All humans suffer. Nobody escapes this. I find it better to face the mystery of suffering with some kind of robust theology in place. The sovereign God I believe in is more than able to with my railing at Him. He's the King of the Universe, not a swooning Victorian damsel.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not following your assumptions here?

I also think the more radical warfare/open theist paradigm gives an arguably more satisfying framework to understand non-healing.

What's the answer it gives? AFAICT it basically consists of a mix of God couldn't, versus God possibly could if only you had known how to work better with him to bring about the more realized state in which you would have been healed.

quote:
The real problem, as I said before, is the weird hybrid of the two that tries to mesh warfare theology with Calvinist sovereignty, leading to the very bad fruit we've talked about here.
I think 'power prayers' and 'calvinist theology' are orthogonal to each other, I don't see how the topic of the OP merges in reformed theology in any particular way.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not following your assumptions here?

I also think the more radical warfare/open theist paradigm gives an arguably more satisfying framework to understand non-healing.

What's the answer it gives? AFAICT it basically consists of a mix of God couldn't, versus God possibly could if only you had known how to work better with him to bring about the more realized state in which you would have been healed.
If you think the latter ("if only you...") is even a possibility in the warfare/open theist paradigm then you have just NOT been paying attention at all. Not even remotely would that fit into the warfare/open paradigm. The former ("God couldn't)-- yes, really that is what it boils down to. Which, as I said, will make any more classic theist's head explode. Probably with good reason.


quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The real problem, as I said before, is the weird hybrid of the two that tries to mesh warfare theology with Calvinist sovereignty, leading to the very bad fruit we've talked about here.

I think 'power prayers' and 'calvinist theology' are orthogonal to each other, I don't see how the topic of the OP merges in reformed theology in any particular way. [/QB]
Which, again, was my point. Power prayers/warfare theology don't fit in reformed theology at all. Nor do they fit with a substitutionary view of the atonement. And yet, that weird hybrid is precisely what you see in most of the Pentecostal churches practicing the sort of "power prayers" we're talking about. Which, I am suggesting, is precisely why you have the kind of problems we've identified here-- because it doesn't fit, and the end result becomes a need to mash together "the way things are is the way God intends them to be" with a spiritual warfare view of healing so that if you are not healed it must be your own darn fault. You wouldn't have that in a consistent Augustinian/Reformed paradigm because you're not viewing prayer and healing thru the warfare theology lens. And you don't have it in the open theist/warfare paradigm for the reasons I outlined above. You only get that horrific, guilt-inducing, faith-busting fruit when you try to merge the two in this way.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't have an issue with Luther and his ink-pot, Laurelin and I would countenance the kind of righteous anger/indignation at evil and so on that you've been talking about ... but I'd add some caution and caveats, of course.

As I alluded to Orthodox theology and praxis earlier, it strikes me that they have a militant and 'confrontational' approach too over certain issues - but without getting into the kind of excesses we've been talking about here (at least as far as I can tell - which isn't to say that they don't have other problems/issues).

For instance, they'll spit at the devil in their chrismation services and 'curse' death in their funeral services - there's an anger against Death in the Orthodox funeral liturgy which strikes me as entirely appropriate.

I don't have any issues with that at all.

What I DO have an issue with is the kind of over-realised eschatology that seems to lie behind much (but not all) contemporary charismatic practice.

Fr Gregory, an Orthodox priest who used to post on these boards (and, like all of us, could be a pain in the neck too at times) once told me that from his Anglican charismatic days the people who impressed him the most were those who were rooted most strongly in the classic traditions - be they Catholic or Reformed.

I think there's a lot in that. I've got old copies of Renewal Magazine in my attic that I rescued from my Mum-in-laws old house when she downsized. They go back to the mid-60s. The level and quality of the theological debate in those publications far exceed anything I've seen in popular contemporary charismatic publications.

I'm sort of post-charismatic, I suppose ... more inclined towards the contemplative and mystical now, I suppose ... but I wouldn't write off everything from that stable. I'm with Laurelin, if it's clearly rooted in the classic tradition then I can go with it to a certain extent.

Where it isn't, that's where the problems start.

