|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are 'power' prayers helpful?
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ooh, sorry. And when I say that the opinions of the other must be protected, that does NOT mean that I am entitled to ANY reciprocity. And I realise my strong words don't look care-ful of other's beliefs, but please invoke your right to that of me.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
@South Coast Kevin. What questions? Why?
The questions that people have been raising on this thread, pretty much. Did we lack faith? Did our departed friend lack faith? Did God plan this? Does God care? Does God want us to suffer?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As long as, in the prayers, we acknowledge that God does NOT heal by suspending the laws of physics. Which certainly NONE here have ever seen Him do.
I'm a science graduate and honesty in the search for the truth of how things are is dear to me. I have plenty of scepticism about reports of healing and there's much exaggeration, wishful thinking, credulousness in this area, IMO. But I've seen a few things and heard plenty of reports from those I trust, that make me think there is something in all this.
One example that comes to mind is something my church pastor saw while on a mission trip. It was in a developing-world country where medical verification wasn't readily available, but he says he saw a huge tumour on a guy's leg disappear in seconds to leave a healthy leg. I'm not aware of any follow-up with the man but just the sight of a tumour visibly shrinking and (IIRC) vanishing is odd, to say the least.
--------------------
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
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, whilst I've also heard stories of dramatic and spectacular healings in developing countries, I've also got friends who've been to these same places and with the same people who are full of these sort of stories and who have seen nothing out of the ordinary happen whatsoever.
That doesn't mean that it never happens, of course ...
The reason I'd rather not pray in a 'be healed' type of way is precisely because of the kind of stories that have been shared here. I'm moved and amazed that some of these people still attend church at all given what's happened to them and the crass way they've been treated.
I don't pray in a 'be healed' kind of way because I'm not Jesus, I'm not the apostle Paul, I'm not the apostle Peter nor am I one of the people we read about in the Bible - or in subsequent hagiographies of Saints both big S and small s - who appear to have been able to do so.
I've tried to do it.
I can't.
Surely the instance of the lady on your leadership team who died despite prayer of this kind must give you pause?
It would give me pause.
Perhaps you're made of stronger stuff than I am.
Or perhaps you are able to live with the fall-out and the disconnect.
I'm afraid I can't live with that any more.
Life's too short and human beings cannot accept very much reality.
Of course, there are questions but the fact that the 'be healed' type prayers weren't apparently effective must surely call into question their use in circles such as yours.
You might still be able to maintain that it's possible to pray 'be healed' type prayers without ramping up expectations unduly or raising questions about people's lack of faith.
I can't, I'm afraid. When I hear people pray prayers like that these days, my reaction is .... 'Who the heck do they think they are?'
Why pray in that way unless you believe that you somehow have the same kind of 'authority' as Christ and the apostles who could apparently do this sort of thing?
I really don't understand the presumption behind this. If I'd prayed 'be healed!' on a number of occasions and people had been then I'd be all in favour of the practice. As it is, I have and it hasn't happened. So I've stopped doing it.
Makes sense to me.
I've had a few poems published in national poetry magazines so this has encouraged me to submit more to other magazines. But it doesn't mean that I'm going to be published by Faber or become the next Poet Laureate.
Plenty of people play football on a Saturday. That doesn't mean they're ever going to play in the Premier League - but that doesn't stop them playing football and enjoying it to the best of their ability at the level they're at.
Sure, I'm not saying that prayer is a tiered/heirarchical thing but neither do I see this going around declaring this that and the other in a way where the rhetoric belies the reality as achieving anything other than wishful thinking at best or spiritual deception at worst.
Pray tell me how you propose to deal with the risks? It sounds to me that the horse has already bolted - as in the case of the poor lady on the leadership team.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
Perhaps a lot of the problem is to do with what we think 'prayer' and 'healing' are all about---not to mention God's 'will' in the midst of our lives.
As far as I know Jesus seemst to very rarely, maybe never heal anybody, if by that we mean Jesus 'doing somthing to someone'. Almost always healing comes through the faith and will of the person who is looking to be healed. Jesus is recorded time and again saying, 'Go, your faith has made you well'.
This immediately raises the issue of people being accused of 'not having enough faith', and perhaps there are times when that is true, though it remains a harsh judgement to inflict on someone else. Perhaps what is more often happening is something far more subtle.
There are times in our lives, I think, when we have a feeling deep inside us of what is the right course of action; sometimes it coincides with what we 'want', other times not at all.
What I'm trying to say is that in the end something like 'physical healing' of an illness may be a highly significant occurance in our lives, at other times not so much at all, it's something else that really matters.
As human beings we often seem to be quite blind, and at other times much more inciteful, over what truly matters in our lives; and our awareness of God's presence can also be opaque to us, or very clear.
The thing is that for a lot us, and for a lot of the time, we're actually pretty dim about what is going on in our lives, and get very pre-occupied with seeing and interpreting things in quite selfish and unhelpful ways.
Prayer and healing is as subject to that 'sinful' tendency as anything else, so instead of listening and responding 'in tune' with the Spirit, we attempt to bludgeon events into the shape we believe they should be, quite oblivious to the tenderness and willingness of God to work with us, and to guide us in His way.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I had a colleague, a member of the sort of church with this sort of attitude to prayer, a lovely person with a gentle and generous personality. She moved to another school, where she found a lot of pressure, and had a breakdown. In class.
Whereupon her church shifted into "If you truly had taken Jesus into your life, this wouldn't have happened", and "You don't have enough faith" mode.
Fortunately, as far as I know, she was found support somewhere else, without having to go outside faith.*
I think this sort of prayer can make a lot of work for God helping people who his followers should be helping more intelligently.
*And yes, I know that this is half hiding that I didn't do enough in this case. And I still feel bad about it, but I was told she was OK.
[ 21. April 2013, 19:44: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
I'm a science graduate too. And we've ALL seen things. But you have not seen the laws of physics suspended.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And how much faith did the widow of Nain's son have?
You see, this is what I'm getting at. I'll be blunt about it. It's poor theology.
It's a theology (if it can even be graced with that title) which seeks to reconstruct and emulate apparent NT practice without consideration of the full picture - people apparently healed/raised from the dead with no faith involved on their part whatsoever - nor of the theological and pedagogical import of the incidents themselves and why they are recorded in the way that they are.
It's poor exegesis and poor theology.
@South Coast Kevin, here's a quote from Oliver Cromwell, 'I beseech thee in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that ye might be mistaken ...'
Poor theology leads to poor practice.
And there have been plenty of examples of poor practice cited on this thread so far, some of them heart-breaking in their implications for those involved.
'Wisdom is proved right by her actions.'
I've heard nothing from you so far that betokens wisdom in this respect and everything that indicates that your well-meaning friends and your good self are following a trajectory that will inevitably lead to pastoral harm, disillusionment and perhaps even tragedy.
