quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why does this seem to happen so often?! Some major move of God seems to happen, with reports of many people coming to faith, folks with issues like alcohol and drug addictions turning their lives around, remarkable healings; and then many times it ends up with the person at the head of it having to step down from their position because of some major indiscretion.

---

quote:

---

Maybe the godly way (...) is a much lower key, grassroots approach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Churches which are constitutionally weak and ecumenically isolated are open to "hostile" takeovers by dominant leaders and cabals.

---

Well, I can say from bitter experience that belonging to an established denomination and what I thought was a strong constitution proved to be no obstacle to a hostile takeover

The "Victory" group of churches are associate members of the Elim denomination. It will be interesting to see whether Elim feels responsible enough for them to make a clear statement.
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why does this seem to happen so often?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The "Victory" group of churches are associate members of the Elim denomination. It will be interesting to see whether Elim feels responsible enough for them to make a clear statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It is worth noting of course that it's a huge problem in the church in general, not just the charismatic segment of it. We can all think of major churches and denominations in which high-ranking leaders have been revealed to have been involved in heinous and unrepentant sin in recent years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
As Eutychus just said a few posts above, please do not post potentially libellous material. And I would have thought it obvious except apparently it still needs to be said: If a host deletes material from your post as potentially libellous, don't put it into another post!

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidefall:
Baptists ..... what have been the big problems for these denominations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidefall:
Possibly, but I'm having trouble thinking of any other bits of the church that attract scandal in the same way as the charismatics. There's been catholic child abuse, but that's about it. Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, what have been the big problems for these denominations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidefall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It is worth noting of course that it's a huge problem in the church in general, not just the charismatic segment of it. We can all think of major churches and denominations in which high-ranking leaders have been revealed to have been involved in heinous and unrepentant sin in recent years.

---

Possibly, but I'm having trouble thinking of any other bits of the church that attract scandal in the same way as the charismatics. There's been catholic child abuse, but that's about it. Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, what have been the big problems for these denominations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidefall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It is worth noting of course that it's a huge problem in the church in general, not just the charismatic segment of it. We can all think of major churches and denominations in which high-ranking leaders have been revealed to have been involved in heinous and unrepentant sin in recent years.

---

Possibly, but I'm having trouble thinking of any other bits of the church that attract scandal in the same way as the charismatics. There's been catholic child abuse, but that's about it. Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, what have been the big problems for these denominations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

These denominations exercise a strong degree of central control. Candidates for the ministry are chosen, trained and placed precisely so as to avoid highly individualistic outcomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Churches which are constitutionally weak and ecumenically isolated are open to "hostile" takeovers by dominant leaders and cabals.

---

Well, I can say from bitter experience that belonging to an established denomination and what I thought was a strong constitution proved to be no obstacle to a hostile takeover

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidefall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
As Eutychus just said a few posts above, please do not post potentially libellous material. And I would have thought it obvious except apparently it still needs to be said: If a host deletes material from your post as potentially libellous, don't put it into another post!

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

---

My apologies, I didn't notice that Eutychus had edited my original post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Who had it pretty much right. Once you suffer this way, it's also important to get on our knees and pray we won't get fooled again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

These denominations exercise a strong degree of central control. Candidates for the ministry are chosen, trained and placed precisely so as to avoid highly individualistic outcomes.

---

This is not universally true - it is equally true that overly charismatic types rarely happy at all in an environment where they might have to persuade other people of the rightness of their views and actually be accountable to someone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
This is not universally true - it is equally true that overly charismatic types rarely happy at all in an environment where they might have to persuade other people of the rightness of their views and actually be accountable to someone else.

---

Well, yes, dynamic individualists sometimes squeeze through, despite the best attempts to keep them at bay!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I claimed that such individuals do sometimes squeeze through in highly regulated denominations. Are you saying that this never happens, or that it happens frequently?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It's interesting that on the Ship some of the CofE's evangelical clergy are accused of behaving like arrogant free agents, moving their churches in a congregationalist direction, and bypassing hierarchical and parish procedures - all of which suggests that some of these people do get through! But it seems clear to me that people like this are largely (if subconsciously) kept away from the ministry in traditional historical denominations, for the reasons mentioned above. This is the view of Peter Williams in this article about the CofE, expressed on pp. 135-137:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/26-2_123.pdf

For any job, you want candidates who are going to fit in. How are you going to make use of the ones who don't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It's interesting that on the Ship some of the CofE's evangelical clergy are accused of behaving like arrogant free agents, moving their churches in a congregationalist direction, and bypassing hierarchical and parish procedures - all of which suggests that some of these people do get through! But it seems clear to me that people like this are largely (if subconsciously) kept away from the ministry in traditional historical denominations, for the reasons mentioned above. This is the view of Peter Williams in this article about the CofE, expressed on pp. 135-137:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/26-2_123.pdf

For any job, you want candidates who are going to fit in. How are you going to make use of the ones who don't?

---

If the CofE doesn't want people like that, then please point them in the BU's direction. They often lead growing churches making an impact in their localities.

We have some experience in dealing with mavericks - or rather living with them, otherwise a lot of us wouldn't be in ministry. Besides which we don't have a hierarchy or systems to speak of, so that should make their task easier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The goal is to find and train people suited to maintaining the parish system and pursuing faithful pastoral work, rather than ending up with the extrovert who's burning to plant their own alternative form of church on a housing estate, for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why are we discussing the CofE here? This church is a Victory Church, loosely linked to the Elim Pentecostal church and absolutely nothing to do with the CofE. And local experience of Elim Pentecostal suggests no real oversight of local churches and groups - actually very little support from fellow ministers either as they are so spread out.

---

[Because the contention seemed to be that this kind of episode was a side effect of attracting the more entrepreneurial types that other denominations had difficulty attracting.]

Back on the the main topic I agree with you - Elim Churches are often left to their own devices, and the main corrective tends to be having elders with strong opinions of their own - though they end up requiring a lot of tacit congregational support to get stuff done. Which in practice means that the easiest issues to deal with are the moral ones (as they are clearcut, easily understood and ones on which everyone can agree). Financial problems and spiritual drift can go on for quite a while before they are checked.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It seems to me that there are inherent problems in revivalism per se. Just as there are inherent problems in churches that don't go in for that particular form of enthusiasm.

I think SvitlanaV2 is right to some extent - if there weren't enthusiastic and revivalist churches around then most of the people involved with such groups wouldn't be in any form of church at all.