--------------------
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
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't think you could call open theism "rooted in the classical traditions" by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I suspect you'd find some things of interest there, Gamaliel, but maybe that's just me projecting because in other ways I think we're sympatico.

Here on this side of the pond, I"m seeing encouraging signs of deepening theological discernment/debate and even contemplative spirituality among Pentecostals. Baby steps.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure, I wasn't thinking about Open Theology necessarily ... and I must admit it's not an area I know a great deal about other than what I've gleaned aboard Ship.

I'm sure elements of it would resonate with me but I suspect also that elements of it wouldn't ... I share Laurelin's misgivings.

I think thee and me are sympatico to a certain extent, undoubtedly.

Meanwhile, I'm glad to hear there are some more 'reflective' steps going on in US Pentecostalism. To be fair, there was always a very eirenic element at the heart of the movement. Over here, Donald Gee, a kind of Pentecostal elder statesman among the AoG was having fruitful dialogue with RCs and others long before it was trendy to do so.

I've seen a similar development within the Baptists in the UK. Contemplative prayer, pilgrimage and retreats and so on are de-rigeur in some Baptist circles these days.

Bring it on, I say, there's a lot of fruitful interaction.

I think you're right about the dangers of creating hybrids though ... although one could argue that the Anglican communion is a hybrid as it tries to meld the Catholic with the Reformed (or reformed).

I think there can be a creative tension from such initiatives and experiments.

I think what we see with the Vineyard, though, is an attempt to tone down some of the least acceptable facets and aspects of New Thought influenced US spirituality. Hence the popularity of Wimber and the Vineyard over here in the UK. Anglicans and most Baptists were never going to succumb to Mid-Western or Southern style Hot-Gospelling, so a more laid-back, sunny Californian version was always going to have wider appeal.

It all looks nice on the surface but I worry about some of the emphases they've unconsciously imbibed along with it.

--------------------
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
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've seen a similar development within the Baptists in the UK. Contemplative prayer, pilgrimage and retreats and so on are de-rigeur in some Baptist circles these days.

Bring it on, I say, there's a lot of fruitful interaction.

I think you're right about the dangers of creating hybrids though ... although one could argue that the Anglican communion is a hybrid as it tries to meld the Catholic with the Reformed (or reformed).

I think there can be a creative tension from such initiatives and experiments.

To be clear, what I was originally decrying was an unmindful, nonreflective hybrid.

Greater ecumenical dialogue and cross-pollination can only be a good thing, IMHO. When it comes to a group like Pentecostals that has historically been isolated (thru no fault of their own, IMHO but that's another thread) it is especially helpful to have that "return to our roots" and the grounding that comes from a solid, well-vetted tradition.

What I'm speculating is leading to the problems we're seeing w/ "power prayer" though is doing so unreflectively and cafeteria style. So we borrow the warfare imagery and try to mosh that together with a Reformed view of sovereignty and an evangelical view of substitutionary atonement. The end result I think leads to the problems we're seeing.

Some version of power prayer might make sense in the warfare/open/ Christus victor paradigm where you see what you are doing as part of proclaiming the Kingdom and God's greater mission to restore all creation. That paradigm has a robust (albeit unconventional) theology of suffering that can account for "non-healings" as part of that ongoing struggle. Similarly, Calvinism, classical theism and Orthodoxy all have mature (and well-tested) theologies of suffering, although very different from what you'd see in the warfare/open paradigm.

But trying to graft a warfare worldview into Calvinist/ substitutionary paradigm (as many/most Pentecostals do) just doesn't work precisely because it has no theology of suffering. Which is why you end up blaming the victim.

[ 29. April 2013, 17:40: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290

 - Posted      Profile for Truman White         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Absolutely, Chris ... the thing is, though, pragmatism seems to win every time in some of these churches - despite the collateral damage.

@South Coast Kevin - it could well be that your friend's pulled muscle was healed in answer to prayer, it could just have easily happened naturally. I have a Christian friend who is a physiotherapist. Speak to her about this sort of thing. With orthopaedic and other musculo-skeletal conditions apparently spontaneous remission happens all the time ... whether or not there's faith or prayer involved.

@Truman White, there's more to theology than Piper on the one hand and the Bethel types on the other. To consider just these is to use an exceptionally narrow frame of reference.

