|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Quenching the Spirit?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This may be one for Kerygmania, but it's been triggered by the Ecclesiantics thread on charismatic Anglicans in which daronmedway made a comment about the possibility of 'quenching the Spirit' if we seek to exert too much 'control' over charismata.
By questions are as follows:
What do we mean by 'quench the Spirit'?
What criteria can we use (beyond the purely subjective?) to determine whether we have done or are doing it?
If we are doing it, how can we stop doing it?
I would welcome a broadening out of the discussion beyond the rather narrow (for want of a better word) of charismata - because I believe we do God the Holy Spirit a disservice if we 'limit' His activity in the world to those things we might label as such.
But I'm open to discussion on the issue from within a traditional 'charismatic' stand-point as well as other perspectives.
I am wondering whether 'quenching the Holy Spirit' is always something that other people do, whilst we ourselves are simply exercising due self-control and discernment ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But that's probably a bit harsh.
Thoughts?
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that the way the Holy Spirit is most often quenched is by people who believe that the Holy Spirit must work through their own desires and decisions, as long as they have prayed.
Listening and discerning God's guidance through the Holy Spirit takes such time, patience and self-control that it's easily put off, so that business takes precedence.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
I've been accused of "quenching the Spirit" a few times, mostly by people who would like to introduce some of the whackier "manifestations of the Spirit" to our fellowship. A difference of perception, I guess: I see myself as protecting the church from self-indulgent excesses, and they see me as someone who just won't move with what God wants to do.
More commonly, I question myself about quenching the Spirit....I really don't want to do that. And so I endeavor to hold things lightly, and actively look for God's correction.
Recently, I believed we should appoint an elder, and there was an obvious front-runner. Most of the leadership were very happy with this candidate, but - as we prayed independently - one by one we came to the conclusion that we should appoint someone else. For myself, I think that the avoidance of quenching the Spirit is sometimes a function of humility, and the desire that God's will prevails over any personal agenda I may have.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Both good points, Raptor Eye and The Rhythm Methodist. I've certainly been suspected (rather than accused) of 'quenching the Spirit' by trying to bring a balance when things could easily start to go in what I'd see as a whackier direction - although I've done whacky things myself at times in my more full-on charismatic past.
One person's whacky is someone else's normal. So what criteria do we use? I've done some fairly full-on 'catholic' things when visiting RC or Orthodox services too ... stuff that many Protestants would consider whacky. Was that right, was that wrong, was it good, bad or indifferent?
How do we know? How can we tell?
I do believe in discernment and 'nous' and a sense of guidance and so on - rather in the way you describe in the selection of a new elder, The Rhythm Methodist - but I'm increasingly wary of some of the more pneumatic claims one hears. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I have no idea.
I am whacky, exuberant, bouncy and loud with no help whatever from the Spirit. So, for me, maybe the fruit of the Spirit known as self-control would be a good one to pray for?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Whacky is as whacky does.
1 Thess 5:16-21 ‘Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully, holding fast to that which is good.’
Whacky is not. The context STARTS with prayer then rejoicing and gratitude. Not mooing and falling down. Or laughing (guilty). It doesn't end with those either.
And WHAT is a 'prophetic utterance'?
Examination looks orderly, grown-up, discerning, chaired, wise to me.
[ 11. November 2012, 15:40: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And WHAT is a 'prophetic utterance'?
Examination looks orderly, grown-up, discerning, chaired, wise to me.
What prophetic utterance is NOT is anything to do with blurting things out in a trance-like state imv.
What prophetic utterance is allows itself to be examined, discerned not only once but as many times as it takes. Prophetic words come as guidance from God in the cold light of day, unexpectedly, within profound experience. The receiver must search and question. The words must be passed on to the intended recipient, however awkward or embarrassing that may be. They never point to the person they are given to. They're not usually about the future, but the present.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice Raptor Eye, as on the Racism thread.
Ah well, off to me charismatic Evangelical Anglican fellowship for the evening.
You can't choose your family after all ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
Quenching the Spirit to me is simply not providing space to listen to the Spirit and/or not obeying what he guides/directs us to do.
There's a framework within this that permits both silence space and using the various gifts of the Spirit and also the ancient traditions.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I'd broadly go along with your definition, Polly. But how would you see these things working out in practice?
How, for instance, would you know that you weren't following the 'voice' of the Spirit, as it were, over a particular issue?
How would we reconcile the Spirit apparently leading different people to different conclusions - over issues like women's ordination, for instance, to name a biggie?
I'm thinking smaller scale than that, though.