Sugar the pill however much you like, tone down the tone of the commands and the demands and so on and so forth and you're still left with the potential for major pastoral fall-out. I'd suggest that you've seen it already in the instance you've given with the lady on the leadership team.
Believe you me, you will see a lot more, a lot more if you persist in your delusions.
'Commanding' prayers and the like are no more efficacious than any other kinds of prayer. To suggest that they are and to insist on using them demonstrates hubris, pastoral insensitivity and a myopic and woodenly literal application of practices in the NT that appear to have a completely different context and which led to dramatically different results to the ones your friends fondly imagine they're going to see by adopting what they see as 'copy-cat' behaviour.
It don't work, it won't work.
Stop it now before you do yourselves and other people some real damage.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
Gamaliel, yes, there are certainly exceptions, but in general the record we have shows that Jesus did not go around healing people willy-nilly, regardless of their own wills.
Some of the healings, and Lazarus is a case in point, were clearly public 'signs' to the people. Doubtless that is why Lazarus was chosen for that particular 'sign'---an intimate friend of Jesus' who would be able to understand and cope with what was done to him, and who Jesus could address not simply through the impersonal role of a 'prophet', but as a true friend. Personally I find lazarus' ressurrection quite a shocking thing and I do wonder what Lazarus thought of it until he'd had a chance to sit down, be comforted, and talk it through and get his head around it.
Other healings were done privately, and if not with the will and permission of the person who was sick, then certainly through that of their guardian or representative---most often parents on behalf of their children, occasionally people in authority on behalf of a servant/slave.
In his own home locality it is explicitly recorded that Jesus was not able to do very much with them because of their 'lack of faith'. Clearly Jesus was not in the business of running around curing the sick simply because they were in need and he had the power. There is something far more humane and holy going on here.
On a more personal note: having come from a wing of the church where prayers of 'command' were seen to be the way to do things, and having seen and experienced the harm that it can do, I am prety much of the view that power games and rather desperate attempts to manufacture a 'reality' that really isn't there, to shore up a system of faith that is far too literalistic and fearful, is what lies behind a lot of this behaviour.
Of course the opposite swing of the pendulum can lead to a faith which expects nothing, and has an equal arrogance to that of those who presume to command God, that anything which does not fit our 'knowledge' cannot, and must not, be. For all our 'scientific' advances in understanding, we still know very little about what is, much less why. Still know little enough of what empirical research can touch on, even less of what it cannot. And of course (in true Rumsfeldian style) we do not know what remains unknown to us. In truth, we've barely got a clue!
We are no different to figures in a computer game who can only play by the rules their world is programmed with; having not the least conception of the world which has given birth to the one they inhabit, nor understanding how their world and it's rules can be re-written at the stroke (of a keyboard).
If one of my children were lying in a hospital bed gravely ill, and they have done, would I stop myself praying for their healing, well-being, and the will of God to be done, simply because my very small understanding of reality leads me to the conclusion that prayers for healing are seldom answered and that 'miracles' never happen? No, I would be in my knees, and when I was helping a nurse, or on my way to get some sleep I would still be praying; and that is what a lot of other folks (Christians and otherwise) seem to do too, in my experience.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Gamaliel, you say this to me:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'll be blunt about it. It's poor theology... It's a theology (if it can even be graced with that title)... It's poor exegesis and poor theology.
And then ask me to do this:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin, here's a quote from Oliver Cromwell, 'I beseech thee in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that ye might be mistaken ...'
Then you say the consequences of my not changing course are:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard nothing from you so far that betokens wisdom in this respect and everything that indicates that your well-meaning friends and your good self are following a trajectory that will inevitably lead to pastoral harm, disillusionment and perhaps even tragedy.
...[Y]ou're still left with the potential for major pastoral fall-out. I'd suggest that you've seen it already in the instance you've given with the lady on the leadership team.
Believe you me, you will see a lot more, a lot more if you persist in your delusions... demonstrates hubris, pastoral insensitivity and a myopic and woodenly literal application of practices in the NT...
Stop it now before you do yourselves and other people some real damage.
Are you deliberately using strident terms in an effort to shock me into reconsidering my position? See, what I'm picking up from you is that I'm a theological illiterate who is blind to the likely (inevitable, indeed) effects of praying in the way I'm talking about. I reject those accusations; as already noted, I have given some thought to my theological position and to the possible consequences of its outworking.
I know people feel strongly about this and, like I said, I'm very sorry for the hurt that people have suffered due to unmet expectations of healing. ( ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for Penny S's colleague.) But I think you can avoid inflating expectations while still praying in the command-type way and, conversely, can't the request-type prayers end up inflating expectations in a similar way?
As I think I said upthread (or maybe I just thought it!), the answer to misuse is correct use, not no use. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
--------------------
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
@Alisdair, of course I'd pray that way in times of extremity - and I have done so, but not, mercifully, in the instance of a child's sickness ...
And yes, I'd accept that faith/willingness appears to be involved in many of the instances recorded in the Gospels. And I'd agree that there was something very humane and holy going on.
Where I'd be more wary, I suppose, is in trying to replicate/emulate those responses. Jesus knew what he was doing. We don't.
@South Coast Kevin ... yes, I've become increasingly more strident and this has been something of a deliberate tactic - to try to shock you out of what I see as an insidious complacency.
I know you are not theologically illiterate and I know that you are a sensitive and well-meaning individual. As I've said before, you are probably one of the most harmless and most guileless people on the Ship.
Which is one of the reasons why I've become rather more agitated in your case. Because I know you are acting in good faith and good intentions.
I completely agree with Alisdair that there can be an 'arrogance' and an equal and opposite over-reaction in not praying/expecting God to do anything but I'm afraid - with all due respect - that I've come to the conclusion that the kind of 'command' type prayer you're talking about here isn't something that might be ok for some people provided we aren't too strident about it - but is something that is to be avoided.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there isn't scope/room for confident and prevailing prayer ... but that's very different to assuming the ability to 'command' things to happen.
I don't know much about how these things happen in other Christian traditions, but from what little I've heard about healings and so on in RC and Orthodox circles - and they happen occasionally there, it seems, as well as in charismatic evangelical circles - I don't get the impression that there's much 'commanding' and so on going on.
There might be in terms of exorcisms - but that's not an area I know much about nor have any real desire to explore.
But as far as healings and such go, they appear, in RC and Orthodox circles - to be either associated with particularly gifted or godly individuals - monks, nuns, ascetics etc - or with objects such as icons, crucifixes, rosaries etc in a way that might boggle the mind of many Protestants.
They'll cite the example of handkerchiefs and aprons that had come into contact with the Apostle Paul (Acts 19:11). These appear to have been classified as 'special' or 'extraordinary' miracles.
We've even got an instance in Acts of people laying sick people on the street so that even Peter's shadow might fall across them ...
How do we relate that to contemporary practice?
I know I'm probably sounding like a nag, but you're right ... it is an area that arouses strong feelings and particularly when we have first-hand accounts - as we've had here - of what happens when people apply this sort of thing in a willy-nilly fashion.