Lots of churches - of all theologies - do good stuff in the community. Some do good stuff in other ways. How would we go about assessing the 'impact' as it were of a convent of nuns or a monastery somewhere?

Are these invalid because they're not out on the streets button-holing people for Jesus?

No mate, not at all. Trying to say the opposite. You can take a dislike to a church, stream, movement or whatever by focusing on the negatives. You could write off Catholocism because of what some of their priests to get up to when they're alone with small boys. Could sniff at the Orthodox because their churches look like museums. Could even have a pop at the Anglicans because you can be ordained on the basis that you've affirmed the 39 articles whilst openly saying you don't believe some of 'em at all. And yeah, you can look down your nose at the Bethel/Global legacy people because some of their boys take ideas to illogical conclusions and you can get casualties through over-realised theology.

But there's another side to all this. Catholics are still an expanding evangelistic force in Africa, and they do some really great social impact work, redeeming broken people and communities. Orthodox have been on the sharp end of persecution - in the Middle East for years, but hold up the faith in spite of kidnapping, murder and marginalization. Anglicanism has a unique voice in Government, serves all members of parishes (sort of churches I'm mainly involved with can pick and choose where they work) and are at the forefront of creative missional enterprises like Fresh Expressions. The other side of the Bethel/Global legacy people is that, as far as I can see, casualties are a minority (and you get 'em in non-Charo churches for different reasons), they also support hugely sacrificial social action (I've got mates working with Heidi Baker's crowd in the Third World) and they've avoided the trap of becoming a bless me club, by being intentionally missional.

And do me a favour mate, and give up on the tedious caricatures - button-holing on the street? Give me a break. I regularly do outreach work - people like talking to me on streets, in cafe's, at railway stations, at psychic fairs.

If that doesn't work for you, find something that does. Find your mission field and get to work in it.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If you think the latter ("if only you...") is even a possibility in the warfare/open theist paradigm then you have just NOT been paying attention at all.

Well, I've read a bit around the subject - so have been paying some attention. When one starts to talk about 'partnering with God to expand the work of the Kingdom', the possibility exists that the possible futures in which one wasn't healed was 'chosen' because of our actions.

quote:

And yet, that weird hybrid is precisely what you see in most of the Pentecostal churches practicing the sort of "power prayers" we're talking about.

This is only true of you define everything other than 'open theology' as some form of Reformed theology. As I said, I think the roots of power prayers lie elsewhere - one can see similar things in contemporary culture, but if you want to treat everything as a nail I suggest you start another thread on open theology.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064

 - Posted      Profile for The Rhythm Methodist   Email The Rhythm Methodist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
God foresees all our infinite possible choices and all the subsequent choices/ consequences of those free choices. God has a plan in place (like a super master chess player on steroids) to insure his promised future in any contingency, but cannot foreknow which of those futures will actually unfold because the future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known, although they can be anticipated.
I'm not quite sure why future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known by God. Would it somehow make them less free, if he knew in advance what those choices would be? I don't think so....any more than I think the fact that my wife always knows exactly what I'll pick from a menu, interferes with my freedom to choose.

Anyhow - 'spiritual warfare': For the most part, it seems to consist of wannabe dragon-slayers tilting at windmills. For instance, there is an intricate mythology built up around territorial spirits - loosely based on a fanciful extrapolation from a couple of lines in Daniel. Then there is the deliverance industry, spiritual-mappers, people casting demons out of the local Freemason's lodge, the chip-shop, the toilet-bowl....and even the church. There is the cacaphony of rebukes, authority-taking and "loooose him and let him go". And what does it ever achieve?

Nothing....unless you count the warm, self-satisfied glow of the 'spiritual warriors'. Nothing....unless you count destroyed faith, disappontment, division in the church, and the endemic spiritual immaturity which so often accompanies these superstitions.

And superstitions they most certainly are. They are attempts to influence the spiritual realm, by the employment of extra-scriptural rituals.Superstitions.