--------------------
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
On the prophetic utterance thing ... as much as I tend to be suspicious these days of claims for apparent prophetic giftings - at least in the way they are popularly framed - I would add, to balance out Raptor Eye's comment - that I have rarely heard these things delivered in a 'trance-like state'.
Generally, what has passed for prophecy in the circles I've moved in has been delivered in a relatively calm and rational manner - not with lots of shouting or 'Thus saith the Lords' and so on.
That said, I still think the bulk of it was wishful thinking and the stringing together of pious thoughts and platitudes, but I still believe that the genuine article can and does occur from time to time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
To me, quenching the Spirit is always about the fellowship, the community.
If there is a lovely atmosphere in church, if good things are happening in the congregation, if beneficial changes are coming and by and large people feel that God is 'smiling' on the fellowship - if someone comes along and refuses to join in, starts to speak behind people's backs, criticises the congregation's best efforts, demands his/her own way, wants things back how they want it - that's quenching the Spirit. What can happen is that by causing problems, creating division, raising doubts, the trouble-maker detracts from what the Holy Spirit has been doing and people lose their vision.
When the fire burns, there's always someone who wants to call the fire brigade/department - and it's usually someone who is frightened they won't get their own way.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Mudfrog - The people you describe left my church two weeks ago. It is only the impending renewal of my enhanced CRB check, which stops me dancing naked in the pulpit, singing 'Allelujah'. I would certainly say that they 'quenched the Spirit', although I suspect that phrase also has much broader application (such as is found in Polly's and Raptor's definitions).
I think Gamaliel makes some good points, especially about conflicting leadings and prophetic utterances....and I hope to return to them. The OP is rather thought provoking, though I start with the assumption that my understanding of 'quenching' is unavoidably subjective. I imagine that preferring my own agenda to God's constitutes quenching, but only because I think that is perhaps the most likely thing to hinder the Spirit's work.
Boogie - I can't imagine why you think God would want to curb your exuberance. As someone who takes an unnatural - even perverse - pleasure in being grumpy, I expect he sees people like you as a breath of fresh air...at least compared to people like me.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The word σβέννυμι (Gk. quench) is very literal. It means "extinguish, to put out, to stop burning". So the first thing to establish, I think, is why this particular metaphor is used concerning the person of the Holy Spirit. The natural reading seems to be that something about the Holy Spirit (either his immediate presence or an effect his work) can be compared to fire: which in turn is probably a reference to Pentecost.
The presence of Holy Spirit, like the presence of fire, is powerful and unequivocal. In the case of 1 Thess. 5:16-21 the work of the Spirit which can be quenched by human agency is joy, prayer, thanksgiving and prophecy. Joyless, prayerless, congregations of ungrateful people who despise the idea of God speaking directly to them via supernatural means are congregations which have quenched the Holy Spirit.
[ 12. November 2012, 06:01: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Or (and closely linked), congregations that insist on doing things the same way as they've "always been done" (whether that is BCP, Vineyard or anything in between) when God is prompting them to go in a different direction.
It seems that disobedience to the revealed will of God often leads to impaired relationship with him until there is repentance.
Stopping and listening to be very clear that it's God speaking rather than a leader's hobby horse is not quenching the Spirit.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not disagreeing with you daronmedway on the 'joyless' aspects and so on, but in my experience cessationists and people who, for convictions of their own, are dubious about the idea of supernatural revelations and so on - can be far from joyless.
Sure, we've all met chewing-a-brick Puritan types and cessationists who come across as if they've been chewing a wasp, but on the whole I don't see why people who are ambiguous at best about things like tongues, prophecy and so on should be dismissed as 'quenching the Spirit.'
Are Quakers quenching the Spirit because they don't, on the whole, go in for the more 'spectacular' kinds of utterances and so on - yet still believe that God can speak to and through them in 'Meeting'?
I think Mudfrog's communal aspect is a good and wise contribution too - and it can apply, I would suggest, to any ecclesial setting - whether congregational in form or more heirarchal or sacramental. It's probably a more apparent feature in a congregational setting, though, due to the particular dynamics - but I think the same principles would apply in any church context be it as low as can be or as high as a kite.
Which leads me to the issue of context ...
I am sure that there are 'cessationist' congregations around - in the terms that daronmedway is dealing with - which function very effectively and which have a wholesome atmosphere and 'spirit' as it were - withiin their own terms of reference.
I would be very wary of suggesting that such a congregation or the individuals within it were 'quenching the Spirit'. God the Holy Spirit might very well be working and - as Mudfrog has put it so very well, 'smiling' - upon that fellowship and working in a quiet and unobtrusive way.
Equally, you can find fellowships which are full of music and movement and all manner of putative spiritual gifts and prophecies and so on which are severely dysfunctional.