You may feel outraged by this, as if I'm questioning your faith/abilities/integrity ... but I'm only challenging you because you're a decent bloke and I don't want to see you getting hurt.
If you want to go around commanding healing in the name of Jesus, then that's up to you. But don't say that any of us here didn't warn you when you find yourself with particularly upsetting fall-out of a dire pastoral situation on your hands.
I could patronise you by saying that I'm older, wiser and longer in the tooth - I'm certainly not as nice a guy as you are. But approaching 52 and with 30+ years of charismatic activity behind me, I'm afraid I can't go along with what you're suggesting. I can't go along with it 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
|
|
Ray T
Apprentice
# 12499
|
Posted
Further to my previous post a young person in our fellowship was diagnosed with a skin melanoma a couple of years ago. Despite treatment it was announced on Sunday that the cancer had metastased to the brain and bones and any care was now paliative.
This is despite many church sessions of "casting out, commanding" what ever you want to call it. I now have seen 4 instances where "power prayer" has not yielded the desired results. As Gamaliel so wisely says "If it does not work why persist in the practise?
I get upset and annoyed with this style of prayer, I'm beginning to wonder why I go to this church.
To those who advocate this style of prayer please, please search you soul and ask yourselves does it really help, have you asked permission of the sick person and their relatives? Me having been the husband of not one but two terminally ill wives and had power prayer carring on around me without consent, I clung to any "straw" that passed.
I am not bitter as life is too short and The Lord sustained me through these crises.
I am married for a third time but if anything happens in the future I certainly will not want "power prayer".
--------------------
Ray T
Posts: 3 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
The term 'charismatic' covers a pretty broad church. I believe in renewal in the power of the Holy Spirit. But I can't stand the more flamboyant (and disgustingly rich, to be blunt) Word of Faith crowd like Hinn, etc.
I believe 100% it is always right to pray for healing. But I am pretty much against 'command' prayers, my own experience of such has been pretty negative. Not as practiced on me, but on family and friends. 'Command prayers' do come across to me as both arrogant and manipulative. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The questions that people have been raising on this thread, pretty much. Did we lack faith? Did our departed friend lack faith? Did God plan this? Does God care? Does God want us to suffer?
- No, you didn't lack faith.
- Neither did the lady who died.
- Yes, He did. I'm not a Calvinist: I don't believe God micro-manages us to the nth degree and I am fiercely resistant to any notion that God 'sends' horrible things like cancer. Ugh. That to me is to attribute evil things to a good God. But He does allow these things to happen. And that is a difficult issue with God people have been wrestling with for centuries.
- Yes, He does care.
- No, I don't believe He wants us to suffer, even less does He delight in our suffering, but He does allow it. He has allowed countless Christians to die as martyrs, in car crashes, etc.
No death in Christ is a defeat. Let me repeat: no death in Christ is a defeat. And our times are in His hands.
I recommend the book 'A Place of Healing' by Joni Eareckson Tada: she tackles these issues head-on. Joni is in the Reformed camp, but she's a very nice Reformed type. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) And the woman knows of what she speaks: she's been in a wheelchair for 40 years and would be thrilled if God healed her miraculously. As things stand, I regard her life as a miracle already.
--------------------
"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
Absolutely, Laurelin.
I also think of my late great-aunt Nell. She died in the 1980s when she was in her mid-60s, I think. She had cerebral palsy and was literally corkscrewed around so that her face was pointing over her back. She was constantly dribbling and spent most of her later life on a couch tended by loving sisters - one of whom - as was often the case back then - had actually foregone marriage and family in order to look after her.
She never went to school but was as bright as a button and had a sharp, dry wit. She was incredibly fond of us kids and would always reach into her purse and give us a tanner when we visited back in the '60s/early 70s. I still treasure the Book of Common Prayer she gave us when we emigrated to Australia as Ł10-Poms in the early 60s.
I couldn't attend her funeral but the vicar - who used to bring her communion every week - said that he'd learned more from her about faith, fortitude and suffering than anything he'd studied at seminary. My mum's eyes will fill even now as she remembers how all her sisters (she was one of 12 siblings) gathered by her graveside and prayed together in their simple, direct, 'folk-Anglican' type way. She said it was like an electric charge, the mingling of love, faith and grief.
'Our Nellie's coming to you, Mam,' they said as they buried Nell beside her mother.
That's reality. That's faith. That's love and faith and guts.
All this 'commanding' and claiming and demanding and what-have-you is positively obscene in the light of things like that and Ray T's moving story here.
'Commanding' style prayers are arrogant, manipulative and harmful. Unless one is completely convinced that one has the same level of faith, authority and power - and wisdom and compassion - as Christ, the apostles and those Big S and small s S/saints who appear to have been 'gifted' this way then I'd suggest that one has no business whatsoever even presuming that one can do this sort of thing.
I'm really surprised that anyone persists with this stuff, particularly when it causes nothing but harm and upset. The pastoral damage is all around us.
Are you going to pick up the pieces, South Coast Kevin?
--------------------
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
That's REAL testimony of REAL, living, undeluded, pure faith that needs no falsification Gamaliel. Thank you.
--------------------
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
Thanks everyone for the testimonies and the challenge you're giving me. I'm not sure I can add to what I've already said, but let me just say this. If one accepts (I know some people on this thread don't) that God intervenes in miraculous ways, then I suspect that expectations can be inflated and lack of faith implied by both types of prayer that we've been talking about.
I wonder if people attracted to the commanding prayer approach are more likely to convey and bring about the negative implications we've been discussing. So it's not the approach itself that is at fault, rather that people attracted to this approach are more likely to pray in an insensitive fashion. Hence, our challenge is to learn how to pray commandingly (you know what I mean...) but sensitively.
All I can say from my own experience is that my church friends and acquaintances who do the commanding prayer thing seem to experience the same emotions as anyone else when healing doesn't come. In my own church context I've just not seen all the horrible fall-out that folks have so movingly shared on this thread. Maybe I've missed it and there are loads of people in my church who are full of anger, with their faith in tatters, following the death of our pastor. But that's not what I've seen; instead I've seen people going through the usual range of responses to losing a loved one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And well done South Coast Kevin. Most measured. I'm all for faithful hopeless commanding prayer and all embracing of the crucifixion.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin: quote:
In my own church context I've just not seen all the horrible fall-out that folks have so movingly shared on this thread. Maybe I've missed it and there are loads of people in my church who are full of anger, with their faith in tatters, following the death of our pastor. But that's not what I've seen; instead I've seen people going through the usual range of responses to losing a loved one.
Likely the ones most hurt (and there might be only a few) aren't there anymore. They just left without giving a reason, believing that you and other leaders of your church are so invested in this theology that you would consider their feelings not proper to a person of faith. Anger is a pretty unacceptable emotion in many church situations, not just this one. Many people feel it's best just to move on when a situation upsets them deeply.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what you're saying South Coast Kevin but I've come to the conclusion that the approach is intrinsically wrong in and of itself.