The truth is, the bible doesn't begin to justify any of this nonsense. It's made-up stuff. What, for example, can we actually deduce from that snippet about the Prince of Persia? We can deduce that there once was such a being who apparently had a specific sphere of influence. Even some angels were afraid to deal with this entity. What does the mythology say? There are various ranks of demonic creatures who are regional or local reps for the devil. They are virtually everywhere, and our job is to seek them out and employ a contrived ritual to remove them. We are to assume God wants us to do that, because that's part of our spritual warfare, isn't it?

We have to deal with the principalities and powers. Really? Take a look at Ephesians 6. That tells us what we actually need to do. It tells that we have (in effect)to clothe ourselves with Christ and stand firm.It doesn't sanction offensive action - least of all of the kind favoured by spiritual warriors.

How about 2 Corinthians 10? That mentions demolishing strongholds, and is much-quoted by those of the warfare mindset. But here it is, from the NIV:"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ".

"We do not wage war as the world does". It isn't about confrontation or struggle. Our weapons have divine power to demolish strongholds. What do we demolish? Arguments and pretension.

Then we have deliverance ministry for Christians. Let's leave aside the fact that this is so often an inneffective substitute for repentance. Let's forget that - apparently - Jesus allowed many generations of Christians to struggle and fail, before finally letting them know (through some dubious teachers in the 20th century) that this problem existed. And let's overlook the fact that scripture never even hints at the need for Christian deliverance, which - if true - would be profoundly important.

But let's do it anyway. Let's speak into the lives of the vulnerable, let's cast things out of them...let's convince ourselves we are 'players' on the spiritual stage, at whatever cost to those we are claiming to help.

No-one could read the bible and come to the conclusion that any of these activities have a scriptural mandate. In general terms, spiritual warfare, as it is commonly understood, is nothing more nor less than a collection of superstitious rituals. At its best, it is man's attempt to make himself usuful to God, albeit in ways he has never required. At its worst, it is deeply damaging to individuals and churches alike.

Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@ Truman White. Thanks. Good post.

As this is the Magazine of Christian Unrest it's inevitable that the slant is going to be a tad critical or even negative at times ... it's what it says on the tin.

But sure, you're right, all these groups do good stuff in their own various ways.

I know you're not saying that we shouldn't challenge poor theology or practice. It might not sound like it at times, but I am trying to do so constructively here. I like South Coast Kevin. I think he's a good bloke. I don't want to see him hurt by any of this stuff. But then, he's an adult, he can make his own choices.

[Biased]

--------------------
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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I like South Coast Kevin. I think he's a good bloke. I don't want to see him hurt by any of this stuff. But then, he's an adult, he can make his own choices.

On the one hand, thanks for your concern. [Smile]

On the other, please would you stop treating those who hold views you disagree with as spiritual children who'd really benefit from a good bit of mentoring from wise Gamaliel? Deal with it; some people have read the same Bible as you, and even had some of the same experiences as you, but nonetheless come to very different theological conclusions. It doesn't mean we're spiritually immature and will come round to your view once we've been around the block a couple of times.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wait and see ... [Biased] [Razz]

Seriously, would you rather I didn't shout a warning if you were about to be run over by a lorry?

Even more seriously, Gamaliel isn't wise, Gamaliel isn't mature and if anything he's been pretty daft for hanging on longer than was good for him in places that go in for the kind of 'command and control' bollocks that we've been discussing here.

Cliffdweller's talking theology, Chris Stiles is talking theology. You aren't. I wouldn't even grace Vineyard teaching with the title.

--------------------
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
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
sigh. [brick wall]

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If you think the latter ("if only you...") is even a possibility in the warfare/open theist paradigm then you have just NOT been paying attention at all.

Well, I've read a bit around the subject - so have been paying some attention. When one starts to talk about 'partnering with God to expand the work of the Kingdom', the possibility exists that the possible futures in which one wasn't healed was 'chosen' because of our actions.
No, it's not. Not in the specific context I was speaking (the open/warfare/ Christus victor paradigm). Which I think I explained upthread.


quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

And yet, that weird hybrid is precisely what you see in most of the Pentecostal churches practicing the sort of "power prayers" we're talking about.