And plenty of nuances and wiggle-room in between.
I think, though, that the analogy of 'fire' and 'warmth' and so on is a useful one - 'my heart was strangely warmed' and so on. I think 'warmth' is a good acid test whereever or whatever tradition one is dealing with - you can feel the warmth from Christians of all persuasions and settings, it's not a monopoly of any one group, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@Gamaliel - interesting that you mention the Quakers because I've been doing quite a lot of reading and thinking about Quaker practices recently. With regard to this thread, I'd say that my impression is that they deliberately attempt to 'quench the Spirit', at least in the sense that most of us who have experienced charisma would normally understand it.
I've been in a lot of prayer and church business meetings of various kinds. But I've not ever experienced that which I'm told is part of a 'good' Quaker meeting - namely that God is listened to outwith of what people are actually saying. So the clerk (who appears to be some kind of miracle worker) is supposed to record both what is said and the 'feeling' of the meeting, which includes what is left unsaid. And there is a conscious effort to avoid listening overly hard to those who talk too much or too loudly and to listen extra-hard to small voices.
My experience of charismatic and quasi-charismatic meetings is the assumption that God speaks mostly via the loud, the spectacular, through the 'anointed' and the trained and the 'holy'. To take something which is unsaid as being from God in preference to something which is announced in a loud voice by a respected person would, I think, be considered to be quenching the spirit in almost all charismatic outfits I have ever been to.
But then there is an interesting question regarding the language of the Quakers (and here I'm really referring to the early 16, 17, 18 century English Quakers). To the charismatic ear, their talk of the 'inner Christ' sounds like talk of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not disagreeing with you daronmedway on the 'joyless' aspects and so on, but in my experience cessationists and people who, for convictions of their own, are dubious about the idea of supernatural revelations and so on - can be far from joyless.
Sure, we've all met chewing-a-brick Puritan types and cessationists who come across as if they've been chewing a wasp, but on the whole I don't see why people who are ambiguous at best about things like tongues, prophecy and so on should be dismissed as 'quenching the Spirit.'
Well, being 'ambiguous' about tongues and prophecy isn't quite the same as despising them. The word translated in the NIV as "treat with contempt" and in the ESV as "to despise" (Gk. ἐξουθενέω) is much stronger than being cautious or even circumspect. However, I would say that an attitude of ambivalence to tongues and prophecy among people who claim to continuationist in theology (something I see in Sydney Evangelicals) could qualify as quenching because it runs contrary to positively desiring them.
[ 12. November 2012, 09:39: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting - yes, I think you're right. Although I do have some caveats about the way the Quakers talk about these things ... but that could be down to me missing the point or the 'sense' of what they are saying (or not saying).
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I've only been to one Quaker meeting - it wasn't a 'business' or sessional meeting in the sense that you seem to be describing - and nothing was said - there was no 'spoken ministry' - but I did sense what they call a 'gathered silence'.
One of the elders afterwards told me that she had felt like saying something in the meeting but had restrained herself because she was someone who likes to talk and to express an opinion etc - and she felt that on this occasion it would have been her sounding off rather than necessarily what the meeting needed to hear. She told me that as an 'elder' her role was sometimes to 'elder' and vet contributions in 'vocal ministry'.
'Then this morning you have eldered yourself,' I ventured.
She smiled and grasped my arm, 'Thank you, Friend, I've never seen it that way before, you have given me something to think about ...'
I'd like to think that this was something that we both needed to hear and heed - and that it was what the Spirit was saying as it were ...
I can't prove that of course ... but it made sense to me in that context.
--------------------
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
Sorry, I cross-posted with Daronmedway in my response to the long ranger.
I suspected you might say that, daronmedway - and you see, I'd be rather more circumspect. I am rather suspicious of Sydney Anglicans for a variety of reasons, but an ambivalence about spiritual gifts in the way these things are commonly understood and practiced in contemporary charismatic circles isn't one of them.
So in that case you would have me down as someone who 'quenches' the Spirit.
You see, this is the problem I have with the more full-on charismatic approach. It makes value-judgements about everyone else and implies that they are somehow deficient unless they are 'earnestly desiring' the spiritual gifts according to their own particular understanding of these things - which they almost invariably assume to be the 'correct' biblical approach of course.
I'm not accusing you of being a charismatic bully or anything, but I would be concerned lest your approach lead in that kind of direction.
I'm in something of a cleft stick in these issues, as in many others - because whilst I subscribe to a continuationist position and do believe that there is room for the exercise of these things - so much of what passes for tongues/prophecy and so on doesn't seem particularly convincing to me and requires a shed-load of special pleading on behalf of their proponents to try to make them pass muster.
Am I making any sense?