It isn't simply that it might attract the type of people who are more likely to pray in an insensitive way. It is just wrong.
However you dress it up and however sensitively you might attempt to pray 'commanding' prayers they are inevitably going to have a negative effect it seems to me - for all the reasons that have been rehearsed by plenty of witnesses on this thread. I rest my case, M'Lud ...
I don't see anyway around that.
The only conclusion I can come to, then, is that whereas Christ and some of the apostles appeared to pray/command in this way, we can't. If we could then surely we'd see the same results? The fact is, we don't.
You seem almost hell-bent, if I can put it that way, on clinging to a practice that is misguided at best and delusional at worst. Despite what everyone says, because you and your mates are committed to this style/manner of prayer you're going to stick with it regardless.
I'm sorry, but you have yet to supply a contextualised scriptural argument for why we should expect to pray in this particular fashion and see the same results that Christ and his immediate disciples seem to have done.
Other evangelicals - such as The Rhythm Methodist - have given compelling scriptural evidence that 'commanding' type prayers don't appear to have had a continuing place pastorally if we take the Book of James as a yardstick. Yet people still prayed for the sick. That's continued ever since. All churches pray for the sick.
There are only a few particular movements which have taken it upon themselves to 'command' healing or to pray in the way that you appear to advocate. The onus is on them to demonstrate the efficacy. The fact is, they can't. And yet they persist in this practice despite the very evident pastoral damage and all the evidence to the contrary.
Our challenge isn't to learn how to pray commandingly (yes, I know what you mean), our challenge is to develop a healthy and wholesome theology and practice.
The model of healing prayer that you appear to espouse is neither healthy nor wholesome but harmful.
I'm not saying that we should issue each copy of the NT with a 'don't try this at home' disclaimer sticker, but I am saying that we have to understand it in context. There are literary and theological reasons for the way these things are presented. It betokens a very monochrome and dangerously literal approach to see it otherwise.
So yes, the approach itself is at fault. It is at fault because it causes harm and it is at fault because it doesn't work.
Do you think I'd be saying this after 30 years exposure - 30 years - exposure to things charismatic and I'd seen instances of people helped rather than harmed by 'commanding' prayer?
Of course your friends who do the commanding prayer thing experience the same emotions as anyone else when healing doesn't happen - they're not heartless monsters, they are genuinely sincere.
But they are sincerely wrong.
You might not have seen the hideous fall-out from this sort of thing that other people have described - but as sure as eggs are eggs you will do sooner or later if you persist.
In fairness, generally speaking I would concede that there is much more wisdom and less hype around in most charismatic circles now than there was 15 or 20 years ago. But the dafter or over-egged tendencies have never completely gone away and it's there just below the surface, I would contend.
I'm sure there aren't loads of people in your church who're full of anger with their faith in tatters. But you can only go on with unfulfilled expectations for so long without it grinding you down or burning you out in the longer term. 'Hope deferred makes the heart sick.'
I've heard enough revival prophecies and words of 'command' and so on to last me a lifetime. Sure, God can heal people, sure he sometimes does. But I don't see why you're so wedded to this concept when it's pretty clear from the NT that not everyone was gifted in such a way to perform miracles - 'do all work miracles?'
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And well done South Coast Kevin. Most measured. I'm all for faithful hopeless commanding prayer and all embracing of the crucifixion.
Thanks! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Likely the ones most hurt (and there might be only a few) aren't there anymore.
I'm trying to think of people who left our church around the time our pastor died, and none spring to mind who I know were close to the pastor. Maybe you're right, though; I wasn't personally close to the pastor so there may be people who were close that I'm forgetting about.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see what you're saying South Coast Kevin but I've come to the conclusion that the approach is intrinsically wrong in and of itself.
...You seem almost hell-bent, if I can put it that way, on clinging to a practice that is misguided at best and delusional at worst. Despite what everyone says, because you and your mates are committed to this style/manner of prayer you're going to stick with it regardless.
I'm sorry, but you have yet to supply a contextualised scriptural argument for why we should expect to pray in this particular fashion and see the same results that Christ and his immediate disciples seem to have done.
Okay Gamaliel, that's fine. I realise you think I am in error but clearly I don't agree that I'm 'hell-bent... on clinging to a practice that is misguided at best and delusional at worst'. Turning up the rhetoric is not helping me reconsider my position, sorry. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
As for the theological justification, this basically rests on a view that we should expect to do the same kinds of things the first disciples did. In this view, the promises Jesus made to his disciples are promises to us as well.
Yes, there is a certain disconnect (you'd call it cognitive dissonance, I'm sure) arising from the undeniable fact that people aren't being healed hither and thither. But it seems I hear about and occasionally see just enough of the (apparently) miraculous to stop me abandoning my current viewpoint. Perhaps that will change, but I doubt if the change will come as a result of accusations like those you're sending my way, Gamaliel.
--------------------
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
To be fair, Lyda Rose, to what I've seen of the Vineyard in the UK, I don't think that they would consciously sit in judgement on anyone who didn't see things the same way or who were distressed by the incident with the death of the woman on the leadership team.
But I think you're right that anyone who had misgivings about their particular approach would tend to slip or slink away over time. But the same could be said of any kind of church at whatever end of the spectrum and whatever style of churchmanship.
In some ways, I must admit, the Vineyard and the New Wine end of the Anglican and Baptist charismatic scenes bother me more than some of the more full-on charismatic outfits as there is sufficient 'soundness' and balance there that it can inoculate people against some of the more harmful emphases that would be immediately obvious in a louder and brasher setting.
At least you know what you're up against in the more strident outfits.
It's precisely the milder, more sensitive and reasonable approach demonstrated by many Vineyard and New Wine-y people that makes them more vulnerable, I think.
I'm not sure I'd have said that a few years ago but it's how I see things now.
--------------------
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
This idea ('power prayer' and the like) is a confusion of several things. Firstly, the idea that faith and prayer are positive 'forces' that can be harnessed and directed by humans (I have often heard talk of 'aiming a beam of prayer' at someone [this was de rigueur at HTB]). SCK has already played his cards that he subscribes to this idea: that is, God has plans for your health (wealth often, but not always, follows) and these can be released to you through the right kind of prayer. If you don't get them, it's because of a prayer 'blockage' usually attributed (as Kevin argues above) to a lack of faith. This is now an orthodox belief amongst charismatics (see Bill Hybels, et al). Pause for a moment: did Jesus lack faith or have some blockage when he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? When Jesus tells Simon Peter (Didymus) about what fate awaits him, it's hardly a health and wealth agenda—but rather brutal martyrdom (John 21: 17–19). Run away from this kind of cack theology.
Is anyone aware of a Ph.D. dissertation or other study on the influence of Star Wars on charismatic theology and praxis? It seems an obvious topic.