This is only true of you define everything other than 'open theology' as some form of Reformed theology.
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I was speaking specifically about the hybrid of Calvinism and warfare theology I've seen in American Pentecostal churches I've been a part of, and contrasting that with the Open/warfare theology I saw at the conference, that's the relevant distinction. It's not the only two options in the world, rather it happens to be the two particular options I was discussing at that particular time. (I have discussed others on this thread). Just like if I'm weighing the possibility of having either pizza or burgers for lunch I'm not suggesting that those are the only two foods in the world. And obviously my discussion of those two options does not in any way prevent you from discussing any other options-- just as Gamaliel and I have just done.


quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] As I said, I think the roots of power prayers lie elsewhere - one can see similar things in contemporary culture, but if you want to treat everything as a nail I suggest you start another thread on open theology.

Well, again, I wasn't talking about the "roots" of power prayer but rather speculating (specifically labeled as such) about the possible source of the particular problems we've identified here. Of course, when you're talking about the roots of any movement/ ideology/theology you're going to find multiple sources. Feel free to elaborate more (not that you need my permission).

But yes, I will cop to the charge of taking us down the road of one particular slant. Again, feel free to redirect.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
God foresees all our infinite possible choices and all the subsequent choices/ consequences of those free choices. God has a plan in place (like a super master chess player on steroids) to insure his promised future in any contingency, but cannot foreknow which of those futures will actually unfold because the future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known, although they can be anticipated.
I'm not quite sure why future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known by God. Would it somehow make them less free, if he knew in advance what those choices would be? I don't think so....any more than I think the fact that my wife always knows exactly what I'll pick from a menu, interferes with my freedom to choose.
But again, open theists DO believe God knows the future choices in terms of potentials-- in all the same detail and precision that the "foreknowledge" argument would argue for. I could elaborate but it would take us down a specifically open theism direction rather than the specific OP of power prayers, and Chris will run screaming for the hills. Moving on...


quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

Anyhow - 'spiritual warfare': For the most part, it seems to consist of wannabe dragon-slayers tilting at windmills. For instance, there is an intricate mythology built up around territorial spirits - loosely based on a fanciful extrapolation from a couple of lines in Daniel. Then there is the deliverance industry, spiritual-mappers, people casting demons out of the local Freemason's lodge, the chip-shop, the toilet-bowl....and even the church. There is the cacaphony of rebukes, authority-taking and "loooose him and let him go". And what does it ever achieve?

Nothing....unless you count the warm, self-satisfied glow of the 'spiritual warriors'. Nothing....unless you count destroyed faith, disappontment, division in the church, and the endemic spiritual immaturity which so often accompanies these superstitions.

And superstitions they most certainly are. They are attempts to influence the spiritual realm, by the employment of extra-scriptural rituals.Superstitions.

The truth is, the bible doesn't begin to justify any of this nonsense. It's made-up stuff.

I would agree with the above. fwiw, the "warfare theology" I was exposed to this weekend was quite different from the version I have heard over the years in Pentecostal settings, which, yes, resembles pretty darn closely what you have just described.

Is the new open/warfare version really a whole new beast with a sounder experiential and biblical foundation-- or is it just the same old flim-flam dressed up in fancy clothes? I'm not entirely sure at this point. I'm as surprised as anyone to find myself even entertaining the notion. At the same time, having argued v. the warfare view earlier on the thread, I felt it would be disingenuous to neglect to mention such a significant experience. But perhaps at this point I've stayed too long at the Fair.

[ 29. April 2013, 22:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Seriously, would you rather I didn't shout a warning if you were about to be run over by a lorry?

Yeah fine, but I'm still not seeing the lorry and we don't have the depth of relationship such that I'll pay heed to your warning of imminent danger to which I am currently oblivious. Especially when you say things like...
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Cliffdweller's talking theology, Chris Stiles is talking theology. You aren't. I wouldn't even grace Vineyard teaching with the title.

Now where's that come from?! My recent contributions on this thread have been fairly brief, yes, but either ignore me or give me something constructive to work with; don't try to swat me aside like this.

And what's with the reference to 'Vineyard teaching'? I'm not a spokesperson for the Vineyard movement, I'm just giving my own views. And Greg Boyd, the theologian who's work has most shaped my own thinking in this area, has nothing to do with the Vineyard movement (as far as I know).

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, fair call, South Coast Kevin. I'd been flitting between Purgatory and Hell when I posted that and hadn't quite settled back into Purgatorial mode.