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
My experience of charismatic and quasi-charismatic meetings is the assumption that God speaks mostly via the loud, the spectacular, through the 'anointed' and the trained and the 'holy'. To take something which is unsaid as being from God in preference to something which is announced in a loud voice by a respected person would, I think, be considered to be quenching the spirit in almost all charismatic outfits I have ever been to.
Sometimes people who are new to spirituals (charisms, offices and works) can be excitable and exuberant. Nurseries are noisy places! And that's good. But it isn't maturity.
By the same token, most of the splashing about tends to take place at the shallow end. So, again, lots of spiritual activity (e.g. manifestations etc) doesn't necessarily denote maturity or deep spirituality.
However, everyone has to start somewhere (i.e. the nursery / shallow end) and we shouldn't despise their faltering attempts. That would be what Paul calls quenching.
But I also think that maturity with regard to spirituals tends to look a lot less spectacular and happens more often in the normal run of things rather than in a 2 hour Sunday meeting.
[ 12. November 2012, 09:53: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
In my experience, disagreeing with important people (who do not even need to be 'official' leaders) is tantamount to disagreeing with God and therefore quenching the spirit.
And this happens in lots of different kinds of churches, not only the charismatic. In fact, the occasions where I've seen it blow up in the most dramatic fashion were totally against the idea that there were charismatic gifts.
Somewhere along the way we lose the conception of others as human beings and tend to elevate ourselves as mouthpieces of God. And then disagreements rapidly become something else.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel said:
So in that case you would have me down as someone who 'quenches' the Spirit.
Well I suppose you could infer that from what I said but I certainly didn't intend for you to read it that way.
quote:
You see, this is the problem I have with the more full-on charismatic approach. It makes value-judgements about everyone else and implies that they are somehow deficient unless they are 'earnestly desiring' the spiritual gifts according to their own particular understanding of these things - which they almost invariably assume to be the 'correct' biblical approach of course.
Well, it depends on whether you see 1 Cor 14.1 as an apostolic command to the church, rather than to individual believers. The first would simply mean that the whole church desires the blessing of prophetic ministry, which is what I think it means. The second reading (as a command to individuals irrespective of their connection to community) gives rise to the idea that everyone should want to be a prophet. I don't think that's what it means. There's a world of difference between desiring the presence of prophecy in the church because you want your church built up and wanting to be the one who prophesies because you want to be a prophet. To bastardise Roger McGough, 1 Cor 14 ff. doesn't mean:
The Prophet
I wanna be the prophet
I wanna be the prophet
Can I be the prophet?
Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the prophet
I'm the prophet
OK what is God saying to us?
[ 12. November 2012, 10:18: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Here are a few thoughts on this subject:
1. The work of the Holy Spirit should not be confused with the manifestation of different personality types. This is something I have encountered in a church essentially structured according to a course (with the purpose of discovering your 'gifts' in the church) based on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. The 'gifts' in question were not really charismata but activities linked to character traits.
I am not suggesting that character traits cannot be used by God, and I am certainly not suggesting that God cannot or does not use people's natural gifts. He most certainly does! However, there is a huge difference between someone who is genuinely moved by the Holy Spirit in some way or other and someone "with the right kind of personality" (usually of the ebullient kind) who is just putting on a spiritual act, and anyone whose personality "doesn't fit" - you know, the quieter, more pensive, and - shock horror - more serious kind (lack of levity being an eternally damnable sin, of course!) - is "not as spiritual" ("but we love you nonetheless!" ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) ).
Having encountered this mentality, and having seen and personally experienced its destructive long term effects on someone close to me (I won't elaborate), I have no hesitation in saying that the work of the Holy Spirit has absolutely nothing to do with personality type. A quieter, more serious person may be far more spiritual than the kind of person who is always giving the impression of being so "on fire for God".
2. The work of the Holy Spirit does NOT work against the use of logic and intellect. In fact, I would suggest that those who despise the intellect are actually quenching the Spirit. The Spirit of God is referred to as the Spirit of knowledge, wisdom and understanding (and of the "fear of the Lord") in the Bible (see Isaiah 11:2).
A refusal to think properly, a refusal to plan intelligently, a refusal to respect order - 1 Corinthians 14:33,40, and a refusal to "weep with those who weep" and have an attitude of soberness and seriousness in the things of God, is quenching the Spirit.
3. I love humour, and I think it is one of the essentials of life. But humour can also be toxic, especially in the church. There is something Spurgeon said, which ought to be plastered on the wall of every charismatic church:
quote:
We must conquer our tendency to levity. A great distinction exists between holy cheerfulness, which is a virtue, and general levity, which is a vice. There is a levity which has not enough heart to laugh, but trifles with everything; it is flippant, hollow, unreal. A hearty laugh is no more levity than a hearty cry. (Lectures to My Students, p. 212)
I observed on a number of occasions how the Holy Spirit was moving in our midst in a fellowship and then an attitude of levity seem to come from somewhere, with the effect of quenching and driving away the Spirit. I am not suggesting that the Holy Spirit only works through grim seriousness or joyless gravity, but there is a joyful and sober seriousness which is, in my view, an essential condition for not quenching the Spirit of God.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
It's important to quote a few more verses from 1 Thess 5:
quote:
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.
In other words, we should keep the (often difficult) balance between wholesale acceptance of the prophetic / spiritual and wholesale rejection.
Paul is advocating instead critical acceptance. And the sort of criteria we're meant to use (from various places in the NT) are:
- does it exalt God rather than man?
- is it in accordance with sound doctrine?
- does it point to Jesus?
- does it lead to personal and corporate holiness?
- does it build up the church?
- does it love God and others?
Applying those sort of criteria to text a prophetic utterance is not quenching the Spirit. Not applying them may well be...
[ 12. November 2012, 10:49: Message edited by: Custard ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I have to say that I find daronmedway's dismissal of over exuberance as being like play in a nursery really uncomfortable.
One of the reasons why I left charismatic groups is their inability to acknowledge to connect the dots - they tell us that these charisma are highly important and should be cherished, encouraged etc, but when they are highly over-the-top (not to mention when they're actually wrong), nobody seems to stop and reflect, and at best wave hands claiming this is just 'play' and unimportant. They just move onto to the next great spirit-filled event.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd agree, Custard ... and I also share the long ranger's discomfort with daronmedway's nursery or shallow-end analogy ... although I think there's something in it. But like all analogies it breaks down the further you stretch and apply it.
At the risk of making value judgements of my own, I suspect far too many charismatics remain in the shallow end ...
I think all Christian traditions can infantilise people, as Giles Fraser observed in The Guardian this Saturday.
I accept that daronmedway wasn't making an accusation against me as to whether I'm 'quenching the Spirit' - but equally I submit that the more full-on charismatic stance that he takes makes this kind of implication almost inevitable.
I s'pose that happens whatever route one takes - 'we are more Orthodox/Catholic/evangelical/liberal/Calvinistic/Arminian/Whatever-else-than-you' ...
That's fine, but when it gets into the tricky issue of spiritual gifts and discernment I begin to worry rather more.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I have to say that I find daronmedway's dismissal of over exuberance as being like play in a nursery really uncomfortable.
I wouldn't say I'm excusing over-exuberance or even attempting an apologetic for over-exuberance. I'm saying that over-exhuberance can be an initial - and very understandable - reaction in some people to the discovery of spirituals.
By the same token, I must say that under-exhuberance is much more problematic in the life of a church. The frosty chill of formalism in the fellowship of a church fills me with much more disgust than the occasional outburst of emotional over-exhuberance.
[ 12. November 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The frosty chill of formalism in the fellowship of a church fills me with much more disgust than the occasional outburst of emotional over-exhuberance.
Yes, God forbid anyone should ever take worship seriously...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The frosty chill of formalism in the fellowship of a church fills me with much more disgust than the occasional outburst of emotional over-exhuberance.
Yes, God forbid anyone should ever take worship seriously...
Please don't misunderstand me, Marvin. I really enjoy a good BCP Holy Communion and I'm certainly not averse to gravity, seriousness and weightiness in worship. In fact, I positively approve of it.
What I'm opposed to is a form of religiosity which a small group of individuals in a congregation imposes a set of controls or formalistic limitations on worship which are not in fact derived from the liturgy (in such settings) or a biblical theology of worship (in less liturgical settings).
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In other words, daronmedway, you find it difficult to cope with people who don't take the same approach to these issues as you do.
So, that's settled then ...
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In other words, daronmedway, you find it difficult to cope with people who don't take the same approach to these issues as you do.
So, that's settled then ...
There's an element of that, yes. But I think there's more to it than my personal preferences. There's a spiritual dynamic to worship that has more to do attitude and expectation than with liturgical style, musical taste and whatnot. I'm talking about the sort of attitude that creates an atmosphere of legalistic disapproval towards corporate participation and an expectation that God will speak to the meeting through anyone and everyone, not just the pastor/priest/eldership or just people who've been coming the longest.
[ 12. November 2012, 17:34: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's an element of that, yes.
Not 'an element of' but 'totally explained by'.
quote:
But I think there's more to it than my personal preferences. There's a spiritual dynamic to worship that has more to attitude and expectation than with liturgical style and whatnot. I'm talking about the sort of attitude that creates an atmosphere if legalistic disapproval towards corporate participation and an expectation that God will speak to the meeting through anyone and everyone, not just the pastor/priest/eldership or just people who've been coming the longest.
I don't think you are using the word 'worship' in any sense that I recognise. And you're just painting your own personal preference as being more godly by blackening others.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
How does this mesh with the sin against the Holy Spirit that can't be forgiven? I always took that one as people attributing to Satan the works of the Holy Spirit that show Jesus to be the Messiah. On that particular point, if you reject the notion that Christ works in the power of the Spirit, he can't be from God, and since he is the only way God has provided for salvation, you can't be forgiven.
Quenching the Spirit isn't of the same magnitude - Paul was writing to Christians so he definitely ain't saying that quenching the Spirit is putting your salvation at risk. The practical outcome is the same mind. The Pharisess didn't want Jesus doing anything supernatural. When the Spirit is quenched, the supernatural is snuffed out.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's an element of that, yes.
Not 'an element of' but 'totally explained by'.
quote:
But I think there's more to it than my personal preferences. There's a spiritual dynamic to worship that has more to attitude and expectation than with liturgical style and whatnot. I'm talking about the sort of attitude that creates an atmosphere if legalistic disapproval towards corporate participation and an expectation that God will speak to the meeting through anyone and everyone, not just the pastor/priest/eldership or just people who've been coming the longest.
I don't think you are using the word 'worship' in any sense that I recognise. And you're just painting your own personal preference as being more godly by blackening others.
Why don't you tell me about your view of worship and why you sense that it so differs from mine? And then perhaps you might like to try explaining who you think I'm "blackening" - and why you think such a thing - because it's certainly not my intention.
[ 12. November 2012, 18:45: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
I observed on a number of occasions how the Holy Spirit was moving in our midst in a fellowship and then an attitude of levity seem to come from somewhere, with the effect of quenching and driving away the Spirit. I am not suggesting that the Holy Spirit only works through grim seriousness or joyless gravity, but there is a joyful and sober seriousness which is, in my view, an essential condition for not quenching the Spirit of God.
I think that kind of levity is a product of nervousness. After all, the Spirit is big and powerful, and might lead us in directions we might feel we can't handle. So we laugh nervously. That makes us feel more "normal".
The Spirit might be quenched for the moment, but I doubt gives up on us. We just have to get used to a new "normal". One that includes a big Spirit in the room. quote:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Gal. 5:22
I think the Spirit shares that fruit by both by empowering us and by example.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sometimes people who are new to spirituals (charisms, offices and works) can be excitable and exuberant. Nurseries are noisy places! And that's good. But it isn't maturity.
By the same token, most of the splashing about tends to take place at the shallow end. So, again, lots of spiritual activity (e.g. manifestations etc) doesn't necessarily denote maturity or deep spirituality.
However, everyone has to start somewhere (i.e. the nursery / shallow end) and we shouldn't despise their faltering attempts. That would be what Paul calls quenching.
I agree that everyone has to start somewhere, and that however old they are in human terms people who come to faith in Christ begin as children spiritually and progress through adolescence to maturity. It doesn't necessarily follow that they will be noisy or disruptive, but patience and encouragement from the community is important so that they do mature. If this is not forthcoming, and the new Christian falls away, isn't that millstone territory?
I think it a shame that the phrase 'born again' is often applied in a derogatory way to a 'type' of Christian to be kept at arm's length, one who is uncontrolled? Aren't all Christians born again in the spirit?
If they're born again, does it necessarily mean that they're filled with the Holy Spirit?
Does whether or not we're quenching the Holy Spirit in an individual depend upon whether they are filled with the Holy Spirit in the first place? If they're not, but the Holy Spirit is working to bring them to that place, any stumbling-block we put in the way is likely to put the fire out in any case.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I've ported this across from another thread because it seems better suited to this one.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not advocating inertia.
I don't go around speaking in tongues and prophesying in the way I used to - although I could still do so - or at least an approximation ? - if I wanted to.
I don't think I'm any the less 'charismatic' for that. It's just expressed in different ways.
Forgive me, but you seem so binary in your approach that you don't appear to recognise that.
I've known of people who have apparently started doing that sort of thing spontaneously and without any pressure or coercion - I'm thinking of a very cerebral university professor and also of an Anglo-Catholic nun ...
Personally, I find their accounts more convincing than those where pressure, suggestibility and peer-cues etc have been brought to bear in a rather Derren Brown type way.
Although I wouldn't rule out the reality or the genuineness of such experiences in those settings in a blanket way.