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
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In some ways, I must admit, the Vineyard and the New Wine end of the Anglican and Baptist charismatic scenes bother me more than some of the more full-on charismatic outfits as there is sufficient 'soundness' and balance there that it can inoculate people against some of the more harmful emphases that would be immediately obvious in a louder and brasher setting.
At least you know what you're up against in the more strident outfits.
Hmm, dunno about this, i.e. that the more reasonable-looking charismatic streams are somehow more insidious than the more outrageous ones. The more strident outfits sucker in a hell of a lot of people, who give them their money in bucket-loads. (And while it's easy to parody HTB and its South Kensington milieu, it's also easy to be an inverted snob about HTB. There is nothing sinful about being posh. )
quote:
It's precisely the milder, more sensitive and reasonable approach demonstrated by many Vineyard and New Wine-y people that makes them more vulnerable, I think.
Well, one can hope that the more sound, sane and sensible side of these various streams will triumph. I have a limited amount of experience of both New Wine and Holy Trinity Brompton, and I guess I would describe myself as a critical friend of both. Certainly a lot that originates from them is NOT whackadoodle. IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
If you don't get them, it's because of a prayer 'blockage' usually attributed (as Kevin argues above) to a lack of faith.
To be fair to SCK, I am not sure he did actually say that ...
I am very firm in my belief that some (OK, many) charismatics badly need to develop a theology of suffering. Which is right there in the New Testament. And the whole of the Bible. We don't escape suffering if we are serious about following Jesus. If we don't face the challenge of persecution and martyrdom - trust me, I'm in no hurry to experience either - then suffering will come in another way. No human being escapes this. It is madness to think otherwise, it's magical thinking. Christ helps me face the storm. He doesn't always rescue me from it. And I think that makes our Christian witness more powerful, not less.
I am definitely on the much milder end of the charismatic spectrum ...
--------------------
"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
To be fair to South Coast Kevin, I don't think that he has consciously imbibed health/wealth type teaching. On one level, Wimber and the Vineyard eschewed some of the more cack-handed elements of the US-style prosperity gospel - but the influence was there and I suspect they subconsciously imbibed rather too much of it than was good for them.
No, what I think underlies the Vineyard approach is an overly dualistic good vs evil thing whereby 'power encounters' and confrontations with the domain and influence of darkness by supernatural means and 'taking authority' and 'commanding' and so on can take centre stage.
This is why I was referring South Coast Kevin to the saner, sounder and more sensible approach advocated by Nigel Wright in 'A Theology of The Dark Side'.
What appears to have happened - it seems to me - is that the Vineyard and other charismatic groupings whilst remaining within the broad framework of historic, creedal Christianity have over-emphasised aspects that are certainly there within the tradition (and Tradition too, to some extent) and applied them in a cack-handed or unbalanced way.
To return to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, for a moment - Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience (there are other models but let's use this for sake of argument) ...
What happens when we apply SCK/Vineyard type emphases onto this particular grid?
Scripture : Christ and certain apostles/disciples appear to have been able to 'command' sicknesses to leave and perform miracles.
Reason : This makes sense if we believe that Jesus is Divine.
Tradition : The broad thrust of teaching in all the mainstream Christian Churches/churches has been that whilst these things primarily have theological/didactic purpose in being recorded, it appears that not everyone is able to operate in this way.
Experience : 'Commanding' prayers of this type appear to cause significant pastoral harm. Equally, there is very little evidence that people who go around doing this sort of thing are seeing physical healings and so on to the extent that is claimed.
Therefore the conclusion has to be:
Wimber and the Vineyard - wrong.
On all counts.
--------------------
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
Laurelin, I'm not saying that HTB and New Wine (or even the Vineyard) are the source of wackadoo things necessarily ... but I do believe that their greatest strength - their more laid-back and less confrontational/strident style, can also lead them in daft directions at times.
I could cite chapter and verse on things that quite senior figures in those circles have done and said over the years that have been complete bollocks.
That said, I do believe that they remain secure enough within the mainstream tradition not to disappear too far down any blind-alleys. I like Tom Smail's analogy that if you have a whopping big elastic band around your waist which secures you to the central core of the dogmatic tradition then you can explore by-ways and side-alleys with relative impunity as the 'pull' of the elastic band will keep you attached to the mainstream/centre.
There's some 'give' in the Ariadne's Thread.
So please, don't misunderstand me, I'm not dismissing everything these folk get up to.
But as SCK has demonstrated in his recalcitrance, once poor theology or poor practice has become embedded it becomes increasingly difficult to disentangle oneself from it. The 'power prayer' thing has become part of the Vineyard's spiritual DNA in the same way that 'tongues' has become a defining feature for Pentecostals or a high view of the Eucharist for Catholics of all types.
What SCK doesn't appear to appreciate is that he is approaching the scriptures through the lens of this particular 'power encounter' approach and theology. He has become conditioned to reading the Gospels and Acts in that way and so fondly imagines that he and his friends can achieve similar results if only they persist, practice, pray harder and learn how to pray in a commanding way yet without manipulation and suggestibility.
I remember that there were some apparent healings and remarkable occurences when the Vineyard teams first visited in the mid-1980s but looking back, I never saw any real evidence of healings and so on myself. A lot of it looked like mass or self-hypnosis and suggestibility. It seemed more authentic and refreshing because it was couched in a more laid-back, Californian way that struck a chord with Anglicans, Baptists and others in a way that the more strident Mid-Western and Southern Pentecostalism of the health-wealth brigade didn't.
Largely, though, there was a semblance of something happening yet not a great deal materialised on the ground - although one could point to the growth of the Vineyard fellowships as a lasting legacy (although much of the growth was transfer from Anglican and Baptist charismatic circles).
In time, I suspect, the Vineyard will moderate/tone-down their approach. The same thing happened with the Quakers in the 17th and 18th centuries. Who would have thought at the time of George Fox that the radical and enthusiastic Quakers would have ended up as a largely quietist movement with a pacific and social-justice emphasis?
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am far from an expert on these churches but it is interesting that of the three churches associated with my uni's Christian Union, the Vineyard church is the most moderate and mainstream - and with a very friendly and engaging pastor who is interested in doing things with the chaplaincy as well as the CU, which helps. Just an outsider's view!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As I've said, Jade Constable, I think the Vineyard overall is moving towards a more laid-back position - they seem to be the ones where coffee, doughnuts and Sunday papers are almost de-rigeur at Sunday morning meetings/services.
I suspect they are beginning to morph into a form of laid-back charismaticism but with some 'power prayer' type emphases in some quarters which have hung on from the 1980s. Give it a few years and the Vineyard will be pretty indistinguishable from moderate/mainstream Anglican and Baptist charismatic outfits - if they aren't already.
That doesn't mean that there aren't some daft emphases hanging around though.
Besides, the CU at your university is only going to be representative of the evangelical and charismatic churches. Other churches - such as the MoR and liberal ones, will hardly feature on the radar of your average university CU.