My posts can sometimes be too Hellish in Purgatory and too Purgatorial in Hell. My bad.

To temper things a bit, I was over-reacting on the theology thing. As I've said upthread, I don't have you down as someone who is theologically illiterate at all.

I suppose there is a sense of frustration that I'm articulately here in that I am genuinely finding it hard to understand how someone as bright and intelligent as you are is somehow unable to detect what I'd see as clear and obvious dangers - although not imminent ones. I think your lorry is a bit further back down the street, not five yards away, but it is coming and you'd be wise to be careful. Find a Pelican crossing.

I could sound exceptionally patronising now ... 'I used to think just like you, young man ...'

But I'm aware of that danger, so I'll back off.

Just remember, though. Pelican crossing.

--------------------
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
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I was speaking specifically about the hybrid of Calvinism and warfare theology I've seen in American Pentecostal churches I've been a part of, and contrasting that with the Open/warfare theology I saw at the conference, that's the relevant distinction. It's not the only two options in the world, rather it happens to be the two particular options I was discussing at that particular time.

That's fair enough - but contra your personal experience the majority of churches in which 'power prayers' are practised are far from 'Calvinist' in any sense. I don't think the OP context was the same as yours.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I was speaking specifically about the hybrid of Calvinism and warfare theology I've seen in American Pentecostal churches I've been a part of, and contrasting that with the Open/warfare theology I saw at the conference, that's the relevant distinction. It's not the only two options in the world, rather it happens to be the two particular options I was discussing at that particular time.

That's fair enough - but contra your personal experience the majority of churches in which 'power prayers' are practised are far from 'Calvinist' in any sense. I don't think the OP context was the same as yours.
I don't believe that's true, at least in the US. I've got pretty strong connections in the wider Pentecostal community here, as well as with some of the major movers/shakers in the spiritual warfare movement.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't believe that's true, at least in the US. I've got pretty strong connections in the wider Pentecostal community here, as well as with some of the major movers/shakers in the spiritual warfare movement.

In that case, name the movements and describe the issues you see. Going back to the OP - the problems described were in a non 'calvinist' context - so if they are the same issues you see then 'calvinism' itself may have little connection with the problems caused.

[At the moment, and given the tangent - you sound seriously like a convert to something who is blaming the ills of the world on the movement you left]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't believe that's true, at least in the US. I've got pretty strong connections in the wider Pentecostal community here, as well as with some of the major movers/shakers in the spiritual warfare movement.

In that case, name the movements and describe the issues you see. Going back to the OP - the problems described were in a non 'calvinist' context - so if they are the same issues you see then 'calvinism' itself may have little connection with the problems caused.

[At the moment, and given the tangent - you sound seriously like a convert to something who is blaming the ills of the world on the movement you left]

I went back and reread the OP to be sure, and there is nothing in it that assumes a "non-Calvinist context". The problems I am discussing are the same ones described in the OP and throughout the thread.

I am hypothesizing a possible explanation for the problems, based on my particular experiences in the Pentecostal movement, which are fairly broad, but limited to the US. Again, it was and is always framed as a "speculative hypothesis"-- an opening proposition in a discussion. That's what we do here.

It is doesn't work/fit, that's really not a problem-- I'm hardly committed to such a speculative theses.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, fair call, South Coast Kevin. I'd been flitting between Purgatory and Hell when I posted that and hadn't quite settled back into Purgatorial mode.

Thanks for this, Gamaliel. Warning of approaching lorry duly noted. [Smile]

I've also forgotten what board I'm posting in, so I sympathise! My penchant is for reasoned, measured argument in Hell, sorry Hell Hosts...

