|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Prayer as a 'force'; where did this come from?
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I've noticed that a lot of charismatic—evangelicals in particular (though by no means exclusively) perceive a 'power' in prayer and/or faith in themselves; like a kind of 'force' in Star Wars, where if only you learn how to 'do it right', then you can effect God's will. This misapprehension is so pervasive that I once heard the 'prayer minister' (or some such title) at HTB in London ask the congo to 'aim a beam of prayer' at someone. This is, of course, an extreme and wacky example, but I get the impression that this notion of both prayer and faith as a 'power' in and of themselves is now fairly common in such circles.
To complicate matters further, it seems linked, at least in part, to the ideas behind advocates of the Prosperity Gospel. This seemed like a pretty neat explanation of such errors.
How common is this pattern?
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Fortunately not as common as it used to be, I believe. It seems to have originated with the whole Word of Faith movement of Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland et al, and their misuse of faith.
A recurring theme in Copeland’s works is the idea of faith, and particularly the spoken word of faith, as a force in itself – hence the term ‘Faith-Word Movement’. It would seem that he would interpret the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 - the Greek word hypostasis used here – in terms of faith as some kind of elemental power in its own right. By speaking words of faith, the believer can bring things into being, can cause events to come to pass. quote:
Speak out God’s words until they take on form and substance and become a reality in your life.
- Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, ‘From Faith to Faith’ reading for April 14, referring to Hebrews 11:3
With specific reference to the above, the definition of faith expounded by Kenneth Copeland is simply theologically incorrect. The word used in Hebrews 11:1 to describe what faith is, hypostasis, literally means ‘substance’, but it has connotations of ‘state of thinking’ and is used in the New Testament to mean ‘assurance’ or ‘certainty’ and refers to an attitude of heart or mind rather than a substance or force having an independent existence (cf. Hebrews 3:14, where translation of hypostasis as ‘force’ does not fit): quote:
In the context of Hebrews 11:1 [hypostasis] means an assured impression, a mental realizing”. Far from being some tangible material or energetic force, faith is a channel of living trust stretching from man to God.
- Hendrik H. Hanegraff and Erwin M. de Castro, “What’s wrong with the Faith Movement? Part Two: the Teachings of Kenneth Copeland”, copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O.Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693, p.4. (It should however be pointed out that Hanegraff in other work such as ‘Counterfeit Revival’ also attacks the charismatic movement in general as being false, so one has to take his criticisms with a pinch of salt; nevertheless, the points about Copeland have some weight. Both the CRI and Hanegraff also have a respected track record of exposing fringe cults.)
Other translators more qualified than Copeland – Biblical compilers – render hypostasis thus: “being sure” (NIV), “to be sure” (TEV) and “assurance” (NASB). With Kenneth Copeland’s definition of faith/hypostasis, we are back to ‘Star Wars’ and ‘The Force’; an impersonal power that exists independently and has no need of a deity, thus eliminating man’s dependence on God – who needs God when you have faith?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Many thanks Matt—very helpful! It still seems so common here in the UK—I suspect that it is, more or less, widely accepted in American Evo-Charo circles (if my experience is anything to go by).
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
A form of this idea operates in almost every church I've ever attended (possibly not to the extent of claiming it is a force which can be directed, though).
Seems to me to be a natural extension of the idea that God changes his mind when you put to him an argument that it'd be better if something (illness, death, health etc) didn't happen. Not to far from there to claiming you're a Jedi knight operating with a special power given to you by the Almighty.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Th idea that a prayer works rather like a light sabre is clearly daft.
By contrast, the belief that prayer is effective has a pretty solid pedigree.
There is this, for example. Which implies some connections between confession, prayer, healing and righteousness. How all that works together is another matter, which seems to me to be contained within the doctrine of grace.
Probably more appropriate to Kerygmania, but I did look more closely at the scripture from the book of James. For those who like to check out the "Nearly Infallible Version", particularly the use of the word "powerful", you can do so here. The Greek "energeo" may be translated as "putting forth power".
So there's nothing wrong in the belief in powerful and effective praying, but a lot wrong in believing that we're somehow equipped with prayer "light-sabres". In so far as there is "power" at work, traditional belief teaches that it is God's power, mediated by His grace, through faithful prayers. That seems to be a balanced way of looking at it.
(xposted with the first three responders)
[ 17. September 2012, 09:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Barnabas62: Th idea that a prayer works rather like a light sabre is clearly daft.
(Well, I think it would be pretty cool. Wooosh... amen!)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Barnabus, that sounds good, but I think that the idea of 'faith' in such circles is closely bound to this kind of 'effective' prayer. The assumption is that 'God only wants good things for you' [health, wealth and happiness], if you don't get them it is likely because you lack faith. Faith is seen as the kind of battery or motor for prayer.
I kept my mouth shut, but when I raised some concerns about my job my wife told me that God's plan is that only good things happen to me and in order for that to work, I have to have faith. I know just where she hears this sort of thing, but decided to discuss it just yet. If it comes from the pulpit of HTB, it must be true.
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
This idea is actually quite widespread, even among people who, if they actually engaged some critical thinking for a moment, should surely know better. For example, it seems to lie behind medical studies on the efficacy of intercessory prayer, such as the headline-grabbing MANTRA II study a few years back. (To which I'm eternally grateful as it gave me some of the subject matter for my MA dissertation!)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Komensky, I think you're quite right not to buy into such views. There's a need for a theology of suffering working in harmony with notions of blessing and healing. Else we trivialise the very real and stark suffering of many believing people.
It all seems linked currently with "Bill Johnson-bethel-isms", which seem to fly in the face of the traditional beliefs about the kingdom. When we pray "your kingdom come", do we do so believing, with tradition, that the kingdom is, and is not (or not yet)? Bill Johnson seems to believe that this traditional understanding is a kind of failure of nerve. The argument seems to go like something this.
"We pray 'if it be your will' and mean 'well, really, we think they probably won't get healed - or blessed with a new job - or whatever'. That's a cop out."
For my part, I think such overweening self-confidence seems to fly in the face of orthodox understandings of God's sovereignty and wisdom.
Bad things happen to good people. Which means neither that we shouldn't pray nor that we should believe that all our prayers will somehow "do the necessary" as we see it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"We pray 'if it be your will' and mean 'well, really, we think they probably won't get healed - or blessed with a new job - or whatever'. That's a cop out."
I wonder if people who say this would be happy to pray, "Lord, I want X Y Z, regardless of whether it's your will or not"?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
The problem with this kind of talk is not that prayer is just wishful thinking - that might well have an effect, if only in a mental placebo way.
The problem is that there is an implicit understanding of Blessing - namely that the prayer is linked to effects which is linked to God which is linked to him-loving-us. So we get the notion that God must really love us because A got better, B got a job, the money for C was raised and so on.
Which is all very well, except that those who did not experience the answers to prayer of A B and C are relegated to a 'not-blessed' category (explicitly or subconsciously).
And the ridiculous thing is that the teaching on blessing from much of the New Testament is totally reversed. The things we consider blessings, according to Jesus, are not blessings. The things we should earnestly seek are the things we would not normally consider blessings.
And this has all kinds of implications. I think the Blessing teaching (which is a unspoken variant of the Prosperity gospel) is very widespread and reflected in the practices of many western Christians.
[edit, changed notation due to potential confusion with other posters)
[ 17. September 2012, 10:11: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Also the idea that God is only going to let good things happen to you, if only you have the exact right amount and type of faith, is daft. It spits in the face of every Christian martyr. It is the sort of self-indulgent pabulum that could only be thought up in a time and place where Christians have it pretty easy. It's a philosophy of first-world ease, not fit for the real world that most humans live in. It wouldn't last a minute under real persecution, like under the Soviets. Flee from such nonsense. It is antiChristian.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I've got a slightly different take on this. Note how in the New Testament all (I think) the prayers regarding healing and the like are in the form 'be healed' rather than 'Lord, please heal this person'; and not just when Jesus is doing the healing but with the disciples too.
This implies, to me, that the disciples were exercising some power within themselves, rather than simply asking God to bring about the healing. Of course, the power came from God and his power within them, but I do think it shows we need to exercise the power of God. We don't simply ask God to demonstrate his power.
I doubt I'd go as far as talking of a 'beam of prayer' but I can see what they're getting at, I think...
--------------------
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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Kevin, if it were true that the disciples were exercising some 'power within themselves' then much of the last 2000 of theology and understanding is pretty much useless. God's power does not rely on—at all—human prayer or 'power' or faith.
Raising hands in prayer or blessing is a symbol—you are not channelling some kind of force with your hands and arms acting as transmitters or receptors. Yet that's what a lot of people seem to think.
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Komensky
It is NOT new at all, go and read the book of Job and you will find his friends extending exactly the same argument. Look at the parable of the man born Blind the disciples (yeh that crew) ask "Is he blind because of his sin or that of his parents?" the implication being that to suffer that then something wrong must have been done. In other words I think this idea is very common amongst humans.
Few move onto prayer as relationship and being as much about listening as talking.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
What a great thread topic, this has been bugging me for years. And not just about prayer, but about faith and grace as well. So many people treating these things as things-in-their-own-right rather than things that are only of value when connected with the person prayed to, the one believed in, the one who is-being-gracious.
The grace thing particularly bothers me (forgive the tangent?). How can anyone have "grace" as some sort of substance separable and separate from the God-who-is-gracious? I have to keep kicking myself not to fall into this trap, which I think might be possibly caused by linguistics. I mean, if the language lets you think of it as a noun rather than an adjective or verb (grace instead of gracious, prayers instead of praying), then it becomes fatally easy to treat it mentally as an end-in-itself. At least it does for me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
My OH wondered what would happen if the 'beam of prayer' missed. One can imagine Fred in bed getting sicker and sicker, whilst Jim in the bed next door gets miraculously better..
--------------------
"..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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"We pray 'if it be your will' and mean 'well, really, we think they probably won't get healed - or blessed with a new job - or whatever'. That's a cop out."
I wonder if people who say this would be happy to pray, "Lord, I want X Y Z, regardless of whether it's your will or not"?
Regrettably yes: take this marvellous nugget from the Copelands:
quote:
If you’re sitting around waiting for Jesus to decide to heal you…for Jesus to decide to help you…for Jesus to decide to prosper you and give you victory…you’re in for a long wait. Because that’s not Jesus’ decision. It’s yours!
- ibid., reading for October 30th
So, Man is a god and God is merely his servant.... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Raising hands in prayer or blessing is a symbol—you are not channelling some kind of force with your hands and arms acting as transmitters or receptors.
I think there's a sense in which we do 'channel some kind of force'. We are conduits for God's power, we express God's will on earth, we are the agents of God's kingdom - are those statements controversial?
I mean, think about the people through history who have allegedly done remarkable things for God's glory. Most of them, if not all, led or lead lives of great discipline and devotion, which I'd explain as making them more able to 'channel' God's power. Without God we are nothing, but God has chosen to act through his people and we can either go along with or hinder this by the way we live, ISTM.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starbug
Shipmate
# 15917
|
Posted
At Easter People some years ago (the Methodist version of Spring Harvest), one of the preachers instructed us to direct 'arrow prayers' at the people we came into contact with. Rather like aiming lasers at them. I've heard of 'shooting arrow prayers' at God before, but not at other people. I think I tried it briefly, but felt uncomfortable with it and gave up.
--------------------
“Oh the pointing again. They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?” ― The Day of the Doctor
Posts: 1189 | From: West of the New Forest | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Proof at least that Benny Hinn works that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1093Xd-Qwk
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I went to a charismatic meeting in the mid 70s, where the speaker encouraged us to raise one hand up to heaven as we prayed, and stretch the other out towards the person we were praying for. In that way we would "channel the power of God" into them. Even then I was mildly amused by this - except for the sight of the 8 yr old boy whose mother had cancer. He was desperately moving his heavenward hand around to catch the power, so that his mum would be healed.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I went to a charismatic meeting in the mid 70s, where the speaker encouraged us to raise one hand up to heaven as we prayed, and stretch the other out towards the person we were praying for. In that way we would "channel the power of God" into them. Even then I was mildly amused by this - except for the sight of the 8 yr old boy whose mother had cancer. He was desperately moving his heavenward hand around to catch the power, so that his mum would be healed.
This is a heart-breaking example of just how asinine the concept is. As a symbol, extending your hands, etc., can be very powerful for those watching or doing it; but we are not like old TV antennas, which, if twisted and held just right will get a clear signal. That seems to me a catastrophic theological blunder.
Churches like HTB have gone in very, very heavy for this sort of approach.
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think there's a sense in which we do 'channel some kind of force'. We are conduits for God's power, we express God's will on earth, we are the agents of God's kingdom - are those statements controversial?
Thanks for these comments, I've been trying to arrange my thoughts in answer. First, I think there are upsetting issues with regard to the power relationship in churches which use this language. When we call ourselves conduits, we appear to be putting ourselves in the position of God's earthly guttering, directing the flow and deciding who gets the blessings of God. I think there are very difficult issues for those who claim to speak for God, never mind act for him.
Second, I think your question seems to suggest that we are (in some way) directing God rather than us being subservient beings and him being the Almighty.
Third, whilst there is some basis for this kind of 'power direction' in the New Testament, it strikes me that the kind of kingdom we're agents to be of is not one where this kind of thing happens. So I'd have to answer that, yes, your comments are controversial and actually wrong.
quote:
I mean, think about the people through history who have allegedly done remarkable things for God's glory. Most of them, if not all, led or lead lives of great discipline and devotion, which I'd explain as making them more able to 'channel' God's power. Without God we are nothing, but God has chosen to act through his people and we can either go along with or hinder this by the way we live, ISTM.
Again, I don't like the word channel. Nor the implication that God somehow needs us. Nor really that he only uses the devout. In fact, I find the whole notion pretty objectionable.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is an excellent thread, and it helps me to put into context various Christians I have met over the last 30 years, who seemed to be expressing something like 'prayer - kapow!'
This has always puzzled me, and disturbed me, but I could never quite identify why.
There is some kind of reification of both prayer and the person praying, so that they become a 'force field' or something like that.
I suppose it is actually dechristianizing Christianity in some ways.
[ 17. September 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I've got a slightly different take on this. Note how in the New Testament all (I think) the prayers regarding healing and the like are in the form 'be healed' rather than 'Lord, please heal this person'; and not just when Jesus is doing the healing but with the disciples too.
This implies, to me, that the disciples were exercising some power within themselves, rather than simply asking God to bring about the healing. Of course, the power came from God and his power within them, but I do think it shows we need to exercise the power of God. We don't simply ask God to demonstrate his power.
I doubt I'd go as far as talking of a 'beam of prayer' but I can see what they're getting at, I think...
Yes, and if you point your hand at somebody and say "be healed" and they aren't healed IMMEDIATELY, then you ain't got that particular power.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Although I admit it wasn't very helpful, I once suggested to someone that they add the words "by the power of Greyskull… I have THE POWER!" at the end of each prayer.
I guess telling people that they have no magic powers might not be as appealing.
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think there are upsetting issues with regard to the power relationship in churches which use this language... I think there are very difficult issues for those who claim to speak for God, never mind act for him.
Yes, agreed! But I'm struck by how clear the voices of the New Testament are; prayer for healing is done by command, not by request. I don't think we should just ignore that.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Second, I think your question seems to suggest that we are (in some way) directing God rather than us being subservient beings and him being the Almighty.
Again, I'm with you to a large extent. But, looking at the story of the Bible again, don't we see God delegating much of his power to human beings? Right from the start, the first people are told to tend the garden, subdue the earth, name the animals. One could describe all of this as bringing order to the world, and likewise all the miraculous stuff in the New Testament; it's about being fit to be a channel of God's power to bring order and restoration to a broken world.
There are problems with all this, for sure. Not least the question of why so many of our prayers (whether in request or command form) seem not to be effective. But the other main approach, that it's completely and directly up to God whether any given prayer gets answered, has big problems of its own, right? So I think the line I'm trying to explain is at least worth giving some credence.
BTW, that Benny Hinn video I found hysterically funny and tragic all at once! I can't see any place in God's service for that sort of 'look at me, the mighty man of God on the stage' exhibitionism, bleurgh.
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
There are problems with all this, for sure. Not least the question of why so many of our prayers (whether in request or command form) seem not to be effective. But the other main approach, that it's completely and directly up to God whether any given prayer gets answered, has big problems of its own, right? So I think the line I'm trying to explain is at least worth giving some credence.
I don't believe in prayer like that. At all. We can't tell God what to do, if we think we can, we're mistaken. I know that few Christians agree with me, though.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
I don't think there is a theological answer that explains everything here. Clearly faith (a trusting confidence in the goodness of God and Jesus) is something Christ was looking for. Again and again he mentions faith or the lack of it in the gospels. However there are limits - God is not going to decide to abolish death for all humanity today if we only had 'enough faith'. It operates within God's sovereignty, and rules he has set himself. Some of these rules we know about , and some we probably don't.
That said, we are required to have faith. Without it God seems to be more limited in what he can do. Jesus couldn't get many people healed in his home town due to their unbelief. By contrast the Roman centurion saw his servant healed by believing Jesus would heal him remotely - even though he never actually went out to meet Jesus. Had he not done this, would the servant have been healed ? Probably not.
Its not unreasonable to believe that the same Jesus who reacted in this way to faith 2,000 years ago is likely to react the same way today. You can't reduce this stuff to a formula, because its really about a relationship between us and God. Faith is about who we think he is, not about us trying to do something to persuade him. If you do believe something you don't bother asking God time and time again for it or getting hundreds of Christians to pray together in a prayer chain ! Once is enough.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
I don't think there is a theological answer that explains everything here. Clearly faith (a trusting confidence in the goodness of God and Jesus) is something Christ was looking for. Again and again he mentions faith or the lack of it in the gospels. However there are limits - God is not going to decide to abolish death for all humanity today if we only had 'enough faith'. It operates within God's sovereignty, and rules he has set himself. Some of these rules we know about , and some we probably don't.
The account is not consistent. Sometimes he admonishes people for their lack of faith, sometimes he rewards and heals people even with their lack of faith.
It largely depends on which gospel you're reading (he says quietly).
quote:
That said, we are required to have faith. Without it God seems to be more limited in what he can do. Jesus couldn't get many people healed in his home town due to their unbelief. By contrast the Roman centurion saw his servant healed by believing Jesus would heal him remotely - even though he never actually went out to meet Jesus. Had he not done this, would the servant have been healed ? Probably not.
A strange idea, but you're right it is there.
quote:
Its not unreasonable to believe that the same Jesus who reacted in this way to faith 2,000 years ago is likely to react the same way today. You can't reduce this stuff to a formula, because its really about a relationship between us and God. Faith is about who we think he is, not about us trying to do something to persuade him. If you do believe something you don't bother asking God time and time again for it or getting hundreds of Christians to pray together in a prayer chain ! Once is enough.
How do you know that? If you believe in the God who knows and cares about you, why do you ask at all?
--------------------
"..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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I thought this comment from an Anglican vicar was rather succinct and correct.
quote:
The prosperity gospel teaches that God’s miraculous work is necessarily tied to the strength of human belief. The Gospels show this to be a lie. While Jesus at times requires that people trust in his power to heal before healing, at other times he simply decides to heal regardless. Dead people, for example, do not have the power to name nor claim anything. And yet Jesus raises them (Luke 7:11-17). And he decides to heal people who neither ask for it nor believe it can happen (John 5:1-9). God’s power to heal and deliver does not depend on human faith.
It rightly highlights the selfishness of this approach and how it became so closely tied to the prosperity gospel error.
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the danger is that it becomes an ego-trip, whereby the strength of my own needs and desires are paramount. God must reply to me, as I really really want him to.
Again, I think that dechristianizes Christianity, and replaces it with a 'prosthetic God', to use Freud's term.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think there are upsetting issues with regard to the power relationship in churches which use this language... I think there are very difficult issues for those who claim to speak for God, never mind act for him.
Yes, agreed! But I'm struck by how clear the voices of the New Testament are; prayer for healing is done by command, not by request. I don't think we should just ignore that.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Second, I think your question seems to suggest that we are (in some way) directing God rather than us being subservient beings and him being the Almighty.
Again, I'm with you to a large extent. But, looking at the story of the Bible again, don't we see God delegating much of his power to human beings? Right from the start, the first people are told to tend the garden, subdue the earth, name the animals. One could describe all of this as bringing order to the world, and likewise all the miraculous stuff in the New Testament; it's about being fit to be a channel of God's power to bring order and restoration to a broken world.
Yes, but at no stage is there even a hint of God being subject to Man in the way the earth might be as described above. That's my fundamental problem with the WoF people - they create a subjected, servant god who is impotent to act unless we give him our gracious permission. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...at no stage is there even a hint of God being subject to Man in the way the earth might be as described above. That's my fundamental problem with the WoF people - they create a subjected, servant god who is impotent to act unless we give him our gracious permission.
Sure, and if I gave any impression I think this then I'm sorry; that wasn't my intention.
How's this: God is absolutely free to act as he wishes, irrespective of people's faith, obedience, holiness and so on, but most of the time it seems he chooses to act through his people. And this all the more so when they are living faithful, holy lives.
--------------------
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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...at no stage is there even a hint of God being subject to Man in the way the earth might be as described above. That's my fundamental problem with the WoF people - they create a subjected, servant god who is impotent to act unless we give him our gracious permission.
Sure, and if I gave any impression I think this then I'm sorry; that wasn't my intention.
How's this: God is absolutely free to act as he wishes, irrespective of people's faith, obedience, holiness and so on, but most of the time it seems he chooses to act through his people. And this all the more so when they are living faithful, holy lives.
Kevin,
It seems that you cannot resist projecting a particular modern evangelical and charismatic understanding onto an omnipotent God. Don't try so hard--you don't have to make it fit.
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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Proof at least that Benny Hinn works that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1093Xd-Qwk
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
**[[ LIKED ]]**
I can see the video has been doctored - but not that much!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
quote:
How do you know that? If you believe in the God who knows and cares about you, why do you ask at all?
Well he did say 'ask and you shall receive'. If your not supposed to ask, why did he tell us to ?
As for the relationship bit, clearly Jesus tells his disciples before his death that he considers them friends. Its not a wild leap of faith to hope that the same might apply to us who put our trust in his name.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
quote:
How do you know that? If you believe in the God who knows and cares about you, why do you ask at all?
Well he did say 'ask and you shall receive'. If your not supposed to ask, why did he tell us to ?
As for the relationship bit, clearly Jesus tells his disciples before his death that he considers them friends. Its not a wild leap of faith to hope that the same might apply to us who put our trust in his name.
Sounds like a wild leap to me.
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Kevin,
It seems that you cannot resist projecting a particular modern evangelical and charismatic understanding onto an omnipotent God. Don't try so hard--you don't have to make it fit.
K.
You might be right, but which part of my comment did you disagree with? If you think I've got the wrong end of the stick then please show me how; there's not much I can do with an unspecific criticism like your comment above...
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
If you think I've got the wrong end of the stick then please show me how; there's not much I can do with an unspecific criticism like your comment above...
As someone who is not evangelical or charismatic, but knows (parts of both) traditions quite well, I think you are articulating commonly held beliefs. As far as I am concerned, you're trying to make round shapes fit square holes.
It is hard to be more specific in the criticism because you just seem to be reiterating the comments I criticised earlier.
--------------------
"..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've not had opportunity to post on this thread before now, but my two-happ'orth comment is that it's identified something that seems to be common to all Christian traditions - whether more 'traditional' and sacramental or more evangelical and charismatic in the contemporary sense.
And that common feature is this - a tendency to regard sacraments or particular gestures/practices and so on as somehow being 'magic' or acting as channels of the divine and the numinous. On the more Catholic side of things this tendency becomes focussed on objects and places - shrines, relics, icons etc - whereas on the evangelical charismatic side it becomes associated with 'the anointing' or the idea of spiritual power that can somehow be conveyed or passed on by the observance of particular techniques or by the exercise of faith.
Now, it's understandable how this happens and there are scriptural precedents - the handkerchief in the book of Acts, Peter's shadow falling on the sick, the bloke in the OT who was brought back to life when he was flung into a grave containing Elijah's bones ...
Add to that some apparent testimonies and experiences and bingo ...
It's confession time ... back in the day when I was a fully-paid up charismatic I sometimes felt tingles and jolts and sensations in my arm when the the 'Toronto' style stuff was about to happen. On several occasions my right arm began to shake uncontrollably so that my hand was almost like a blur - and I'd go around praying for people and laying hands on them - as far as I could with my hand shaking - and they'd fall over or start shaking themselves.
Looking back, I'm not sure how I rationalised this, but I wouldn't have expressed it in terms of my 'channelling' or transmitting something - although that was how it appeared at times. I backed off from this stuff fairly quickly when I began to feel proud of myself - 'Look at me, people fall over when I pray for them, I must have arrived ...'
Before long I'd concluded that it was a matter of nervous energy and a kind of built-up/built-in response to particular cues. I felt that it wasn't necessarily anything to do with 'anointing' and so on but physical reactions to enthusiastic religious stimuli.
This kind of thing is pretty endemic in charismatic circles, although I'm surprised (and saddened) to hear from Komensky that it seems characteristic of HTB practice.
The Vineyard seem to have promulgated this kind of thing - albeit in a milder way than some of the more full-on US outfits. Hence its popularity among Anglican charismatic evangelicals and so on.
I do believe that people can be channels of divine grace - 'make me a channel of your peace' as the Franciscan/quasi Franciscan (?) hymn has it. But I don't tend to see it as a matter of us picking up spiritual radioactivity somehow and transmitting it to other people.
I wouldn't attempt to suss out how this sort of thing works, but I think what we see in contemporary charismatic practice is a rather over-blown and over-realised attempt to build on things that might be very real at their core, but which are subject to all too human shenanigans and misunderstandings.
--------------------
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
Please allow me to explore my current thoughts on this. I'm ready to be shot down in flames ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) if they're not joined up.
Jesus came to show God to the people of the world. He didn't come to heal or to do miracles, they were part of the presentation of God. He invited them to see, hear and participate. Where they didn't accept, he didn't force the issue. Lack of acceptance showed lack of faith.
The apostles, Paul and other members of the early Church were given various gifts by God so that they too would show people God. The power wasn't theirs, but they were invited and authorised by God into specific service: "What you bind on earth", etc. For this to be effective, their relationship with God must be so closely tight that their will and God's will must be in alignment. 'Be healed' are words used in sure knowledge that God's will is to heal. God must be glorified by the event.
God still invites people to receive gifts and authorises their use within the community of the Church so that in co-operation we serve with the same purpose, to show people God. Unless we're authorised, we should not try to practice them and they should not be assumed. In fact, we must humbly approach God in every instance and be sensitive to his will.
If it is the person who is being held up as having powers rather than God, it's not God's work that's being done.
Our requests to God are more than welcome, God wants us to ask and invites us to pray for each other. Not everything can happen as we would like it to, but as we trust in God we know that all shall ultimately be well. Joint focus too is a good thing in prayer, imv. However, if it's used to try to manipulate God or other people, it's not God's work.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I also think that not having power could well be a sign of God's grace. Or being without. Or being destitute. Or being empty.
All this talk of powers and abilities makes me feel queasy.
It smacks so much of ego - look at me doing this stuff!
But what about being truly emptied out? Being stripped of your clothes, or your persona? What is that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
That's ouchy. That's also where I spend a great deal of my time, much against my will, i think because God knows I' m just the person to damn myself through pride if I had half an excuse.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
John of the Cross describes it very well, as our being at first rewarded with all kinds of interesting and exciting experiences, and then, quite often, these disappear, and one is barren.
It's not so much that this is superior, as that it seems almost inevitable, since the first set of gifts are pleasing to the ego. This is fine, but these can easily become like personal accumulations or like bank deposits.
Well, I think Mother Teresa described it pretty well, the emptiness I mean. Going off topic really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I don't think that's off-topic, I think that kind of emphasis is pertinent to what we're talking about here.
Inherent within charismatic evangelical spirituality is a kind of theandric and thaumaturgical assumption (look them up, I had to ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) that can be distilled as:
'God is a good God and the devil is a bad devil.'
Therefore, the assumption is that anything bad or negative has to be resisted and over-come and that its the role of Christians to bring healing, light, positive influences and role-models and also miraculous powers to bear in alleviating the darkness.
So far, perhaps so good ... but it soon becomes apparent that there can be an over-realised or (forgive me Eutychus) over-egged element here - whereby we are tempted to see ourselves as 'God's man of faith and power for the hour' and so on.
In fairness, the restorationist strand within contemporary evangelical charismaticdom did stress the corporate and communal aspects over the individualistic - but arguably it was too close to contemporary 'revivalism' to elide this tendency completely.
The modus-operandi of such churches encourages the extrovert and the egotistical. I used to enjoy praying long, erudite prayers and bringing 'words' and so on. I used to get a lot of affirmation out of it. Interestingly, I noticed that this tended to stop/fizzle out when I found other creative outlets such as poetry workshops, open-mic sessions and so on.
There is an emphasis on creativity and self-expression within charismatic churches and consequently they attract people who like that sort of thing. My wife isn't at all extrovert and she struggled for years with the discomfort of being in a full-on ra-ra-ra-ra charismatic setting.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Inherent within charismatic evangelical spirituality is a kind of theandric and thaumaturgical assumption (look them up, I had to ... ) that can be distilled as:
'God is a good God and the devil is a bad devil.'
Therefore, the assumption is that anything bad or negative has to be resisted and over-come and that its the role of Christians to bring healing, light, positive influences and role-models and also miraculous powers to bear in alleviating the darkness.
As I get older, I find it increasingly difficult to resist the conclusion that it's God who sends good and ill, and also that I have absolutely no idea why.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
...it's about being fit to be a channel of God's power to bring order and restoration to a broken world.
I find the idea of "being a channel of God's power" quite wrong. About 25 years ago I was in a small independent Pentecostal church, and one of our favourite hymns went as follows:
Channels only, blessed Master, / But with all Thy wondrous power / Flowing through us, Thou canst use us / Every day and every hour.
One of the major themes of the fellowship was to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" so that we could then go out and be channels of God's power. Of course, when we failed to "come up with the goods" then our receptiveness to the Holy Spirit was called into question, and we were duly psychologically tormented (e.g. told that God was going to vomit us out of his mouth for being lukewarm) until we got to the root of the problem of why we were being so stubborn and resistant to God. It never occurred to the leadership (which consisted of a married couple) that they were the ones labouring under vomit-worthy theology.
We often used to sing the anthem of spiritual masochism as well:
Spirit of the living God, / fall afresh on me. / Break me, melt me, mould me, fill me.
(...which is the spiritual equivalent of a child going up to his father and asking: "Daddy, can you please give me a good beating, because I feel I need it to make me more mature and obedient to you..." Such a father would, it is hoped, be completely freaked out...)
All this is just man's vain and desperate effort to try to control God.
For all its difficulty (and potential for viewing God as outrageously unjust), I find the book of Job interesting concerning the idea of the power of God. Job, in his suffering, broke every "Word of Faith" rule in the book by letting rip at God (understandably!), but it was his self-righteous and controlling friends who were censured at the end. God manifested his power to Job, by drawing Job out of himself (despite the severity of his problems) and directing his eyes to the wonders of creation: in other words, to the creative sovereignty of God. Once Job had taken his eyes off himself and given up his attempts to control God, then the real healing could begin. After years of disappointment with the control theology of the charismatic-pentecostal paradigm, I guess this is where I am at also.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