There are certainly more extreme and 'out-there' outfits out there, as it were and for all my concern and castigations in SCK's direction, the Vineyard probably does appear the model of balance and restraint compared with some of them.
--------------------
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
I've been away for the last few days so haven't been able to take part in this thread during that time. However, just scanning through, I don't think there's anything I could add that wouldn't be repetition of what I've already said.
If I have missed something that anyone wanted me to answer, feel free to re-post or PM me...
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Is anyone aware of a Ph.D. dissertation or other study on the influence of Star Wars on charismatic theology and praxis? It seems an obvious topic.
This discussion has actually guided the choice for my next theology course assignment. I've got to write an essay about some aspect of Christian pastoral care and I think I'll take a look at issues around raising expectations and causing hurt / bitterness through prayers for healing.
I guess that means you should PM me with any questions (or any more book recommendations ) as we're not supposed to discuss study assignments on SoF, are we?
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Is anyone aware of a Ph.D. dissertation or other study on the influence of Star Wars on charismatic theology and praxis? It seems an obvious topic.
I think they are parallel each other rather than one being derived from the other.
Charismaticism of the sort you describe owes much to New Thought (filtered through several steps). In many ways, New Thought with it's self help and individualistic emphasis is the natural theology of America - it jibes well with ideas of the good life and the American Dream. So it is not surprising that Star Wars ends up taking a very Deist approach to things
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Is anyone aware of a Ph.D. dissertation or other study on the influence of Star Wars on charismatic theology and praxis? It seems an obvious topic.
I think they are parallel each other rather than one being derived from the other.
Charismaticism of the sort you describe owes much to New Thought (filtered through several steps). In many ways, New Thought with it's self help and individualistic emphasis is the natural theology of America - it jibes well with ideas of the good life and the American Dream. So it is not surprising that Star Wars ends up taking a very Deist approach to things
Interesting. Thanks Chris.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What SCK doesn't appear to appreciate is that he is approaching the scriptures through the lens of this particular 'power encounter' approach and theology. He has become conditioned to reading the Gospels and Acts in that way and so fondly imagines that he and his friends can achieve similar results if only they persist, practice, pray harder and learn how to pray in a commanding way yet without manipulation and suggestibility.
I think one point we often forget is that the Gospels are edited constructs and tend to record the "highlights" of Jesus' ministry. Even more to the point, we tend to think that the miracles in Acts occur in rapid-fire succession when in fact we are dealing with an expanding Church over something like a 20 year period. This makes me think that miracles and "power healings" are recorded because they were exceptional rather than normative.
While I would not deny for a moment that there was often a dynamism about the early Church which we would do well to recapture, I also feel that for much of its time it was doing ordinary churchy things without a great many remarkable things happening.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE] Even more to the point, we tend to think that the miracles in Acts occur in rapid-fire succession when in fact we are dealing with an expanding Church over something like a 20 year period. This makes me think that miracles and "power healings" are recorded because they were exceptional rather than normative.
While I would not deny for a moment that there was often a dynamism about the early Church which we would do well to recapture, I also feel that for much of its time it was doing ordinary churchy things without a great many remarkable things happening.
Good point, and one I think that lends to a very healthy balance of always being open to God's miraculous intervention, w/o the expectation that we can summon that up on demand, or anticipate it will become the norm.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
While I would not deny for a moment that there was often a dynamism about the early Church which we would do well to recapture, I also feel that for much of its time it was doing ordinary churchy things without a great many remarkable things happening.
Yes, this a point well worth remembering for the likes of me... I wonder if, in the early church times, there were many instances of people praying those 'Be healed' type prayers without any effect. Or did they feel God's prompting to pray just on those few occasions that are documented in the New Testament?
Assuming the healings happened at all, of course (which I do, but I know many don't).
--------------------
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
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, whilst we can never know for sure, it seems axiomatic to me now that what Baptist Trainfan has said here holds true - that we're dealing with edited 'highlights' and also instances that are selected/edited in order to make theological points.
You seem to overlook this and treat the scriptures as some kind of how-to healing manual. That's not what they're about. That's not what they are for ...
We have no idea whether anyone other than the people whose prayers and actions ARE recorded for us - Jesus and a handful of apostles/disciples - prayed 'be healed' type prayers or not.
In some ways, it's irrelevant because the instances that are recorded are the only ones we have.
What matters, surely, is whether 'be healed' type prayers are effective now. I would strongly contest that they aren't. Consequently, I would strongly counsel anyone against the practice.
I submit that the scriptures lay open the possibility of people still being healed in response to prayer - and, on the basis of James's epistle - that prayer for healing should take place in a church context.
But it's a big jump from that to making claims that you, me or anyone else can go around 'commanding' things to happen or praying 'power prayers' in the way that these things are popularly understood in the kind of context in which you operate.
As Baptist Trainfan says, the reason these things were recorded in the first place was because they were pretty remarkable and noteworthy. If these things were available on tap and 'the norm' then why haven't we seen them continuing in great volume to this day?
And why aren't the many thousands of charismatic Christians in this country seeing loads more healings, miracles and what have you than those who don't place such a strong emphasis on such things?
Have you noticed how these things are always happening somewhere else? Developing countries usually.
I'm not being awkward or trying to disagree with you for the sake of it but I'm non-plussed as to why you are so apparently wedded to a particular view of this type of prayer when:
- It has been amply demonstrated by contributors here from a range of backgrounds that it is unwise.
- It has been demonstrated time and again by non-cessationist contributors here that the context, theological thrust and yes, literary considerations, make it highly unlikely that these things happened willy-nilly.
It's as if you've become wedded to a particular Vineyard-style approach to the scriptures and are unable to view them through any other lens than that of an imminent expectation of spectacular 'results' in response to a particular kind of 'commanding' prayer.
I really don't get 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, let's get all sola-scriptura if you insist, Kevin ...
Can you cite me chapter and verse that suggests that anyone OTHER than Christ, the apostles - Peter and the others among the 12, the apostle Paul and the 70 - went around using 'power prayers' and commanding stuff to happen?
The only instances I can think of that might conceivably fall into this category are Ananias when he prays for Saul/Paul and the unknown chap who was going around healing people in Jesus's name but who wasn't among the apostolic band. We're not told how he did this nor whether he used 'commanding' prayers.
It also strikes me that 'commanding' type prayers have tended to happen in the context of some kind of exorcism ... which I'm sure you'd agree isn't something that any of us should get involved with unless we knew what we were doing.
Why this assumption that we can all go around 'commanding' stuff?
What's the basis of it other than the fond imaginations of Californian evangelists who imbibed various forms of 'New Thought' style thaumaturgy from their American gung-ho milieu?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I wonder if, in the early church times, there were many instances of people praying those 'Be healed' type prayers without any effect. Or did they feel God's prompting to pray just on those few occasions that are documented in the New Testament?