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663

 - Posted      Profile for MrsBeaky   Author's homepage   Email MrsBeaky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is my first time posting on one of the ship’s boards so please don’t eat me for breakfast if I break any etiquette or technical rules...and please, please don’t SHOUT at me as I hate it.....which leads me on to want I’d like to say about “power prayers” but in this instance specifically prayers for healing
Firstly my context so you know what’s formed me: I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and am now an Eucharistic Anglican and during all the many intervening years have worshipped at almost every possible other type of church both in the UK and abroad. My husband and I are currently working with the Anglican Church in Kenya in a Justice and Peace initiative. I have been involved in many situations of prayer for people who are very ill/ afflicted and the conclusion I have come to is that I should try to be a “channel” as in the prayer of St Francis. I deeply regret having condoned by my silence more than one situation in the past (e.g. a pastor shouting at a man born blind for the demon to come out of him) and have been on the receiving/ participating end of several “power prayer” sessions. Just what they achieve is perhaps questionable but I am always willing to listen to someone’s own story of answered prayer because I would never want to dishonour anyone’s spiritual walk.
But here’s the thing. I have travelled with several friends and family members (one my youngest daughter) on their journeys with cancer: some have died; some have seen wonderful turnarounds when treatment wasn’t expected to work. All of them were being held in the prayers of many different people with many different theological/ practical approaches to prayer for healing.
To me the bottom line is to be person-centred. Ask the person themselves if they would like prayer and if so how they would like you to pray, explain the styles/ approaches that are possible. Listen to them carefully and then either take them to a service where the style is what they are comfortable with or pray for them yourself, with a heart that is open to be a channel of God’s blessing in whatever form it takes.

--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."

http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com

Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you MrsB for your wise words - and welcome!

We do try to have civilised conversations on this Board (although, like all friends, we do occasionally get on each others' nerves). In Hell, on the other hand, everyone gets a hard time!

[ 01. May 2013, 19:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663

 - Posted      Profile for MrsBeaky   Author's homepage   Email MrsBeaky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the response and welcome, Baptist Trainfan
I'm looking forward to getting to know you all... if my dodgy internet connection allows me!

--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."

http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com

Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Spiritual warfare'?

K

--------------------
"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
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
To me the bottom line is to be person-centred. Ask the person themselves if they would like prayer and if so how they would like you to pray, explain the styles/ approaches that are possible. Listen to them carefully and then either take them to a service where the style is what they are comfortable with or pray for them yourself, with a heart that is open to be a channel of God’s blessing in whatever form it takes.

That's a very thoughtful response, MrsBeaky - I am saddened to think that in many prayer situations, this would be thought of as a new idea [Frown]

[ 03. May 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: Chorister ]

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663

 - Posted      Profile for MrsBeaky   Author's homepage   Email MrsBeaky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, Chorister
It is sad as you say but that's been my experience in quite a few situations where "power prayers" have been the norm. There's no doubt the people were well-meaning but there was little understanding that the style and content of those prayers could upset the people receiving the prayer.
But I also know lots of people who would disagree with me on this one!

--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."

http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com

Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have actually refused prayer before, because I knew in that case that the person would pray in such a way I'd find upsetting (due to the conversation we'd had leading up to that point).

Perhaps at times knowing someone is praying for you is more helpful than actually hearing the details of the prayer, however well meant. Unless God is very, very deaf, it shouldn't be necessary for all prayers to be prayed out loud.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663

 - Posted      Profile for MrsBeaky   Author's homepage   Email MrsBeaky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I quite agree! [Smile]

--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."

http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com

Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Amen MrsBeaky

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I went to a conference this week featuring as keynote speaker fav open theologian, Greg Boyd. I expected him to address theodicy, of course. I was surprised that he framed that discussion in a defense of "warfare theology". Surprised both because Boyd is a well-known and avid pacifist, and surprised because, like Gamaliel, my time in the Pentecostal community has shown me far more excesses/ dangers/ abuses in the spiritual warfare movement than wins.

Sorry to bring up an expired thread, but some videos from this conference that cliffdweller went to are now online. I thought some folks might be interested:

http://reknew.org/2013/05/open2013-speakers-video/

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, I meant to do that myself. Thanks for being on top of it!

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, Kevin's link was from an earlier open theism conference I wasn't able to attend. I double checked the cite for the one I attended, only the first night's session is up so far (Greg Boyd's testimony), the rest is supposed to be up at some point in the future.

Kevin's link is a better one for folks wanting to learn more about Open Theism. But this one is (or will be when they get around to posting the stuff) may be more on point to the OP re: warfare theology & "power prayers"

where warfare theology will be spoken of some day

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, whoops - I'll watch that one too, then. Thanks, cliffdweller. [Smile]

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools