|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Holy Spirit and mission
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I remember once an article in a parish magazine with the title "Go... Wait!" This was on the subject of mission, and it referred to the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20, in which Jesus commanded his disciples to "Go and make disciples of all nations...". The article then reminded readers that actually this command was followed by the instruction to wait in Jerusalem for the "Promise of the Father" (Acts 1:4). This was the promise of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, enabling the disciples to be witnesses to Christ in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. There is so much emphasis in much of the Church on Matthew 28-type "going", but not very much on the aspect of Acts 1-type "waiting"
It seems to me that there is a lot of talk about evangelism and the obligation on Christians to share our faith, but the pattern of the Bible seems to suggest that a mere cerebral or propositional approach to mission is not sufficient. Why would we need to be "endued with power from on high" just to engage in a few arguments and heavy attempts at religious persuasion?
Unfortunately the Holy Spirit has been hijacked by those who seem to see His role as pertaining to little more than the distribution of spiritual gifts and great experiences. But it seems clear to me that Pentecost is primarily about mission.
I'm not really into the Wimber-esque type of "power evangelism", but I do acknowledge that the work of the Holy Spirit is at the heart of mission and evangelism (not that I see the Holy Spirit as merely a power source anyway).
How do you understand the Holy Spirit's work with reference to mission and evangelism?
How can we "do mission" within the theological framework presented in Acts 1 and 2?
If we are led by the Holy Spirit in our witness, then how does that speak into the idea that we have an 'obligation' to do it (which sounds a bit legalistic)?
How does an Acts model of mission relate to ecumenism?
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this subject.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that the Holy Spirit which lights each one of us with a flame is sometimes ready to breathe on it, to set others on fire. When those times occur, we are obliged to follow the lead of the Spirit, so that we are in the right place at the right time, and ready to proclaim the gospel as we're given words to do so. It's scary, it's what Acts tells us, and so it's likely to send us scurrying away and persuading ourselves that we must be imagining it / couldn't possibly because.....etc.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
A major change in my worldview was when I started seeing Acts as descriptive and not prescriptive.
In other words, not as a model for mission in the sense of a blueprint but as a narrative of how the first disciples tried to go about it.
If I have a text from Acts that most dictates how I see mission right now, it's probably Acts 8:4:
quote:
Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went
Or as JB Phillips has it, "gossiping the gospel".
People simply spoke of their faith in the course of their daily lives. The narrative focuses on the exploits of the apostles, but that verse relates how the vast majority of mission seems to have taken place, then as now.
As to the role of the Spirit, in Corinthians Paul makes it abundantly clear that for all his propositional truth, he sees the Spirit as doing the job, often independently of any compelling rhetoric.
[ 02. May 2014, 16:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Four thoughts.
1. Love the idea of Acts as "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" - although I do suggest we extract some broad "missionary principles" from it.
2. I'm wary of saying, "Let's wait for some tangible evidence of God coming upon us before we evangelise" - that's far too subjective. The Holy Spirit has been given once and for at Pentecost - which is not to deny that further "blessings" can be given by God.
3. There is of course the ultra-Calvinist view that the Holy Spirit will evangelise without us having to do anything - as evidenced by the alleged comment to William Carey "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid and mine." That view can, at the very least, be a justification for inaction!
4. I'm no Greek scholar - but I have heard it said that the primary emphasis in the original Great Commission is not "go!" but "make disciples!"
[ 02. May 2014, 16:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm no Greek scholar - but I have heard it said that the primary emphasis in the original Great Commission is not "go!" but "make disciples!"
I'm also no Greek scholar but I gather it's the 'present continuous' tense. English doesn't have this as such, but I think it translates as something like 'as you are going' or 'in your going'. So, yes, that would put the emphasis on the 'make disciples' clause, as I understand it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
[wondering if this is goin to come through]
quote:
19 πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, 20 διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν. (SBL)
Okay, the first word (poreuthentes) is a participle, "going". Next word, "therefore" and then we hit the main verb, matheteusate, "make disciples." To turn this into English we've got to stick the "therefore" up front and add a "when" or "as" to make sense of the participle, thus:
"Therefore, as/when you are going, make disciples..."
You then hit two more participial phrases that tell you HOW you are to make disciples, namely by baptizing (baptizontes) in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit, and teaching (didaskontes) them to obey/keep/cherish "all that I have commanded you". does that help?
[ 02. May 2014, 18:42: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan
1. Love the idea of Acts as "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" - although I do suggest we extract some broad "missionary principles" from it.
I can appreciate this view, but too far in the 'descriptive' direction could make us wonder what instructions we really can derive from the Bible. Too far in the other direction and we have the straitjacket of legalism.
Even a "descriptive model" can provide us with insight as to how God works in and through us. It's not a matter of having a set of principles that we are obliged to apply, but rather it gives us an expectation as to how God wants His mission to work.
quote:
2. I'm wary of saying, "Let's wait for some tangible evidence of God coming upon us before we evangelise" - that's far too subjective. The Holy Spirit has been given once and for at Pentecost - which is not to deny that further "blessings" can be given by God.
I am not convinced that it is the case that once we become Christians and become part of the Church that we automatically plug into the kind of experience and manifestation of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2 (even though, of course, we do have the Holy Spirit working in us as Christians at a certain level). I think that there is a "personal Pentecost", just as there is personal sanctification and a personal walk with God. In this I tend to agree with Pentecostalism.
It seems to me that it is possible to "go" onto the mission field (both at home and abroad) spiritually ill-equipped and I can't see that it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who decides to engage in mission is somehow automatically "endued with power from on high" simply by virtue of being a Christian. It's difficult to see how a group of Christians simply propagating a message in a propositional way are thereby "filled with the Holy Spirit". That would seem to suggest that the work of the Holy Spirit is entirely cerebral, which does not really accord with the account in Acts.
In my view, the command to "wait in Jerusalem" complements the command to "go into all the world". I wonder whether perhaps so many mission strategies are the result of human cleverness and not the result of following the leading of the Holy Spirit (I used to work for an international Christian organisation, and I am familiar with the tendency to think up mission strategies, which sound great on paper, and stir everyone up, but then fall flat. God was often appealed to, to give His blessing to these ideas - in fact, His blessing was simply assumed on the basis that, after all, we were Christians and therefore automatically doing His will, because of the idea that the power and blessing of the Holy Spirit is a 'given'. Well I am not sure if that is the case, to be honest).
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In my view, the command to "wait in Jerusalem" complements the command to "go into all the world". I wonder whether perhaps so many mission strategies are the result of human cleverness and not the result of following the leading of the Holy Spirit (I used to work for an international Christian organisation, and I am familiar with the tendency to think up mission strategies, which sound great on paper, and stir everyone up, but then fall flat. God was often appealed to, to give His blessing to these ideas - in fact, His blessing was simply assumed on the basis that, after all, we were Christians and therefore automatically doing His will, because of the idea that the power and blessing of the Holy Spirit is a 'given'. Well I am not sure if that is the case, to be honest).
I'd agree with this, certainly in general terms (I can't really comment on how Christian missionary organisations devise their strategies). In the organic / missional church literature (and probably elsewhere too) there's this idea of trying to discern what God is doing in a particular area or community and then joining in with it.
Obviously, God wants us to make disciples and spread the Gospel as we conduct our lives generally, but I think there's something in that idea of God doing particular things in particular places at particular times.
[ 03. May 2014, 15:30: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
One problem, though, lies in assuming that the Holy Spirit's blessing will always be reflected in large numbers of converts, a church that grows quickly and easily, etc. I am convinced that the Lord sent us to the field in which we now serve, but it was a solid three years before our first convert baptism. Numbers came later (along with church fights, but hey). Some of our higher-ups were quite displeased not to see a straight upward slope in our numbers, month after month, and cut our funding. And I imagine it must be far worse for those laboring in other difficult fields, such as among Muslims or "formerly Christian" countries. Yet clearly they are included in God's care and command to mission. And as Paul points out, it happens that you get cases where X plants, Y waters, and Z receives the harvest. X and Y were certainly sent by the Spirit, but I bet there were people shaking their heads at the lack of success at the time.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
One problem, though, lies in assuming that the Holy Spirit's blessing will always be reflected in large numbers of converts, a church that grows quickly and easily, etc.
I agree that this attitude is a serious problem, and, in fact, it was the problem associated with the faddish ideas about mission that I encountered when I was involved with developing overseas projects for a Christian organisation. There was an obsession with big numbers (one project involved a hazy goal to reach a billion people!), and a certain disdain for projects that were more targeted to meeting needs in places that were smaller and less likely to impress the kind of donor, who views success in terms of numbers.
--------------------
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
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I've no mission experience to add here (beyond the 'as you are going' idea, which I rather like) - but this stuff on big results / focus on funder's vanity sounds a lot like what goes on in my (university science) workplace.
Big flash project with a large external grant, major capital spend, lots of talk about 'impact' = good. Small stuff making good use of existing resources / a focus on bottom-up planning to maximise a real impact, or perhaps better, utility amongst an already-engaged group of users = bad (or, in the code here, 'incremental').
'Sustainability' itself has become another debased buzz-word used in funding-speak, but in its true sense it is often ignored, at the cost of flashy expensive projects which don't work or which fade as quickly as they pop up. This is true in university science, and also as commented above in Christian mission. I wonder whether true sustainability is a useful concept in the latter. It certainly sounds like the sort of idea of which the HS might approve, and one where waiting, thinking and asking questions of those on the ground might bear fruit alongside the core commitment to 'go'.
OK, I have a damaged ego and I'm a small-time ex-academic with an axe to grind. Nevertheless.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
heheheheh. Yeah, we used to listen to our higher-ups telling us we should be "ranchers," not "shepherds," because that was the true apostolic model--walk in, appoint local pastors and elders (I assume you had to plant a church first, but why fuss over unimportant matters? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ),and then walk out, leaving the local people to carry on all by themselves.
This totally ignores the facts that:
a. Some missionaries have shepherding gifts, not "ranching" gifts. They just do, and asking them to act against their gifting is just.stupid. I assume God gave them those for a reason.
b. Some cultural contexts really don't lend themselves to "walk in/walk out" missions. This would include any group where the population is severely disabled due to war, PTSD, epidemic disease, or grinding poverty. Yes, you have to walk a fine line between creating dependency and leaving them to pull themselves out of the quicksand, but that's where the Holy Spirit's wisdom must be sought. Not in some one-size-fits-all faddish mission model.
Thus speaketh the embittered no-longer-persona-grata in our denominations mission circles (heh). Seriously, though, it's all kinds of fucked up to take a single mission model and insist that the Spirit MUST work this way in every conceivable mission circumstance. As if.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
a. Some missionaries have shepherding gifts, not "ranching" gifts. They just do, and asking them to act against their gifting is just.stupid. I assume God gave them those for a reason.
Very true.
I used to be involved to some extent in Bible translation work (in an advisory role in E. Africa), and I was aware of the lives of some missionaries, who dedicated themselves to learning the language of an ethno-linguistic group numbering in merely the hundreds (perhaps consisting of just two villages), who often had to create the orthography and formalise the grammar of the language and then translate the Scriptures. This process could take not just years but decades. And one attack of disease could wipe out the entire language in a short space of time.
I have nothing but profound respect for such missionaries, who surely could not do this kind of work unless they were genuinely led by the Holy Spirit. But, from comments I have heard, such a form of mission is seen as rather peripheral to the great work of God in the world, which must surely involve millions of people at least, otherwise what's the point of bothering?! After all, what donor in his right mind would want to give his hard earned cash to support such a small, poxy little work like that, when he could be funding the great crusades of the "big boys" among the large language groups in China and India etc...!!
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I once (no kidding, I am not making this up) heard a major church executive say "Why don't you just write off this generation?"
I'm pretty sure that's the most Unchristian thing I have ever heard.
--------------------
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
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Isn't there a precedent? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Noah, anyone?
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
We're told even he preached to them, not that he got anywhere.
This man didn't want to bother with the preaching.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, what donor in his right mind would want to give his hard earned cash to support such a small, poxy little work like that, when he could be funding the great crusades of the "big boys" among the large language groups in China and India etc...!!
I suppose it could be argued that today (unlike in the past) most speakers of dying languages can usually read the Bible proficiently in one of their country's major official languages. Of course, this won't 'save' a language spoken by only a few 100 people, but is it the best use of resources for mission to uphold languages that are about to die out?
My impression is that the major language groups in China and India are already well catered for, but I could be wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I once (no kidding, I am not making this up) heard a major church executive say "Why don't you just write off this generation?"
I'm pretty sure that's the most Unchristian thing I have ever heard.
The cynic in me says it's the sort of thing one might think, but it's in bad taste to say it. The reality is, though, that barring many churches in the UK and on the European Continent are losing or have simply lost the young, and generally have little or no idea of how to engage them with the faith. The figures are deeply sobering. I don't see much urgency in calling on the Holy Spirit for help.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2
I suppose it could be argued that today (unlike in the past) most speakers of dying languages can usually read the Bible proficiently in one of their country's major official languages. Of course, this won't 'save' a language spoken by only a few 100 people, but is it the best use of resources for mission to uphold languages that are about to die out?
I don't think that it's necessarily the case that every small language is dying. Some languages are small simply because the ethnic groups speaking them are small, but stable. There are many languages that are spoken by relatively few people but not endangered or dying (it's worth checking out this website to investigate this). And anyway, what's wrong with wanting to save a dying language?
Also it may not necessarily be true that small ethno-linguistic groups speak other languages. Or they may do, but not fluently. They may know enough of the dominant local language or the historical colonial European lingua franca (e.g. English, French, Spanish or Portuguese) in order to trade, but it would be wholly inappropriate to expect them to conduct their spiritual and personal lives in those languages.
As for "the best use of resources", well, I have to say that the best use of resources is to put them to whatever God has called you to. I am reminded of the disciples' objection to the woman with the fine ointment anointing Jesus (Mark 14:4-5 - "Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.")
Mission should be conducted in response to the leading of the Holy Spirit, not on the basis of strategic human cost-benefit analysis. If considerable resources are poured into bringing blessing to a small number of people, then so be it. Everyone is worth it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The thing is, God can be (in my eyes at least) extremely wasteful. Look at the Ethiopian guy in Acts. He sends Philip how far just to stand by the side of the road in hopes of getting picked up by one man, having a conversation, and baptizing him. After that, Pfffft! he's carried away to Azotus. A lot of work for a single soul. And Cornelius--what an elaborate set up God went to just to get Peter out there. One can look at both cases later and say, "Ah, now I see that it was a strategic masterstroke," but I doubt it appeared so to those involved.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
EtymologicalEvangelical and Lamb Chopped
I'm a linguist, and I do think languages should be saved, if possible. But this isn't necessarily a task to be paid for by churchgoers. NGOs and educational establishments have a role to play. (I am aware, however, that Bible translations have often given languages a new lease of life.)
Each individual Christian, congregation and charitable organisation is responsible for deciding where the best use of their income lies. This might involve the Holy Spirit calling on people to support the translation of Bibles into a very minor language whose speakers are monolingual. But it might also be calling them to do something else. Perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to judge the decisions that others have to make.
As a former church steward I'm unfortunately rather cynical about the notion that churches should give away their resources 'wastefully'. It probably works well for some churches, but IME it may also increase their financial problems, and lead to a situation where they can barely look after themselves. Each case is different.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Certainly everyone should listen to the Spirit in making those decisions. What was bugging me were denominational/mission agency officials who had clearly bought into the latest fad (and surprise, they're into something else now!) and were therefore pooh poohing the work of people whose gifts didn't fit that paradigm.
Some are ranchers. But some are shepherds, they just are. And forcing a shepherd who already has a flock to leave that flock and go out looking for some cattle to oversee is, well, just wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
EE: quote:
It seems to me that there is a lot of talk about evangelism and the obligation on Christians to share our faith, but the pattern of the Bible seems to suggest that a mere cerebral or propositional approach to mission is not sufficient. Why would we need to be "endued with power from on high" just to engage in a few arguments and heavy attempts at religious persuasion?
I so agree! Catherine Booth, co-Founder of The Salvation Army, wrote: quote:
The time has come for fire. All other agents have been tried. Intellect, learning, fine buildings, wealth, respectability, numbers. The great men and the mighty men and the learned men have all tried to cast out these devils before you and have failed. TRY THE FIRE.
Baptist Trainfan: quote:
2. I'm wary of saying, "Let's wait for some tangible evidence of God coming upon us before we evangelise" - that's far too subjective. The Holy Spirit has been given once and for at Pentecost - which is not to deny that further "blessings" can be given by God.
I disagree. Forget the 'tangible evidence' - the witness in the heart is enough, the fruit of the Spirit is the evidence - but the idea that the Spirit has been given to every Christian in his mighty Pentecostal fulness just because he arrived in the upper room for 120 people in AD33 is probably one of the reasons for the ineffectiveness and spieritual coldness of the church in so many places and times. We cannot assume that we are filled with the Spirit as paul commands just because of that historical event - no more than we can assume the whole of humanity is redeemed redeemed just because Calvary happened. There has to be a personal appropriation, receiving of the Spirit. Indeed, as demonstrated and patterned in the Acts of the Apostles, we need our own Pentecost - Cornelius, for example, the Ephesians Christans, who all received the Holy Spirit demonstrably and personally. Yes, the Holy Spirit came for the first time at Pentecost but that was on the 120. He is now available and his fulness is received by grace through faith.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You've quoted Baptist Trainfan, Mudfrog, but have you actually read what he wrote?
He said that the Holy Spirit came once and for all at Pentecost but -
'which is not to deny that further "blessings" can be given by God.'
The Penties and charismatics always used to cite Acts 4 as well as Acts 2 - a subsequent 'infilling' following Pentecost and involving the same people ...
I'd imagine that might be the sort of thing Baptist Trainfan had in mind. He's no 'cessationist' in these matters.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You've quoted Baptist Trainfan, Mudfrog, but have you actually read what he wrote?
He said that the Holy Spirit came once and for all at Pentecost but -
'which is not to deny that further "blessings" can be given by God.'
The Penties and charismatics always used to cite Acts 4 as well as Acts 2 - a subsequent 'infilling' following Pentecost and involving the same people ...
I'd imagine that might be the sort of thing Baptist Trainfan had in mind. He's no 'cessationist' in these matters.
No, I don't think that cuts it. The Holy Spirit didn't come for Cornelius at Pentecost. He came for Cornelius et al in Acts 9. This was not a 'further blessing' this was Cornelius's Pentecostal experience.
The only way one can say that the Holy Spirit came 'once and for all' at Pentecost is if you say that he came to the Church and since then the church dispenses that Holy Spirit to the faithful. This is totally not true; every believer must have his/her own uniquue, direct gifting of the Holy Spirit, their own personal Pentecost, their own initial infilling of the Holy Spirit buy grace through faith.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
No, I am not a cessationist! However I believe that the "Pentecost" experienced by both Cornelius and those who knew John's baptism at Ephesus was not a sign for those individual Christians, but a sign that Pentecost - and salvation through Jesus - were now available to an ever-widening group of people on an equal standing to the original Jewish believers in Jerusalem.
So Cornelius' experience (preceded, of course, by Peter's radical vision) showed that the new Christian faith could extend to Romans; the Ephesians' experience showed that God was willing to accept Greeks on the same terms. This was missional in the sense that God was authenticating what was happening in ever-wider areas; but Cornelius and the Ephesians were not specifically given the Spirit for doing mission as per Acts 1:8.
Addendum: the Spirit works in different believers in different ways. For instance, I am unaware of William Carey ever having had a classic "Pentecostal experience", yet he obeyed God, went to India, and was a remarkably successful missionary! I think there is a danger of relying too much on subjective experiences rather than simply obeying the Great Commission and trusting for the Spirit's enabling and infilling.
[ 13. May 2014, 08:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Could somebody give me the Ephesians reference?
As for these semi-Pentecostal events, i've always understood it as:
1. Pentecost--this was for the whole world, but starting with the Jews...
2. Cornelius et al--this is the Gentile re-mini-Pentecost, and the intention is to make it very very clear to the up-to-this-point-Jewish Christian church that yes, God accepts Gentiles into his church too, and if you can't wrap your head around that, consider the similarity in events;
3. The reference to a mini-Pentecost when "some disciples of John" get caught up on the events following his death, come to believe in Jesus, and God makes it clear that they, too, are welcome in the church of Jesus Christ.
Based on this pattern, I would expect semi-Pentecostal experiences when the church is on the brink of moving in to formerly untrod mission fields--the Gentiles, the John believers--which are by nature going to be somewhat rare occasions. I'm not sure there are any untouched groups left on earth that would qualify as sufficiently odd that such an event would be needed. Though if we ever DID discover intelligent alien life and began evangelizing it, that would likely qualify. [imagines a Klingon Pentecost]
[ 13. May 2014, 13:25: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Though if we ever DID discover intelligent alien life and began evangelizing it, that would likely qualify. [imagines a Klingon Pentecost]
Oh wow, that's an awesome thought! (An alien Pentecost generally, not Klingon in particular.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure we'd need one, if only to settle the vexed question of whether aliens belong in the Christian church or whether God is dealing them in some separate (though still through Christ) way.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
2. Cornelius et al--this is the Gentile re-mini-Pentecost, and the intention is to make it very very clear to the up-to-this-point-Jewish Christian church that yes, God accepts Gentiles into his church too, and if you can't wrap your head around that, consider the similarity in events;
3. The reference to a mini-Pentecost when "some disciples of John" get caught up on the events following his death, come to believe in Jesus, and God makes it clear that they, too, are welcome in the church of Jesus Christ.
This seems to suggest that the experience of being empowered by the Holy Spirit is merely a didactic show. This reduces a vital experience to merely being a vehicle to convey doctrine. I find this hard to believe.
Just prior to the Day of Pentecost, Jesus made clear that the disciples would be endued with power from on high, and would then be His witnesses. The use of the word 'power' suggests that the Pentecostal experience is an essential tool for the implementation of the mission to which the disciples were called. A message may be conveyed through such an experience concerning God's will and priorities, but then what? A disciple who became aware of, say, Cornelius' experience, may be assured that God accepts the Gentiles, but unless he has the same experience, how can he say that he has been empowered to go to the Gentiles as a witness to Jesus Christ? Has he simply been empowered by the mere idea that God accepts the Gentiles (in other words, this idea is a substitute for a particular experience of the Holy Spirit)? Surely, the truth is that he has been assured of this aspect of God's will, and also made aware that there is an empowerment that God gives to believers, to enable them to fulfil the mission to which they now know they have been called.
It is also worth noting that Peter referred to the prophecy of Joel to explain what had happened on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21):
quote:
‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.’
This is clearly a reference to the whole church age, and there are certain manifestations associated with the experience of Pentecost. Joel's prophecy lists certain manifestations which were not evident on the Day of Pentecost, and so from this we can infer that the Pentecostal experience will continue, and will manifest itself in different ways among subsequent believers throughout the church age.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan
For instance, I am unaware of William Carey ever having had a classic "Pentecostal experience", yet he obeyed God, went to India, and was a remarkably successful missionary!
I think the term "remarkably successful" with regard to William Carey needs to be heavily qualified. I made some comments about him here and here and here. All very disturbing.
Who knows, but perhaps if William Carey had been properly equipped spiritually, he may not have treated his wife in such an appalling way?
[ 13. May 2014, 14:06: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I am not a dispensationalist, nor do I believe that Pentecost is simply identical to the individual believer's experience of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost and the mini-Pentecosts which followed it were deliberate, public events IMHO intended as a testimony to the existing church as much as to those newly brought in. But individual believers begin their lives with the Holy Spirit when he brings them to faith, either through baptism or the Word--and this is often a very private and even obscure event. I, for example--I cannot name the day or even the year when I was brought to faith, and in the same way I found myself in mission service before I was aware what was going on. Rather like being born--the full significance of what has happened to you only comes into focus long after the start.
Yes, the Holy Spirit can do big flashy events; but in general his work seems to be quieter IMHO. And empowering for any kind of service can be the same way. “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I think it's a mistake to look for him only in the clearly visible.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Based on this pattern, I would expect semi-Pentecostal experiences when the church is on the brink of moving in to formerly untrod mission fields--the Gentiles, the John believers--which are by nature going to be somewhat rare occasions. I'm not sure there are any untouched groups left on earth that would qualify as sufficiently odd that such an event would be needed.
Yes, that's exactly the point I was making.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed.
As regards how Carey treated his wife and whether this has any bearing on whether he did or didn't have a 'personal Pentecost' - well, how about C T Studd? He was big on the 'second blessing' thing but his domestic arrangements were decidedly odd if judged from the stand-points of the normal 'run' of things ...
I don't doubt that people have dramatic and life-changing encounters with God the Holy Spirit.
I'm simply wary of formularising the whole thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I agree (and I was a member of the mission founded by Studd for quite a number of years; we were not blind to his faults).
John Wesley had an experience of the Spirit - we can argue if it was a "Baptism of the Spirit" or conversion - and became a highly effective evangelist. His marriage was a disaster!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
This phenomenon of apparently spiritually powerful and annointed people nevertheless having significant and obvious troubles in certain aspects of their lives has long bothered me. I suppose it just shows that God doesn't reserve his favour for those of us who are perfect! (And good job too.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This has long been a charismatic and Pentecostal hot-potato ... and an issue for the Holiness Movement that preceded them ...
Some charismatics have sought to resolve the difficulty by suggesting that the charismatic experience is an enduement of power - rather than something that implies a certain level of holiness or individual piety.
The John Wesley instance is an interesting one as you can interpret Wesley's spiritual journey in any number of ways. In some passages of the Journal, and later on in life, he wonders aloud as to whether he was ever really converted at all ... but it's hard to tell whether this is simply rhetoric on his part ...
I've long since given up trying to neatly categorise other people's spiritual experiences - and even my own.
In the case of Wesley you can accommodate/categorise his experience in any number of ways ranging from a straight-down-the-line evangelical conversion with or without a 'second blessing' element according to taste ... or you can even accommodate it within a High Church or Anglo-Catholic paradigm - and I've read material by guys at that end of the spectrum who have attempted to do so ...
Ultimately, 'the wind blows where it listeth' and so I'm increasingly reluctant to try to pin down anyone's experience to any particular paradigm.
This can - and does - come across as fence-sitting at times but other than accepting that Wesley's and Studd's and anyone else's experience was very, very real - I'm reluctant to go further in terms of a forensic analysis of what actually was going on.
I must add, though, that, properly understood, the kind of personal Pentecost advocated by Mudfrog and others from within the Wesleyan tradition doesn't imply the achievement of particular virtue or elitist level of attainment by the individual recipient ... they see it as a gift of grace - not something that can be earned or worked-up.
I'll probably annoy some people by saying as much but I suspect it's one of these areas where we have to learn to live with Mystery and where the usual both/ands not either/ors begin to apply the more we try to unpack it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I must add, though, that, properly understood, the kind of personal Pentecost advocated by Mudfrog and others from within the Wesleyan tradition doesn't imply the achievement of particular virtue or elitist level of attainment by the individual recipient ... they see it as a gift of grace - not something that can be earned or worked-up.
Let me say that in the Wesleyan/Holiness/Salvationist tradition, Pentecostal experiences of the Holy Spirit are given for two purposes - purity of heart and strength for service.
The Holy Spirit is given when our 'all' is on the altar and the Spirit's fire falls to consume the offering.
there is no attainment, merely total consecration which results in entire sanctification. We do not achieve, attain or acquire it; it's a gift of God that cleanses from sin and empowers for service.
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
I am not a dispensationalist, nor do I believe that Pentecost is simply identical to the individual believer's experience of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost and the mini-Pentecosts which followed it were deliberate, public events IMHO intended as a testimony to the existing church as much as to those newly brought in. But individual believers begin their lives with the Holy Spirit when he brings them to faith, either through baptism or the Word--and this is often a very private and even obscure event. I, for example--I cannot name the day or even the year when I was brought to faith, and in the same way I found myself in mission service before I was aware what was going on. Rather like being born--the full significance of what has happened to you only comes into focus long after the start.
I am not denying that the events described in Acts can have - and do have - a didactic function. But let me explain my view by way of an analogy...
I decide to train to be a plumber, and I enroll on a course; so obviously there are a number of us training together. The instructor begins the first session by playing a video to us. This film features the first ever plumbing course run by this training company, and we see the trainees using fancy and sophisticated equipment that is not available to us on our course. At the end of the film we have questions, and I ask: "Why was that equipment available to them and not to us?" And the instructor replies: "Oh, they had the use of this equipment, because it was the first ever training course, and we just provided those tools just to bear witness to the fact that we are a serious training company and really care about the plumbing industry, and the display of this equipment signals a major change in the way we teach plumbing. So please understand this. It was just an instructional point we were making. But the good news is that we have provided some equipment for you. It's not quite as powerful and sophisticated as the equipment you have seen on the video, but as a trainee plumber you automatically get to use adequate tools to just about do the job."
To me, that is what the (exclusively) didactic interpretation of Pentecost sounds like. It doesn't make sense. Clearly God has provided more than adequate tools for the job, because He intends that all believers throughout the entire Church Age should have use of the 'equipment', which was first put on display on the Day of Pentecost.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, thanks for the clarification, Mudfrog. I am aware of the 'purity of heart' aspect of the Wesleyan/Holiness/Salvationist tradition and can understand where it comes from.
Unfortunately, I'm that much of a sinner and a cynic to be sceptical about whether such 'entire sanctification' is attainable but can't think of any other reason other than my own ungodliness as to why that is the case ...
I've moved away from a starkly Calvinist position - although it is arguable how much I'd ever fully embraced that - and so the idea of human perfectibility by grace isn't an entirely foreign one.
The Wesleyan view seems very close to the Orthodox 'theosis' position and is probably its closest 'Western' analogue - as many Orthodox will acknowledge.
I do sometimes wonder whether it is over-realised though, in both theory and apparent practice but I'm willing to stand corrected on that.
--------------------
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 'equipment' thing, I'm no cessationist so see no reason why the 'tools' available in the 1st century shouldn't be available today.
That said, so many of them these days look like cardboard cut-out versions of the real thing.
That doesn't mean that the real thing doesn't exist, 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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
The real thing is certainly available for believers today, which poses the question as to what Christian mission looks like without the necessary tools for the job. In Acts 1:8 the risen Jesus clearly connects the power of the Holy Spirit - as shortly to be manifested on the Day of Pentecost - with mission: "you shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." That latter phrase certainly implies the work that will continue throughout the entire Church Age.
But the command to 'wait' in Jerusalem implies that it is possible not to wait, but to go into mission without the necessary empowering. What would that kind of mission look like? I think we have touched on it already on this thread.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmmm ... I can see what you're getting at, certainly. I s'pose my view would be that the tools become available as we start to do the job ... but that sounds counter-intuitive to an extent if we are using the 'tools' and apprenticeship analogy.
On balance, I suspect that the 'real thing' does happen - largely unsung - when and where required.
But perhaps not as much as we would like or are led to believe in some quarters.
I would prefer to use an analogy of gradual character formation and development rather than, necessarily, a period of 'waiting' followed by action.
I wouldn't want to become unduly prescriptive. But then, I'm not particularly active in mission either so I'm not really the one to talk ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, thanks for the clarification, Mudfrog. I am aware of the 'purity of heart' aspect of the Wesleyan/Holiness/Salvationist tradition and can understand where it comes from.
Unfortunately, I'm that much of a sinner and a cynic to be sceptical about whether such 'entire sanctification' is attainable but can't think of any other reason other than my own ungodliness as to why that is the case ...
I've moved away from a starkly Calvinist position - although it is arguable how much I'd ever fully embraced that - and so the idea of human perfectibility by grace isn't an entirely foreign one.
The Wesleyan view seems very close to the Orthodox 'theosis' position and is probably its closest 'Western' analogue - as many Orthodox will acknowledge.
I do sometimes wonder whether it is over-realised though, in both theory and apparent practice but I'm willing to stand corrected on that.
That's where the difficulty lies - you're sceptical as to whether entire sanctification is 'attainable' - and yet I specifically said it isn't attained - it's a gift.
What I don't understand is how people can deny it when even the Anglicans, for example, praye a prayer like this every time they celebrate the Eucharist:
quote:
Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hidden: cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you, and worthily magnify your holy name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
The cleansing of the heart, the experience of perfect love: these are what entire sanctification is all about.
The obvious difficulty is not the work of grace itself but the unfortunate word that Wesley used to describe the experience - Perfection. Our modern ears would be offended by the testimony of someone who claimed they were perfected; and Wesley had problems with it - but it was the fault of the Bible translators who rendered 'teleos' as 'perfect'; what was he supposed to say?
The Bible is clear - we can be cleansed from all sin, we can be rescued from this body of death. But it's not an attainment, an achievement or a state of 'arrival'. It is a 'for now' experience that has to grow each day through renewal and grace. It's not a once and for all experience that renders a person perfect or sinless - if anything, the gift of holiness makes one more acute to the presence of sin, failure and temptation.
We sang yesterday - just to bring the discussion back to topic:
For thy mission make me holy,
For thy glory make me thine,
Sanctify each moment fully,
Fill my life with love divine.
Entire sanctification - meaning that the cleansing grace touches every part, not that we are perfectly sinless! - is a daily experience that must be sought and claimed and then lived out in the world.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks for the correction, Mudfrog and yes, I can see how my use of the term 'attainable' wasn't apposite.
Mind you, given that Anglicans regularly pray the pray you've cited, 'that we may perfectly love you ...' etc must surely mean that all Anglicans are entirely sanctified without realising as much ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As you were ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thanks for the correction, Mudfrog and yes, I can see how my use of the term 'attainable' wasn't apposite.
Mind you, given that Anglicans regularly pray the pray you've cited, 'that we may perfectly love you ...' etc must surely mean that all Anglicans are entirely sanctified without realising as much ...
As you were ...
Indeed!
In fact, regardless of the denomination and the wording of any articles of faith, i would have thought that any Christian who sincerely and earnestly looks to the promise of Scripture and claims the cleansing of the blood of Jesus, is entirely sanctified because that's what God does!
My favourite piece of choral music is Allegri's Miserere and every time I think of those words "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me and I shall be whiter than snow."
You really can't get any cleaner and whiter than that! Every part cleansed by the blood of Jesus - here and now.
I'm sure that is the experience of every redeemed christian who lives a life of prayer, confession, openness to the Holy Spirit - from whatever tradition.
The difference of course between a Wesleyan and a reformed Christian (bearing in mind that Wesleyanism is in the Catholic tradition) is that sanctification is an event after justification that cleanses the heart and leads to growth in the Christlike graces through continuous, renewed cleansing; whereas in Reformed theology sanctification is a gradual growth and cleansing that follows justification and is not complete until death.
That doesn't seem to me to follow the wonderful promise of Scripture that if we walk in the light the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin. It doesn't seem logical to me that the Holy Spirit cannot reach every part of my soul with cleansing power and has to wait until I've grown matured a bit more as a Christian before the blood of Jesus can cleanse me.
As the old song says:
quote:
Standing on the promises I now can see
perfect, present cleansing in the blood for me;
Standing in the liberty where Christ makes free,
Standing on the promises of God.
[ 19. May 2014, 09:17: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks Mudfrog.
Allegri's 'Misere' is one of my favourite pieces of choral music too ...
No matter how many times I hear it I still feel the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
I once saw an impressive piece of modern 'video-installation' art which consisted of slowed down footage of people arriving at an air terminal with 'Misere' playing in the background. It was strangely moving and compelling - and normally that kind of 'installation' doesn't do a great deal for me ...
I was toying with the idea of starting a new thread on this ... not to 'argue' with anyone but simply to spread the lurve and share insights and perspectives on the issue.
I may well do so at some point - unless you tell me it's already been done plenty of times - but I want to make sure it doesn't come across as a combative thing - 'my tradition says this/ my tradition says that ...' but centring more on how these things work out on the ground as it were.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