So . having arrived at the point where you realise that Acts doesn't describe the complete picture .. are you still wanting make Acts the model of your church practise?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
I had to listen to another of these 'commanding prayers' last night. Some exceedingly loud bellowing - a lot of 'taking authority', and quite a few 'rebukes'. There was an additional rebuke from my neighbour this morning, who didn't appreciate the disturbance. I don't yet know if the devil and his agents (the cancer cells) have heeded their rebukes, but I've certainly taken note of mine. I was struck by the way this rant continually moved seamlessly between addressing God, Satan and the malignant growth….it was like some sort of demented video-conferencing.
Perhaps one of the problems, is that these people feel obliged to “take authority” in the first place: Christ gave authority in the biblical accounts – nobody just took it. And more eloquent people than me have already alluded to the fact that there is no comparison with the results we see in scripture, and the endless round of disappointment, failure and shipwrecked faith we observe today.
ISTM, there are only two likely explanations – either of which should cause practitioners to desist. One is, that the authority was only vested in specific early-church members, to meet God’s requirements at that time….it has no application today. The second possibility, is that it has modern application, but those that attempt to take authority are not personally empowered to do so.
Which rather brings me to motivation. The success rate of these prayers ranges from negligible to non-existent. Something is very wrong….and perhaps it is the motivation of some who go in for ‘commanding’.
Often, these will be the same people who are steeped in the various practices of ‘spiritual warfare’ which are currently fashionable (if not always supportable from a biblical perspective). When they’re not commanding things, they’ll be casting other things out, or perhaps divining the presence and location of territorial beasties. Maybe they’ll be presenting whatever has drifted into their minds, as a ‘picture’ or ‘impression’ from God.
There’s a common theme here. It is the lust for power, authority and personal significance. It is the desire to be a ‘mover’ or ‘shaker’, or at least to appear to be one. When I and others were subjected to that grandiose pomposity last night, there was absolutely no sense in which it could be perceived as an act of love…not for the hapless cancer victim, who (if this runs true to form) will only be adding shaken faith or a sense of God’s rejection to his ailment. Nor did it seem to show love for those of us who cringe at such bombast, nor yet for the chap rudely awakened next-door. If love formed any part of the motivation last night, it could only have been self-love. I can’t imagine that such people would be empowered to ‘take authority’, even if we were to accept the possibility still exists for some.
In view of the fact that this approach does not work – and the fact that it can be hugely damaging - it is difficult to see this practice as anything other than mere self-aggrandizement, at least in many cases….though I imagine, for some, it is just an expected and accepted part of the stylized, ritualized expression of Charismatic spirituality which has evolved in those quarters. What it can never be, is a valid approach to healing through those who are now using it. We know this because God himself has invalidated it – and them - by refusing to underwrite their commands.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist
quote:
When I and others were subjected to that grandiose pomposity last night, there was absolutely no sense in which it could be perceived as an act of love…not for the hapless cancer victim, who (if this runs true to form) will only be adding shaken faith or a sense of God’s rejection to his ailment.
This is an important point. It's one of the reasons why, I believe, the CofE/CinW insists that exorcism should only be used where, among other things, all ordinary psychological/ mental health factors have been throughly explored and found not to provide a solution. AIUI this is because (i) the kind of behaviour which may appear to some people to be possession is almost always attributable to these 'ordinary' factors and (ii) an attempt to exorcise a person who is in fact suffering from mental disorder may be spiritually extremely harmful to that person because when their disorder persists- as it almost always will- they may conclude that they are beyond the love and power of God.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Crumbs The Rhythm Methodist - will you let them in your house again? I wouldn't!
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
We know this because God himself has invalidated it – and them - by refusing to underwrite their commands.
God refuses to underwrite all prayer as far as I can see.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I wonder if, in the early church times, there were many instances of people praying those 'Be healed' type prayers without any effect. Or did they feel God's prompting to pray just on those few occasions that are documented in the New Testament?
So . having arrived at the point where you realise that Acts doesn't describe the complete picture .. are you still wanting make Acts the model of your church practise?
What's the basis of your church practice?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Gamaliel - just while I'm passing - what do you reckon Jesus meant when he told his lads to pray 'in my name'?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Can you cite me chapter and verse that suggests that anyone OTHER than Christ, the apostles - Peter and the others among the 12, the apostle Paul and the 70 - went around using 'power prayers' and commanding stuff to happen?
I can't see why you'd have to restrict it unless you are cessationalist (SP?).
You include Paul in your list, someone who was clearly not one of the 12 (or 120) present at pentecost. If God can give Paul this ministry why not others?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Because He obviously chooses not to. Not in your experience or anyone's here. Not evidentially. Not as he did in the Spirit, visibly, communally, incontrovertibly even before His enemies.
--------------------
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
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Crumbs The Rhythm Methodist - will you let them in your house again? I wouldn't!
Well, Boogie - I'd let in those who were from my fellowship, who didn't pray like that! As for the other guy, I was sorely tempted to give him the "right hand of disfellowship" there and then....in Christian love, of course.
@Albertus
In writing of exorcisms inflicted on the mentally ill, you have highlighted another important area of spiritual abuse, and one which can be as (or even more) damaging.
In their desperation to exercise spiritual power, these exorcists will happily assume just about any mental health issue is a manifestation of the demonic. Like the 'command prayers' brigade, they apparently have no real concern for the fragility of their victims...just as long as they get to 'do their thing'. And it can be hugely traumatic for the sufferers, as you suggest.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Truman White, as you're passing and as you're asking, I'll answer your question as far as I understand it.
What did Jesus mean when he asked 'his lads' (as you so demotically and democratically put it) to pray in his name?
Well, he meant that they (and we) should pray in his name.
By which I take it to mean that by so praying we are identifying ourselves with him as both Saviour and Lord ... and, if you like, calling upon his divine authority. That doesn't mean that we can 'command' or 'direct' it - we come in supplication.
Sure, it is true that 'boldly we approach the throne of grace' but that's quite a different thing from the bombast and arrogance that The Rhythm Methodists has described in the unfortunate incident in his house the other night.
As to your question to Chris Stiles, about what his particular form of Reformed church practice is based on, then whilst he can answer for himself better than I can, I would suggest that his church-practice/understanding is based on the following:
- An understanding of the NT (including Acts) as garnered and filtered through the particular tradition that he represents (in his case, a Reformed one).
By the same token, the model of church practice that you might espouse or that South Coast Kevin might be espousing, is based on:
- And understanding of the NT (including Acts) as garnered and filtered through the particular tradition/s that you both represent (in SCK's case, a Vineyard one) in yours, I suspect, a more general charismatic one.
There will be similarities between each and some differences too.
The difference, it seems to me, between Chris Stiles and SCK is a question of emphasis and also a more rigorous attempt to contextualise Acts rather than seeing it as a join-the-dots how-to-do-church manual.