The rather Arminian Church of the Nazarene had a stated position on 'tongues' which went, 'Do not forbid, do not promote' - and I suspect the Salvation Army would take a similar line, as Mudfrog has outlined.
Is that evidence of spiritual inertia?
I don't think so, it sounds to me to be more in accordance with a 'reformed' or Calvinist position than your own - even though you are avowedly reformed in your approach.
There's a certain irony there, don't you think?
I do believe that an atmosphere of stubborn inertia in a congregation is a strong indicator that the Holy Spirit is being habitually quenched. The inertia that I'm talking about isn't necessarily resistance to innovation; it can come the form of an insidious form of spiritual pride which refuses to engage in prayer, social action, fellowship, mission etc.
quote:
I'm sorry, but I don't know you in real life and may be completely out-of-order here - but I do wonder whether - given the strength of personality and forthrightness of the views you express on these boards - you are yourself in danger of being coercive in your ministry and practice.
Just saying ...
Apologies to Hosts and to yourself if I've stepped over the mark - but that's the impression I'm picking up here.
I think there are indeed times when I cross the line between exhortation to coercion. It's very hard not to when you're in a position of leadership.
Drawing attention to dangers and threats as a means of inspiring or promoting change is part of a leader's responsibility. This can easily look like coercion. And it can often feel like coercion.
However, if the change which is being advocated really is necessary for the health and growth of the church then sometimes people need to be coaxed, spurred on, exhorted and yes sometimes even coerced.
According to one of these Myers-Briggs type Team Leadership Questionnaire that I completed at a recent diocesan training weekend my dominant leadership style is Democratic/Authoritative and my backup style is Coercive/Pacesetting. So your insight is at least in the ball park.
However, if you will permit me to push back at you slightly, could it not be possible that you are perhaps constitutionally inclined towards stubborn intransigence? With respect, I get the impression that you would be quite a difficult person to lead because of your tendency to gainsay from a position of critical inertia.
It could simply be that my leadership style combined with your participation style would always be a recipe for disaster. It's not that I'm a nasty, abusive leader or that you are a stubborn, over-critical naysayer. It's just that we would naturally irritate each other. The solution of course being bearing with each other in love and extending forgiveness and forbearance if and when we clash.
[ 13. November 2012, 11:08: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks daronmedway - the discussion is better on this thread and I don't mind you pushing back at me in the least ...
I think you're right. If we were in the same fellowship we would end up killing each other.
That doesn't mean that you are overly authoritarian nor that I am an intransigent, stubborn git.
I've actually been quite compliant over the years - which is why I've ended up being goosed out of an awful lot of money through tithes and offerings ...
Seriously, I think my personality type is one which combines stubbornness and questioning with loyalty, grit and fortitude under fire - and there's a vatic and romantic/poetic strain there that can make me quite suggestible and susceptible too, at times.
Yes, I think I am a difficult person to lead. I'm bolshy and seen as 'challenging' by bosses and people in authority because I question things. But I don't see that as a negative nor do I see it stopping the job from being done.
But I would say that.
If I'm at all critical it's from the position of being a 'critical friend'. Sometimes that doesn't always play well - particularly with leaders who may themselves be insecure.
With secure leaders who can live with ambiguity and with not everyone being on the same page as them 100% of the time, it's not a problem.
I can see what you're getting at about certain congregations being 'stiff-necked' or resistant - but equally I'm not always convinced that there is any single 'programme' or direction that necessarily represents the will of God - in those terms. That's where things get tricky.
On all sides, though, I think we all need to be wary of value-judgements and so on.
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
With regard to worship. I'm pretty convinced that nothing that anyone does inside a church building can be exclusively considered to be worship. Hence speaking of a 'time of worship' or 'place of worship' is entirely fallacious. What we are actually doing is praising, singing, reflecting and so on.
With regard to the Holy Spirit, on the days that I have Orthodox Trinitarian urges (which are increasingly irregular these days), I kinda think that God the Holy Spirit is unable to be quenched and moves in the ways that he moves.
Further that exhuberance cannot be excused and that those who claim to speak for God and are not (for example who give words and prophecies which are not fulfilled) bring themselves and their religion into disrepute. Either they are liars or fantasists. And I'm afraid I don't believe that God speaks through fantasists - because they're a deeply unreliable source. Nobody can tell if they're speaking from God or not, hence it makes most sense to totally disregard everything they say.
But then I have plenty of other things I don't believe in either - including concepts of ordination, sacraments and leadership.
Most of the time I feel like an outside looking into a group who are only interested in self delusion. Rarely do I feel anything these days approaching common ground with people who feel that they must behave in this way.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What I'm opposed to is a form of religiosity which a small group of individuals in a congregation imposes a set of controls or formalistic limitations on worship which are not in fact derived from the liturgy (in such settings) or a biblical theology of worship (in less liturgical settings).
Well, that can cut every way. There's no difference in type between a church refusing to accept any kind of tongues/prophecy in their services and a church insisting that there has to be a time of tongues/prophecy in their service. Both are imposing a control or formalistic limitation on their worship.
One could say the same regarding the approaches of congregations that refuse to have any traditional, organ-and-choir-led hymns and congregations that refuse to have a guitar within 100 feet of their building.
They're either all "quenching the spirit" or none of them are.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What I'm opposed to is a form of religiosity which a small group of individuals in a congregation imposes a set of controls or formalistic limitations on worship which are not in fact derived from the liturgy (in such settings) or a biblical theology of worship (in less liturgical settings).
Well, that can cut every way. There's no difference in type between a church refusing to accept any kind of tongues/prophecy in their services and a church insisting that there has to be a time of tongues/prophecy in their service. Both are imposing a control or formalistic limitation on their worship.
I don't think the Apostle Paul would agree with that assessment. His advice concerning tongues found in 1 Cor.14:39 says, "So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." That suggests to me that forbidding speaking in tongues runs contrary to Apostolic teaching.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I'm curious, daronmedway, about how the speaking of tongues is handled in your church. I read through the entire 1 Corinthians 14 and Paul seemed to emphasize that unless there was an interpreter, the speaking of tongues was more a matter of private devotions. Since unless there was an interpreter, no one else got the value of it.
quote:
1 Corin 14: 27 If some speak in a tongue, then let two or at most three speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 However, if there is no interpreter, then they should keep quiet in the meeting. They should speak privately to themselves and to God.
Do modern charismatic churches follow this lead?
--------------------
"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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm curious, daronmedway, about how the speaking of tongues is handled in your church. I read through the entire 1 Corinthians 14 and Paul seemed to emphasize that unless there was an interpreter, the speaking of tongues was more a matter of private devotions. Since unless there was an interpreter, no one else got the value of it.
quote:
1 Corin 14: 27 If some speak in a tongue, then let two or at most three speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 However, if there is no interpreter, then they should keep quiet in the meeting. They should speak privately to themselves and to God.
Do modern charismatic churches follow this lead?
We don't speak in tongues much in my church. There has been only one utterance in tongues in a public meeting in the last four years. Prophecy is getting more common in the public meetings and there is generally an "open floor" policy for anyone who wants to bring a revelation for consideration by the body. If anyone did speak in tongues during the meeting I'd ask us all to pray for an interpretation. If one came, we'd consider it, and if it was good we'd pray in English about what had been said. If no interpretation came we'd just carry on with the meeting.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I'd broadly go along with your definition, Polly. But how would you see these things working out in practice?
How, for instance, would you know that you weren't following the 'voice' of the Spirit, as it were, over a particular issue?
How would we reconcile the Spirit apparently leading different people to different conclusions - over issues like women's ordination, for instance, to name a biggie?
I'm thinking smaller scale than that, though.
Gamaliel I am sorry as I haven't replied to your questions and that is rude and so apologies.
I would say that it would be extremely difficult to be prescribe a solution or give an definitive answer.
I think we have our own measuring rod (the Bible) to weigh up whatever we feel the Spirit is leading(whether we feel he is speaking to us through silence, prophecy, dreams, pictures or some of the ancient Christian Spiritual disciplines) us to do. I would add that the commandments to love God and our neighbour are a more specific framework to use.
Tradition can also be (not always though) a useful tool to use for discernment.
Then as others have mentioned the Body of Christ have a part to play. As a Baptist the forum for this is the Church Meeting but I also use my Diaconate as well.
In all this I would reject a hard and fast way of being able to discern the Spirit's voice and the above would limit the opportunities to quench the Spirit but there's no 100% method to do this.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No need to apologise, Polly - but thanks for doing so and thanks for replying.
I've been involved with Baptist churches in the past so broadly go along with what you are saying - although I'd probably give more room for tradition/Tradition these days ...
... with caveats, of course.
I don't honestly feel that I'm 'sola scriptura' any more - at least to all practical intents and purposes. Without seeking to pick a fight or cause offence, I find most 'sola scriptura' appeals to be fairly two-dimensional - although on the other hand, I find some appeals to Tradition to go further than 3-D or 4-D into some kind of multi-dimensional universe that I don't recognise ...
But essentially I'm in broad agreement and would suggest - on the whole - that the Baptist way offers more checks-and-balances than other strands I've come across within independent charismatic evangelicalism.
I tend to be in something of a cleft stick on all of these issues.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