@balaam, no, I'm not a cessationist and yes I do believe that the kind of 'power' and 'authority' (if we want to put it that way) can be available to people beyond the 120 and the apostle Paul. The more sacramental traditions might cite particular Saints (capital S) as examples of that and they may very well have been (and be) people in the more evangelical traditions who have been similarly equipped by divine grace.
But the question I'd like to ask is when did any of us see the kind of results we read about in Acts?
Why the apparent disconnect?
Is it because we lack faith or is it because we are operating from a faulty premise or over-egged sense of expectation?
As Baptist Trainfan has said, the incidents recorded in Acts took place over a 20 year period. We're not talking about a six-week snapshot here.
When was the last time SCK and his pals saw some powerfully and incontrovertibly healed in response to a 'commanding prayer' of the kind he is advocating here?
I'm not a betting man but I'd put money on it not being very likely. I doubt he's ever seen such a thing. I haven't.
I'm not talking about 'I had a head-ache/cold/migraine/poorly toe last week and after people prayed in the Sunday morning meeting it had got better by Wednesday ...'
No, you know the sort of thing I'm talking about. And you won't have seen it any more than I did in 30 years of knocking around with charismatics.
Sure, some people are apparently healed in response to prayer and for that we give thanks.
But to go around laying claim to the power and authority to do things that don't apparently happen to order nor on cue strikes me as the height of presumption.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
So . having arrived at the point where you realise that Acts doesn't describe the complete picture .. are you still wanting make Acts the model of your church practise?
What's the basis of your church practice?
Scripture filtered through tradition/reason as is the case with everyone I assume.
I think there are some things - like communion, baptism, prayer etc. - that are clearly normative in scripture - and others - like the miracles - which need to be understood in context.
Context is key - narrative books like Acts and the Gospels are polemic as well as historical and have to be understood as such (there are presumably more than seven signs that John could have used - yet the author highlights seven to angle things in his particular way). Even in the first century, the miraculous was still the miraculous (otherwise people wouldn't be surprised at Peter getting out of prison or Ananias and Sapphira dying), and as is pointed out further up the thread these things were separated out over decades.
So I don't see much warrant to make the sort of 'claiming' prayers that are the subject of this thread. Such things seem to owe more to a Christianised version of 'The Secret' dragged through 'Name it, Claim it' theology.
Far fetched you say? The problem is that there is a kind of sliding scale of gullibility caused by an assumption of charity, that sees bad practice go from the fairly doo-laly end of the charismatic movement to the more staid parts. For instance, plenty of people would endorse Bill Johnson - though he in turn endorses Kevin Dedmon (my son can walk on water) and John Crowther (oink-oink-oink, drunken whacked out glory, I'm high on Godka!), and so ideas travel and plausibility structures develop to excuse them without the base level assumptions ever being questioned.
I think God always answers prayer, but there are plenty of times when we get what we wouldn't even have known to ask for.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
Hard to summarize a very jam-packed thonerd conference in a few characters, but I did find myself fairly (if not completely) persuaded by his argument, which constitutes a significant paradigm shift for me. Here's a few brief notes as they relate to the topic of "power prayers".
1. Boyd and other "warfare theologians" favor Christus victor as the primary understanding of the atonement, rather than substitution or satisfaction. That's central. Substitution/ satisfaction see the problem with humanity as something like "God's wrath at human sinfulness puts humanity at risk for eternal punishment". The force of the atonement, then, is "Godward"-- appeasing God's wrath. But Christus victor (and ransom) see the problem as "humanity is oppressed and enslaved by spiritual forces beyond their control-- 'slavery to sin.' in John's gospel". Thus the force of the atonement is "Satanward"-- defeating sin, death and disease-- the works of the devil.
2. When Jesus heals or delivers from demonic possession, then, it is part of his core mission to "take back territory from the enemy"-- expanding the Kingdom of God. It really doesn't matter whether you view possession as "a demon inside you" or a primitive understanding of mental illness-- either way it is "Satanic"-- something that is not as God intended and needs to be set right.
3. Therefore, when we pray for healing or deliverance, we don't pray "if it is your will" because that insults God. It suggests that suffering, disease and death might somehow be God's will. Whereas open theism sees it as the "corruption of nature" that has occurred since the "fall" (which Boyd and most others see as coming in the big bang itself, the 2nd nonosecond of creation, billions of years before mankind). So we don't need to ask "if it's your will"-- we assume that all suffering is contrary to God's purpose. (which is not to suggest that God can't work good in suffering-- great deal of discussion/ exegesis of Rom. 8 & 9 and the idea of God "working with" suffering).
3. At the same time, we don't expect all or even most prayers for healing/ deliverance to be answered. Indeed, as Boyd says, they are miraculous, which means by definition they are not normative. A robust warfare theology expects suffering, and needs to have a theology of suffering (Boyd spends a lot of time talking about what is appropriate to do/experience "on vacation" is not appropriate "in a war zone" where suffering occurs). The fact that most healings do not occur is a reflection that the battle is not won, the "now and not yet" of the Kingdom.
I find myself deeply uncomfortable with the warfare imagery. But a lot of challenging thoughts here that have me rethinking the paradigm, if not the abuses of it that I've seen in Pentecostal Christianity. Someone not already sympathetic to open theism, though, and the idea of "self-limited sovereignty" would no doubt be running screaming for the hills.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sure Gamaliel? Who? Where? When? Nobody in ANYBODY'S actual, verifiable, falsifiable, believable experience. Unlike those who Peter's shadow passed over. How can we give thanks for those none of us knows?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Can you cite me chapter and verse that suggests that anyone OTHER than Christ, the apostles - Peter and the others among the 12, the apostle Paul and the 70 - went around using 'power prayers' and commanding stuff to happen?
I can't see why you'd have to restrict it unless you are cessationalist (SP?).
You include Paul in your list, someone who was clearly not one of the 12 (or 120) present at pentecost. If God can give Paul this ministry why not others?
Nice point Donks. And Paul reckoned it was fine to tell his churches to 'be imitators of me as I am of Christ.'
@ Chris Stlyes - I'm not having a pop here mate cause I respect where you're coming from. Gotta say I reckon you're being a tad myopic when it comes to the Bethel crowd. Yeah Deadmon's ' my lad walked on water' jars ( no pun intended). T'other side of coin is that he's inspired thousands of Christians worldwide to get off their backsides and onto to the streets talking to people about Christ,
If you want nutty theology how about John Piper's 'everything that happens is down to God's will, including my sin.' Yeah, really he said that. But he's also got stacks of good stuff which gives people solid grounds for their belief. Genius and wackiness often go together - sifting the two is part of growing up.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
So . having arrived at the point where you realise that Acts doesn't describe the complete picture .. are you still wanting make Acts the model of your church practise?
What's the basis of your church practice?
Scripture filtered through tradition/reason as is the case with everyone I assume.
Spot on - and absolutely including anyone who doesn't think that the tradition/ reason filters apply to them. Nobody can read Scripture (or anything else) without filtering it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