As for leadership shenanigans, church politics on a wider connectional level and on a congregational level - I'm not aware of any church grouping that doesn't suffer from that.

It applies whether we are talking about Rome, about the various Orthodox jurisdictions, whether we're talking about the Anglican communion, the Baptists, the Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, independent charismatics or whatever else.

Where there are people there are politics.

That applies as much to a closed order of nuns as it does to a happy-clappy charismatic church.

On the Cwmbran thing - I'd be wary of some things said locally down there - there are other churches around which resented the apparent 'success' of Victory Church and had been out to knock it from Day One. I grew up there, I know what it's like.

That said, I think this is an accident that's been waiting to happen. Churches of that kind aren't geared up to deal with this sort of thing that effectively.

As to whether there was a move of God down there - no, I don't believe there was. Nobody else knew anything about it. The only people who were aware of it - from what I can gather - were people in the churches. The rest of the population remained unaffected and indifferent.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As for the blog referenced in the OP. The rather gloating tone is a bit of a give-away. Plus, anyone who styles themselves to be an 'End Times Specialist' in terms of their teaching ministry is clearly signalling that they'll be promulgating some kind of whacky eschatological theories of their own.

I'd give his group as wide a berth as I'd give Victory Church to be honest.


 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd give his group as wide a berth as I'd give Victory Church to be honest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

The blog is enjoying the success it is, despite being vitriolic and self-righteous in tone, because respectable and supposedly upright christians are not speaking out even though there's a genuine concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One of the problems in South Wales is that everyone has grown up with this very idealised and mythic notion of the Welsh Revival.

Everyone bangs on and on about the Revival and how marvellous it all was. What they don't mention are the number of people who were put off by it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

One of the problems in South Wales is that everyone has grown up with this very idealised and mythic notion of the Welsh Revival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Below the Lansker:


Since then, the 600-seater Calvinistic Methodist and 400-seater URC chapels have both shut their doors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

If anything, though, the Puritanical, Calvinistic tendency has been taken up by South Walian secularism ... there's something very censorious about that too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But they would have closed their doors even if the congregations had amalgamated. Only the precise circumstances would have been different.

Amalgamation is frequently necessary nowadays, but it's not a solution for every church. Amalgamated churches often continue to struggle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


As for Wales, when I lived there I was surprised at how many abandoned churches I saw. I understand that some commentators see the rapid decline of Welsh chapelgoing as the aftereffect of a sort of over-triumphant revivalism, so I can understand why people here would disapprove of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Oh yes indeed, Jengie Jon, which is why some of the Orthodox I've met blame the Reformation for atheism ... they feel that secularism is simply the Reformation ethos pushed through the Enlightenment to its logical secularist conclusion ...

I was at the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius conference this week and Wales came up in the conversation, with several of the Orthodox blaming Calvinism and post-Calvinism for the secularisation of the Principality ...

Meanwhile, in response to ExclamationMark, yes, I think there were plenty of socio-economic and cultural influences on the Welsh Revival but I would be as wary of taking an overly reductionist approach in that direction as I would in seeing the whole thing as a 'sovereign move of Almighty God' which was how it was always framed in the Valleys when I was growing up.

As Below The Lansker points out, this notion of 'fires of revival igniting once again' is part of the psyche down there - even in quite dry and undemonstrative chapels.

Of course, these 'fires of revival' are always seen as most likely to happen in one's own backyard rather than anyone else's.

There were a number of churches around Cwmbran that claimed to be the real 'source' of the so-called 'outpouring'.

It was an outpouring alright, an outpouring of wishful thinking ...

---

The exact opposite can be argued and that is the disconnect from Christianity was already happening by the time of the Reformation and what it actually did was by adopting a "rational" approach was link it in a way that made it relevant to people of that time. It took it out of the hands of the cleric and made it something a person could take. The "rationalism" and "individualism" leading to atheism are unintended consequences of this.

Certainly if we were waiting for the Orthodox to evangelise following a failure of the western church, I doubt that faith would have got here yet.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, they are here now. They took their time about it, though, as they do with everything else ...



Sure, I agree with the thing about 'rationalism' an 'atheism' being unintended consequences of the Reformation. I think most of the Orthodox would agree on that too - other than those who simply use it as another stick to beat the 'dissident West' about the head ...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidefall:
I think revivalist christianity is totally discredited. I would just ignore it and focus, as you say, on the day-to-day business of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


As for Wales, when I lived there I was surprised at how many abandoned churches I saw. I understand that some commentators see the rapid decline of Welsh chapelgoing as the aftereffect of a sort of over-triumphant revivalism, so I can understand why people here would disapprove of it.

---

In addition to outright abandoned churches there are a lot of small churches. The joke round Newport is that there are more churches than Christians and while not literally true, that's a handy warning to the way things could go, if they aren't headed that way already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think one needs to factor in that the welsh
revival of 1904 filled a lot of little churches - one on every street it seems - but was followed 10 years later by the great war. One wonders how many of these little churches' congregations were decimated by the loss of a lot of their menfolk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As Below The Lansker points out, this notion of 'fires of revival igniting once again' is part of the psyche down there - even in quite dry and undemonstrative chapels.

---

Allegedly heard in prayer: "Oh Lord, if there be any spark of revival, any tiny flame ... Lord, water it".
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, Wales didn't suffer disproportionately in the Great War. The proportion of men killed was very similar to the proportions in the other Home Nations.

I don't know whether there were any economic differences between South Wales and the West Midlands when it came to disposing of church properties.

There were open air meetings in the Welsh Revival. There were open air meetings in early Methodism too, but the numbers participating were often exaggerated.

Open air meetings aren't necessarily the distinguishing feature of a revival. I once heard a scholarly paper delivered on a revival in North East Scotland in Victorian times. The features varied according to the social conditions.

In Aberdeen and other urban centres it had more of a Moody & Sankey, mass rally type of feel.

In the fishing villages along the coast it had an entirely different flavour again.

In the agricultural hinterland the features varied yet again and the various phases tended to follow the pattern of the agricultural year.

We can't - as so many revival mythologists do - divorce these things from the prevailing social conditions at the time.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Most of the reformed flavoured evangelicals are amillenialists and the restorationist 'new church' types tended to be amillenialist with some post-millenialist overtones. Some were full on posties but not many.

---

I think most evangelicals (in the UK) are not consciously anything on the issue - if they are anything, they usually have a mild reaction against the pre-millenialism as portrayed in the Left Behind books.

I still meet plenty of people - especially older or pentecostal types - who are pre-mil though.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Gamaliel

I wasn't really trying to present the 'defining features' of revivalism!! I was simply wondering why these revivalists need to cling to their buildings so desperately.


What do you think today's misguided Welsh revivalists should do? How best should they approach the future since, as you think, future revivals are highly unlikely?
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The social upheaval of the War probably had more impact on the churches and chapels than the number of casualties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for West Yorkshire, I know a preacher who grew up at one of those vast Methodist churches there. He says that when it had to close the relatively large congregation refused to re-locate, because their identity was bound up with being part of that prestigious, iconic building. Sad really, but inevitable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the West Midlands it seems that you can always get a good price for your church building (or for the land), so why would you wait around for a revival?? Meanwhile, empty churches in South Wales aren't being snapped up so quickly, so perhaps there's less of an inclination for congregations to sell.

---

One aspect to bear in mind is the sheer number of buildings. A Welsh town of around 10,000 (with regional variations) may well have had 3 or 4 chapels each of the 'big three' (Congregational/Independent, Baptist, and Calvinistic Methodist), plus Wesleyan or Primitive Methodist (if there was a significant English-speaking population), many of them seating anything between 350 to 1200. 1904 also produced many independent Gospel Halls or Gospel Missions for those who felt that the historic denominations were too staid. Depending on the area in question, many of these chapels come onto the market at the same time, as the last stalwarts succumb to age and weariness. Nowadays, because there is greater awareness of the social and cultural importance of chapel life in Wales (even if the buildings may not be architecturally interesting), local councils are trying to ensure that their place in the landscape is protected. Even if you buy one and want to change its use or transform it into flats, they won't let you do much to the outside - they aren't really an attractive option for developers.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, the early Christians in Jerusalem initially gathered where people were already gathering ... in the Temple Courts and so on.

Gradually, though, they started meeting in homes and then acquired their own buildings.

The same thing would happen if we all abandoned our buildings tomorrow and started meeting in Starbucks or in shopping malls or the local pub.

Sooner or later we'd start meeting in homes and gradually renting halls or acquiring property again.

I don't see how people meeting at Starbucks is any more sustainable than the current state of play. Buildings are certainly an issue. Not all church buildings can be maintained.

There are some examples of creative use of worship facilities for shared purposes in the community - and I'd like to see more of that.

People's identities do become bound up with particular places and things, that's part of human nature.

Coming back to the revivalist thing. I think it's only a particular type of nostalgic revivalist that likes to cling onto the notion of particular buildings being filled once more with crowds singing Welsh hymns in four-part harmony.

Other, more contemporary (but equally misguided ) revivalists fondly imagine that if we abandon buildings, plant and formal associations and start hanging about down at Starbucks then we'll see revival that way.

As for what revivalists should do ... well, it ain't for me to say, but if it was, I'd suggest that they stop banging on and on about revival and simply try to be as human as they can be ...

I'm reminded of something the late Metropolitan Anthony said to his congregation in London, that they should stop trying so hard to be Orthodox and try harder to be human ...


 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think it's a peculiarly South Walian feature in itself, SvitlanaV2. West Yorkshire is full of gigantic chapels that are now empty or else turned into warehouses etc. Many of them were built deliberately bigger than was required because the congregations and sponsors were either anticipating revival or else trying to out-do the other chapel down the road.

Competition between the various non-conformist denominations was intense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We could start a separate thread about meeting in Starbucks, pubs, social clubs, shopping malls etc etc ... that could be quite interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Which is worse: a Christian who gives in to his natural, though misguided, desires or those who obnoxiously gloat over the moral failures of others (you know, the smug "I told you so" brigade)?

There are times when I'm inclined to answer: the latter.

---

I think that worse than either are those who try to position themselves in moral high ground above the fray altogether.

The tone of the blog has been criticised right from the OP; my own take on it is here. But the poor handling of the allegations does not excuse the original wrongdoing (sorry, "giving in to natural, though misguided, desires" ) if it did indeed occur.

Victory Church has been making extraordinary claims as being host to an extraordinary move of God. I have consistently argued that this makes it (and particularly its leadership) more accountable to the general public, not less. Instead they are apparently still trying to bury this, just like they did the plagiarism on RT's blog, of which there was ample evidence.

If churches took the injunction to ensure that their leaders were "above reproach" more seriously, and acted compassionately, honestly and transparently when their leaders fail, there would be a lot less room for the self-righteous pundits.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
I think that worse than either are those who try to position themselves in moral high ground above the fray altogether.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
Mudfrog - are you honestly saying that charismatic Christianity is totally discredited or an I miusunderstanding you. That seems an extraordinay strong statement to make and - one that would require very careful framing if you are not intending to write off a huge proportion of Christians in this country and world wide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
Jesus had the advantage of being without sin.

---

quote:

---

He did tell the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more".

---

quote:

---

He didn't attempt to excuse the adulterous pair by saying they were simply "giving in to natural desires" (or indeed seek to exonerate the would-be stoners on the same grounds).

---

quote:

---

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" does not equate to "let's never call people in positions of christian responsibility to account".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's an excellent quote from Watchman Nee about a time of 'outpouring' in Shanghai in the 1930s - all manner of exciting things going on in meetings, some claims of healing etc etc ... Nee wrote that at the end of it not much ground appeared to have been gained and if anything, ground had been lost.

That quote ought to be printed out and framed in the offices of all the pastors and church leaders who go in for this sort of thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
There's an excellent quote from Watchman Nee about a time of 'outpouring' in Shanghai in the 1930s - all manner of exciting things going on in meetings, some claims of healing etc etc ... Nee wrote that at the end of it not much ground appeared to have been gained and if anything, ground had been lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog
We are not discussing a 'work of god' we are discussing revival.

---

That distinction is completely incomprehensible to me (assuming by 'god' you mean 'God').
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
If we have clashed, South Coast Kevin, I'd like to think that it has been a creative friction rather than a negative one.



@EE - yes, I agree that there is censoriousness and self-righteousness involved in some of the somewhat unpleasant online gloating that it is going on in regard to events at Victory Church. There's also a degree of spiritual pride involved too ... 'We're where the real move of God is taking place ...'

I grew up in Cwmbran and although I haven't spent a great deal of time there in recent years - other than to visit relatives - I recognise that tendency in some of the churches down there, I'm afraid. Mind you, no church is immune from this sort of thing.

But Eutychus is also right - there should be a calling to account. Both are you are right ... it's a both/and thing.

I'm also with Mudfrog on the 'revival' thing. The term can be understood differently but in its classic sense, the way he has framed it fits with the missiological definition.

As far as the TB goes, yes, I'm sure there were people who benefited from it and who continue to look back on it as a significant time. I know people who do and I wouldn't want to take that from them.

But it certainly wasn't a revival in the definitive sense of the term.

It was a significant time for me, too ... it was a significant time in terms of realising that 'revivalism' wasn't where it was at.

Revival is one thing, 'revivalism' something else again.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog
We are not discussing a 'work of god' we are discussing revival.

---

That distinction is completely incomprehensible to me (assuming by 'god' you mean 'God').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:



As far as the TB goes, yes, I'm sure there were people who benefited from it and who continue to look back on it as a significant time. I know people who do and I wouldn't want to take that from them.

But it certainly wasn't a revival in the definitive sense of the term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There was a Morris Cerullo Mission to London a couple of weeks ago - did anyone hear anything about it?

---

No
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
This report appeared in the "Independent".
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
You see, the difference between this and what Jesus did (and what the evangelical revivalists did) was that Jesus preached the gospel. he did not preach healing. He performed healings, of course, but he never preached about it. He didn't call people to healing, he called people to repentance.

This, I believe, comes down to one point of doctrine/theology.

Pentecostals and charismatics, by and large, believe that physical healing is included in the work of the cross.

Evangelicals, by and large, do not. I certainly do not believe that Jesus died on the cross to win my physical healing; it is not part of the atonement.

A Pentecostal mission, therefore, will indeed speak about physical healings as a manifestation of the presence of the Saviour. If people are healed - ta da! the work of the cross is made manifest.

Evangelical revivalists from Wesley through Finney, Moody and Sankey, to Booth and on to Billy Graham and others, will see converts trusting in Christ for salvation as the 'evidence' that God is moving in a meeting or service.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not sure I'd see what does or doesn't happen in a service as necessarily evidence of a 'move of God'.

It can be.

I've heard priests of more sacramental traditions say, 'We have an altar call every week, it's called Holy Communion ...'



The fruit of any of this - people 'responding' or 'going forward' and so on in revivalist meetings or else going to receive communion week by week or sitting in silence as the Quakers do or whatever else people may do or not do in church gatherings - can only be assessed by how people live outside those gatherings themselves.

It's easy to be caught up with the atmosphere, be that in a revivalist service or a bells and smells one ...

There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself - we are creaturely creatures after all - but if it stops there then there are problems.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Pentecostals and charismatics, by and large, believe that physical healing is included in the work of the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It's easy to be caught up with the atmosphere, be that in a revivalist service or a bells and smells one ...

There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself - we are creaturely creatures after all - but if it stops there then there are problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
When all else fails, perhaps the church will pick up the cross of the suffering and suffer sharing the load with them. THEN something would be seen, known to be going on. Until then, there will be this chaff, where God suffers us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
Well, to get this back on track, it's disappointing, although sadly not entirely surprising, that to date there's a deafening silence from Victory Church, from Victory Outreach of which Richard Taylor is or was CEO, and indeed Elim (even if they are only tangentially involved).

This is what happened when the issue of plagiarism was raised. The church simply pulled the evidence and did nothing more (at least publicly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidefall
That's on top of the problems associated with the revival, which seems to have began with a false claim that someone was healed from being in a wheelchair.

---

What is your evidence that it was a false claim?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
The fact that it was made.

Mudfrog - I knew that you would As long as we do it without ANY expectation, ANY exclusion.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You mean to say that the church actually listened to you and removed the offending material? Well done to them, is what I say. What else were you expecting?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
I note that in contrast to the impression you gave on that thread, you now seem to acknowledge that the material was actually "offending", i.e. plagiarised, and therefore cause for serious concern. What made you change your mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin...Biohazard
The fact that it was made.

---

 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The fact that it was made.

Mudfrog - I knew that you would As long as we do it without ANY expectation, ANY exclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
I note that in contrast to the impression you gave on that thread, you now seem to acknowledge that the material was actually "offending", i.e. plagiarised, and therefore cause for serious concern. What made you change your mind?

---

I'd be interested to know where I gave "the impression" that plagiarism was OK. Perhaps a link to the relevant comment(s) would be helpful.

---

quote:

---

something dodgy - no matter how small

---

quote:

---

OK, so he's plagiarised some content for his blog. His bad.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that his ministry is dodgy.

---

quote:

---

It could be that he just misunderstands 'fair use'

---

quote:

---

technically moral, but which may involve a certain ambiguity

---

quote:

---

It may be that Richard is unaware of the gravity and ethical implications of plagiarism and that this is an ‘honest’ mistake that can be properly and swiftly addressed. However (...) I would suggest that its existence is grounds for serious concern on the part of the church trustees and a possible indicator that all is not right.

---

It could be that the current fuss is all lies, and certainly the attitude of the blog in the OP is, as has been widely acknowledged, also extremely regrettable, but at the moment it looks to me like my initial assessment was correct. Plagiarism of this nature from someone in RT's position and making the claims he was making is not trivial.

[ 17. August 2014, 16:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The initial claim of a healing at one of the Victory Church meetings has not been substantiated. On the older threads on this, I seem to remember reading that Victory Church were keeping the guy out of the public eye, claiming that they were respecting and protecting his privacy.

That may be the case. It's also true that on some of the websites of churches around the area which have been quite scathing about he whole thing there have been claims that the bloke wasn't actually healed and was still seen in his wheelchair from time to time ...

One comment I saw suggested that the man wasn't even 'born again' because he still smoked ...



A friend of mine who saw the alleged miracle on a video said that it 'looked convincing'.

I've seen 'miracles' that have looked convincing too. I've seen people get up out of wheelchairs in meetings ... only to be back in them the next day or even later on the same evening.

I've shared before on this Boards how my brother once saw a girl's squint apparently rectify itself in response to prayer for healing. The very next day the squint had returned.

On one of the earlier threads on Cwmbran I remember reading that someone had visited and experienced some kind of relief for their arthritic pain during the meeting itself - only for that pain to recur as soon as they left the gathering to go home.

What we are tending to see are placebo effects and people experiencing temporary relief of largely musculo-skeletal pain in the heightened atmosphere of revivalist gatherings.

Victory Church has had ample opportunity to verify the claim of a healing miracle but has not done so.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My take on the whole thing is that Victory Church has simply gone down the route of overly exaggerated claims (I nearly wrote 'over-egged' but Eutychus doesn't like it ) ... move along please, there's nothing to see here.

At the same time, it seems to me, some of its detractors, particularly in some of the other charismatic churches in the area are acting out of jealousy, spite and a gloating desire to see the whole thing implode.

What we haven't seen is:

- Revival.

- Any hard and fast evidence of healings.

I hope that they can sort things out and that Richard Taylor can get himself back on some kind of track or even keel.

The problem is that the heightened level of hype and expectation in outfits of this kind militates against cold, rational action in the clear light of day.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
By something else I mean in EE.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Eutychus -

Thanks for those links to my previous comments, none of which suggest that I am justifying plagiarism, but rather merely putting it into its proper perspective. I notice that you acknowledge in your letter to the trustee of Victory Church that this plagiarism could be "an honest mistake", so, in the light of that admission, I don't really understand why you are making such a big deal of this, especially considering that the church listened to you and took down the offending material. (BTW, I use the word 'offending' in the general sense of "that which has caused a problem in someone's estimation", which is not the same as saying that "it is a serious sin").

As for the fact that they failed to acknowledge to you - or to the rest of the world and his dog - that they had made a mistake, well, all I can say is this: if I were subject to such hostility from so many quarters and dismissed as a charlatan and a fraud, then I would be very reluctant to say anything that could possibly incriminate me. I would take correction, but I certainly wouldn't advertise it to my detractors, who clearly "have it in for me". In other words, Richard Taylor was very wise in his approach to this.

It is patently obvious to me that he was not trying to deceive people, because if he really wanted to do so, he could easily have posted other people's material and passed it off as his own with a superficial rewrite, in order to deflect the charge of plagiarism.

In the light of this, and the church's response, I consider your case extremely weak.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, there are Commandment 8 factors to take into account at this point so I'll go carefully hereabouts.

I don't think plagiarism is trivial, whether practised by a harrassed student under pressure or a church leader trying to create some sort of impression. It tells you something significant about the moral malleability of the practising plagiarist. Misrepresenting someone else's ideas as one's own rings alarm bells about the misrepresenter.

Of course you do have to allow for inadvertence and keep a sense of proportion. The non-attribution of a short quote may just be a bit of carelessness or forgetfulness. And it is possible to come up with what you think is an original thought only to discover someone else got there first.

[That's happened to me. I thought I'd discovered a new variation for White against a standard sequence for Black in the Sicilian Defence; the sequence led to material gain or an early checkmate. Found it over the board in a practice game at University. Sent it off to Modern Chess Openings, only to get a nice letter back telling me that the variation would be in the next edition, but the sequence had actually been played 18 months earlier in a tournament game between two Eastern Europeans. I was a bit gutted to discover that my original thought wasn't original - but it was original to me.]

In the examples Eutychus quoted, however, such inadvertence or routine "de minimis" carelessness does not seem to apply. The complete "cut and paste" evidence was pretty impressive. The evidence points to the plagiarism as deliberate and extensive. Hence the ringing warning bells.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
(BTW, I use the word 'offending' in the general sense of "that which has caused a problem in someone's estimation", which is not the same as saying that "it is a serious sin").

---

quote:

---

I notice that you acknowledge in your letter to the trustee of Victory Church that this plagiarism could be "an honest mistake", so, in the light of that admission

---

quote:

---

I don't really understand why you are making such a big deal of this, especially considering that the church listened to you and took down the offending material

---

quote:

---

How the person in question deals with the exposure of such shortcomings is probably going to tell you a lot more about their suitability for the ministry, too.

---

quote:

---

I am sure he will respond as moral necessity dictates.

---

quote:

---

I would be very reluctant to say anything that could possibly incriminate me.

---

quote:

---

Richard Taylor was very wise in his approach to this.

---

quote:

---

It is patently obvious to me that he was not trying to deceive people, because if he really wanted to do so, he could easily have posted other people's material and passed it off as his own with a superficial rewrite, in order to deflect the charge of plagiarism.

---

quote:

---

Not only has he plagiarised those posts in his blog, but he's actually combed through them and tweaked sentences, attempting to pass it off as his own work.

I think that shows a greater level of deceitfulness than quickly copy-and-pasting a post he come about, and maybe absent-mindedly forgetting to attribute it.

For a leader who seems to present himself as a teacher, that's really poor behaviour IMO.

---

quote:

---

In the light of this, and the church's response

---

quote:

---

I consider your case extremely weak.

---

quote:

---

Wesley's ministry included the time prior to and during the American War for Independence. How to respond to colonial demands was a hot political issue in England, and Wesley waded right into the middle of it. Reversing an earlier position, Wesley came out in strong support of the legitimacy of taxing the colonies. His position was put before the public in an address entitled A Calm Address to Our American Colonies. The tract caused a sensation in England (but not in America, where a friend of the Methodists destroyed all the copies, lest the Methodist preachers be persecuted).

The problem with the pamphlet was that Wesley did not write substantial portions of it. In the course of approximately ten pages, Wesley used numerous sections taken verbatim from Samuel Johnson's Taxation No Tyranny. In the first edition of Calm Address, Wesley did not indicate in any way that he had borrowed text from Johnson - Wesley represented the work as his own. This laid him open to the just charge of plagiarism, and those charges were not long in coming. In a preface to the second edition, Wesley acknowledged his indebtedness to the other pamphlet, but this was too late. A plagiarist does not cease to be a plagiarist because he admits the obvious after he has been caught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, I think we'd all concede that Wesley's achievements - for all his very human failings - were of greater import than anything that is likely to have come out of Victory Church in Cwmbran.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am asking for is moral consistency. If Richard Taylor is considered to be deceitful for being a plagiarist, then we should apply the same moral judgment to others.

---

quote:

---

plagiarism bars a person from having a relationship with God

---

quote:

---

within a productive ministry

---

quote:

---

God uses imperfect people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
If they are guilty of plagiarism, why should we trust whatever other claims they make?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In other words, all churches and denominations are morally suspect.

---

quote:

---

Or is it a case of deliberately targetting charismatic churches, because they are an easy target?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If anyone is guilty of anything, why should we trust whatever other claims they make?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Revivalism" tends to be associated with 'Arminian' theology which over-stresses the human decision side of faith and does not adequately challenge people with the concept that "You need mercy and mercy is not something you can deserve or force from God". Seeking revival can then end up uncomfortably like brainwashing; in particular it often almost attacks people in their emotions, by-passing the mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is all very interesting, but it is entirely tangential to the issues here, which are relatively straightforward issues of ethics.

In my view, introducing theological differences into this particular debate is potentially an unhelpful distraction. Christians can happily discuss Finney, Moody, Whitefield, True Revival™ and Revivalism™ while blatant misconduct, about which it should be relatively easy to agree and straightforward to act on, goes on under our noses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Wesley also never experienced the things his followers claimed to experience in terms of 'sinless perfection' and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:


"Revivalism" tends to be associated with 'Arminian' theology which over-stresses the human decision side of faith and does not adequately challenge people with the concept that "You need mercy and mercy is not something you can deserve or force from God". Seeking revival can then end up uncomfortably like brainwashing; in particular it often almost attacks people in their emotions, by-passing the mind.

---

quote:

---

Historically, a lot of Calvinistic churches were part of the great revival movements - and people like Edwards, Whitefield, etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


Historically, a lot of Calvinistic churches were part of the great revival movements - and people like Edwards, Whitefield, etc...

Theologically, even Arminians and Wesleyans, would tell you that revival is a work of sovereign grace that cannot be engineered and/or planned for. Yes, non-Calvinists would point to personal decisions to follow Christ but even these are in response to the grace of God given freely and unbidden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Seek faith and understanding and God himself, true revival may follow; seek revival and all the hype and excitement, and you may get hype and excitement but not true revival. Cwmbran and the Toronto Blessing seem to me to be the latter type of event.

---

And there you have it. Discussion of breaches of ethics which are, if proven, pretty straightforward to assess, and which most people could manage to agree on in any office environment, is replaced by a pseudospiritualised argument that can continue until the eschaton - and avoid the actual day-to-day in-yer-face incarnational issues.

Line up the Righteous™ on the one hand "seeking God himself" (and probably thus exempt from sinful temptations) and the Fleshly™ "seeking hype and excitement" (clearly ripe for succumbing to them) on the other.

Fallen into sin? It's obviously your lack of soundness that's responsible. Brush up on your mint, dill and cummin tithing, check your theological correctness and your revival pedigree, and don't mind that trio of elephants Justice, Mercy and Faithfulness that have just left by the back door.

Now we can all argue and introspect about which side we and our favourite christian stalwarts are on, and doubtless consign the ones we don't like to the "worldly" side, and debate whether Revival™ is a thing, and if it is whether it's a Work of God™ and whether tongues or falling over help one be godly or not, instead of looking at the straightforward issues of ethics.


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
Christians can happily discuss Finney, Moody, Whitefield, True Revival™ and Revivalism™ while blatant misconduct, about which it should be relatively easy to agree and straightforward to act on, goes on under our noses.

---

It is abundantly clear - even from the discussions on this site - that moral issues are not always clear cut and about which we can easily agree.

And if we are going to be selective about which misdemeanours to focus on, and which to ignore, then we will inevitably be biased in our appraisal of the moral condition of different churches and denominations.

In the past I have expressed my view about the use of personality tests in church life to organise the life and ministry of the church (especially those tests based on the philosophy of Carl Jung). Certain others thought I was making a fuss about nothing, whereas I regard this as an evil within the church, as I have seen the deleterious effect of it. So here is an example of how Christians disagree on what constitutes "misconduct". How therefore can anyone say that it is easy to agree on such matters?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
The very making of claims is bogus.

It's like denunciation in Stalinist Russia, innuendo in the gutter press, office gossip, spin on facts, interpretation of texts, management 'perception': as soon as it is said, it is true, no matter how untrue.

Any denomination that makes claims is deceived to the degree that it does, the more it does the bigger the target.

Treason must not prosper. So call it.

And yes, God, Grace, Love perseveres even in this morass.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
EE: Okay, perhaps I should have said "easy to circumscribe" rather than "easy to agree on".

I persist in thinking that the alleged misconduct the OP reports, and the previous misconduct that has been discussed regarding Cwmbran, fall into a category that transcends theological differences about revival - one of basic ethics.

In much the same way that the use or otherwise of personality tests might fall into another distinct category.

I don't know about personality tests, but I'm convinced that it doesn't require detailed theological agreement or debate to make progress on how churches and christians can or should deal with "basic ethics" misconduct such as plagiarism, adultery, and financial fraud for instance.

And it seems to me that diverting the conversation into another category, whether intentionally or otherwise, is a good way of failing to make progress on the central issues at hand in this precise instance.

I think the blog in the OP attempts to conflate the author's own theological standpoint with the moral high ground, and that's just one of its shortcomings.

[ 18. August 2014, 21:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No Mudfrog, whilst my terminology was sloppy, I'm not introducing a strawman. Wesley himself fully acknowledged that he hadn't entered into the fullness of the experience that he believed some of the converts had.

That doesn't imply that there was anything defective, necessarily, in Wesley's own experience ... simply that he was using some fairly quirky measures to assess it.



The most balanced treatment of the whole thing, to my mind, comes in 'Reasonable Enthusiast: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism' by Henry D Rack.

Rack makes a very convincing stab at rescuing Wesley's spiritual experience from reductionism on both sides ... those who'd seek to underplay the evangelical aspects and overplay the more sacramental aspects and t'other way round.

His is a more rounded Wesley, I think.

But this is a tangent. Eutychus is right ... the Arminian/Calvinist thing and whether one tradition is better than another yadda yadda yadda is something of a side issue here.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mudfrog;

quote:

---

Historically, a lot of Calvinistic churches were part of the great revival movements - and people like Edwards, Whitefield, etc...

---

Whence my distinction between 'Revival' and 'Revivalism'. (I tend to go with Jim Packer's view that Wesley was a Calvinist in practice; but had been put off by 'hyper-Calvinist' types who overdid predestination rather than stressing the grace aspect of it).

My point, however, is less about the Arminian/Calvinist divide, more about different ways of looking at revival. Seek faith and understanding and God himself, true revival may follow; seek revival and all the hype and excitement, and you may get hype and excitement but not true revival. Cwmbran and the Toronto Blessing seem to me to be the latter type of event.

---

quote:

---

And there you have it. Discussion of breaches of ethics which are, if proven, pretty straightforward to assess, and which most people could manage to agree on in any office environment, is replaced by a pseudospiritualised argument that can continue until the eschaton - and avoid the actual day-to-day in-yer-face incarnational issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
The Wesley thing is a bit different too insofar as his plagiarism occurred in the context of a political debate and not an apparent attempt to claim particular spiritual experiences or elements of other people's testimonies ... which is what seemed to be happening on the Victory Church website.

I'm not separating out the sacred from the profane, but it begs a few questions when people apparently start trying to pass other people's experiences off as their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I would have thought that plagiarism is simply plagiarism - i.e. a violation of someone else's intellectual rights, quite irrespective of the subject matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
....and it only confirms my suspicion that this is all a campaign against a particular type of churchmanship, rather than a genuine concern for intellectual property rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So the seriousness of plagiarism is dependent on the subject matter, yes?

I wonder if Eutychus agrees with that position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John316:
Im thinking that while this deep theological debate is going on, there is Richard Taylor running off in the distance. Victory Church have been called out on numerous issues and to date have not given a response to one. My guess is that they dont want to be heard saying that theyre not guilty of this that or the next thing, because they know that someone will know otherwise and post as such In their minds, they are answerable to no-one, he runs the show.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

That involves examining our motives, our grounds, and our attitudes - and the potential for new media to be used to do, well, what institutions have failed to do or done badly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
We could reverse the charge of double-standards and suggest that you are defending Victory Church purely because it's a charismatic one and because you happen to favour that end of things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am concerned about is something called fairness (and that strange thing called 'truth', of course).

I have given an example of double standards with my reference to Wesley. Now it's your turn to provide an example of where I am guilty of same. Over to you...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Do you advocate western intervention in every country where it might prevent a particular group of people from getting killed? Because that would be a lot of intervention.

---

I will answer that by asking you a question: Do you think it is right to say that we cannot attempt to save anyone unless we can find a way to save everyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
John Wesley had a lot of faults. He was human like the rest of us. He didn't 'start' the religious revival in the mid-18th century - if anything the Arminian strand that he represented was a majority position at that time. But he did play a significant part in it. So much so that 250 years later there is still a body of Christians based around his principles and teachings and a wider tradition - such as Mudfrog's that derives from it and owes a great deal to it.h their drug rehabilitation ministry are beginning to unravel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am concerned about is something called fairness (and that strange thing called 'truth', of course).

I have given an example of double standards with my reference to Wesley. Now it's your turn to provide an example of where I am guilty of same. Over to you...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But as Jesus and the NT writers misquoted the OT and brought in all sorts of weird culturally accreted stuff...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But as Jesus and the NT writers misquoted the OT and brought in all sorts of weird culturally accreted stuff...

---

Can you cite specific Bible passages that support this statement?

Moo

---

Huge tangent - happy to take this up with you on Kergymania though
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
EE - read what I said rather than what you think I said.

I said 'we could' ... the operative word is 'could'.

I'm not saying you are.

---

quote:

---

We all of us have our particular preferences but I don't see how the kind of criticisms that ExclamationMark and Eutychus are levelling here are in any way biased - they are simply saying that certain standards should apply to any church group irrespective of what tradition it comes from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Richard Taylor may indeed be guilty of many other things, and those criticisms may indeed reflect a corrupt spirituality. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a specific offence, namely, plagiarism. Don't try to change the terms of the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Good. So if Eutychus is not driven by any kind of bias, then it follows that whatever criticism we make of Richard Taylor's spirituality on the basis of his plagiarism misdemeanour we must also make of John Wesley, and any other professing Christian who is caught committing this offence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So if Eutychus is not driven by any kind of bias, then it follows that whatever criticism we make of Richard Taylor's spirituality on the basis of his plagiarism misdemeanour we must also make of John Wesley, and any other professing Christian who is caught committing this offence. We simply cannot have it both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical

quote:

---

Do you advocate western intervention in every country where it might prevent a particular group of people from getting killed? Because that would be a lot of intervention.

---

I will answer that by asking you a question: Do you think it is right to say that we cannot attempt to save anyone unless we can find a way to save everyone?

---

Here, you clearly think it's OK to intervene in one situation even if you do not also intervene in all other similar situations. It surely follows that intervention in the Victory Church situation (by highlighting plagiarism) is not invalidated by a failure to highlight all other instances of plagiarism by a church leader.

To put it in your own terms, do you think it is right to say that we cannot highlight plagiarism by anyone who does it unless we can find a way to highlight plagiarism by everyone who does it?

Alternatively, it is "double standards" to advocate Western intervention in Iraq without also advocating Western intervention in all other similar situations. Your call.

---

quote:

---

I was thinking about the 4 million who died in the recent wars in Congo. Should we have intervened there? If not, why not?

As you say, we could make a long list of wars and conflicts with large numbers of dead - which ones should be the target of Western intervention? The ones with oil deposits, I suppose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We know that both Richard Taylor and John Wesley were guilty of plagiarism (and Wesley certainly was, contrary to Eutychus' attempt to explain it away as merely a quotation).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Suppose the police charge two men with murder, and they are convicted in a court of law. The judge decides to send one of the men to prison for life, and give the other one nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Would you say that such a judge is justified in this form of sentencing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Good. So if Eutychus is not driven by any kind of bias, then it follows that whatever criticism we make of Richard Taylor's spirituality on the basis of his plagiarism misdemeanour we must also make of John Wesley, and any other professing Christian who is caught committing this offence.

---

No, we mustn't. You even bringing them up is nothing more than a textbook use of the tu quoque fallacy, with a hint of "all the cool kids are doing it" thrown in. It's a desperate attempt to defend the guilty, not by trying to deny that the charges are false (which would be doomed to failure) but by trying to throw so much mud around everywhere else that people stop noticing the mud on him.

Also, what I said in my previous post. Which I note has thus far gone unanswered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying to Eutychus is:

B: "If you are going to question a church leader's spiritual integrity because he has committed the offence of plagiarism, then you obviously believe that plagiarism is the fruit of spiritual corruption. If it is not necessarily the fruit of spiritual corruption, then you have no case. And if it is necessarily the fruit of spiritual corruption, then you should apply the same rule to other Christian leaders who have committed the same offence and then draw the relevant conclusions therefrom."

Now that is not unreasonable, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let us take the example of the recent conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The West could have intervened militarily, but it did not. Because it did not, does that mean that the West has no right to condemn those conflicts and humanitarian catastrophe that has been the result? Does that mean that the West has no moral right to intervene in other parts of the world?

---

quote:

---

Now which analogy is most appropriate in this plagiarism discussion? Well, clearly the first example.

---

quote:

---

So we are not dealing with unknowns or scenarios in which we are unable to intervene in some way.

---

quote:

---

We have the knowledge and opportunity to criticise Richard Taylor and also say something about the historical figure of John Wesley.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We know that both Richard Taylor and John Wesley were guilty of plagiarism (and Wesley certainly was, contrary to Eutychus' attempt to explain it away as merely a quotation).

---

I never said or implied anything of the sort. I invite you to put up or retract that.

---

I certainly do retract that. I misread* one of your posts when I was out "on the road" earlier. I am sorry about that.


* or rather: misinterpreted.

[ 19. August 2014, 14:39: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Wesley is long since dead, and his trustworthiness is no longer a going concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Wesley is long since dead, and his trustworthiness is no longer a going concern.

---

Except that millions of people of many denominations look to Wesley for spiritual wisdom. Through his writings, recorded acts and legacy he still has a spiritual authority and influence.

Therefore I think my point is valid. His plagiarism was clearly an act of human weakness. I believe that to be the case. Therefore, if I believe that about Wesley, I must be willing to extend the same mercy towards others, such as Richard Taylor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore, if I believe that about Wesley, I must be willing to extend the same mercy towards others, such as Richard Taylor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
This offers further evidence to me that your view of morality is far too binary.

Do you actually know any men convicted of murder? I know quite a few. They haven't all received identical sentences. Largely because the circumstances, motives, and context were vastly different for each of them.

Wesley was apparently caught plagiarising in a treatise on taxation for the US (and apparently admitted it, albeit belatedly). Taylor has been caught plagiarising in a forum readers suppose to be an expression of his personal thoughts (the URL of the blog was "Taylorsrants"), and apparently has admitted nothing whatsoever at this point. Can you really not see a difference?

---

quote:

---

I think that a minimum of integrity is a basic requisite for a christian leader.

I have absolutely no truck whatsoever with the argument that we should turn a blind eye to shortcomings "because of all the good that's come out of it".

I think plagiarism of that nature is not a minor shortcoming, either. It raises fundamental questions about ethics and integrity and should alert any responsible trustees to the need to check other aspects and credentials further.

How the person in question deals with the exposure of such shortcomings is probably going to tell you a lot more about their suitability for the ministry, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We should not turn a blind eye to shortcomings?

---

quote:

---

Plagiarism ("of that nature" - whatever that means) raises fundamental questions about ethics and integrity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My understanding is that Richard Taylor did not have a particularly academic education, quite the reverse, and I wonder how fair it is to judge him as if he had. He might well have believed that, as long as the original writer was happy for his intellectual property to be used in "the furtherance of the Gospel", there was no problem in him doing so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Hmmm... interesting... very telling...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So you take an absolutist view of this problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You make a big thing about the fact that Richard Taylor and / or his trustees did not respond to your letter, but I can't help but notice your lack of responsiveness when it would have been morally called for. I apologised for misconstruing something you wrote, and I would have thought that an "apology accepted" or even "not accepted" would have been quite appropriate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Jolly Jape -

Excellent post!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[Richard Taylor] went to Bible College - so should be aware of what's correct and not correct in terms of right use of academic materials

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Just a thought. I take on board all you say about your experience of trying to interact with Victory Church, but it seems to me that plagiarism is very much a term associated with an academic context to which I would think Richard Taylor is a stranger.

---

quote:

---

Before coming I checked out their website and took some time to look at founding pastor Richard Taylor’s blog as I often find that the books or websites they recommend gives me a good and quick take on their theology and helps me understand where they are coming from and heading to. It seemed that pastor Richard loved the types of books I like and linked to similar websites as I frequent too. I suppose all of this gave me a security that this was genuine and that the church and its leadership were trustworthy, godly men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
He went to Bible College - so should be aware of what's correct and not correct in terms of right use of academic materials

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
He went to Bible College - so should be aware of what's correct and not correct in terms of right use of academic materials

---

Taylor was also principal of Victory Academy. The current principal has a BA in theology.

In checking this I discoverd that Victory Church is busy updating its website. Within the past day or so, Richard Taylor's bio has disappeared (you can, for now, find it in Google's cache here). The current Our Founders page is "under construction". Other pages appear to have undergone a swift rewrite.

I hope that a new page will feature some kind of statement about all the latest developments, and that we won't simply see a memory hole approach to the whole thing.

---

quote:

---

Just a thought. I take on board all you say about your experience of trying to interact with Victory Church, but it seems to me that plagiarism is very much a term associated with an academic context to which I would think Richard Taylor is a stranger.

Most people would understand that to copy something during an exam, or to steal someone's idea for gain is wrong, but the idea of attribution is probably outside the experience of those who haven't written papers at, at least, an undergraduate level. I guess I've written discussion papers for circulation amongst church members in my time which haven't conformed to strict academic attribution protocols. Does it make me a plagiarist if I haven't remembered to attribute the aphorism "the correct remedy for misuse is not disuse but right use" to Canon David Watson, every time I have used it.

My understanding is that Richard Taylor did not have a particularly academic education, quite the reverse, and I wonder how fair it is to judge him as if he had. He might well have believed that, as long as the original writer was happy for his intellectual property to be used in "the furtherance of the Gospel", there was no problem in him doing so.

---

quote:

---

During all the time Evans was attacking Wesley, and wresting concessions from him, the author from whom he had plagiarized, Samuel Johnson, kept out of the fight - published nothing on the Calm Address. At some point Wesley decided to send him a gift, perhaps to mollify him. It was a Bible commentary. Johnson delayed a while before acknowledging it, but on 6 February 1776 he wrote Wesley a letter, thanking him for the gift and then going on to show in tactful language that no mollifying was necessary, that he had taken the plagiarism as a compliment...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Further to my last post:

Please ignore the courses I mentioned for "Birmingham Bible Institute" - I got on the wrong website (that was a college of the same name in the USA). The perils of writing a long post after a day's work!

However, the substance of my argument is not affected by this error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity Killed...
Plagiarism is taken extremely seriously at a much lower level than degree level. So your argument about undergraduate level study doesn't hold up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

1. .... but rather that someone like Richard Taylor would probably not have had an acute awareness of its seriousness. A probable silence on the issue on a particular course does not mean that it would not be taken seriously were it to arise.

2. We need to assess Taylor's likely level of accountability given his background, before making serious moral judgments about his character and spiritual integrity (knowing that God will judge us with the same level of severity and lack of sympathy - "with the judgment you use, you will be judged").

3. Furthermore, it may not have occurred to some people that reposting an article on a website is in the same moral category as cheating in coursework.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We need to assess Taylor's likely level of accountability given his background, before making serious moral judgments about his character and spiritual integrity (knowing that God will judge us with the same level of severity and lack of sympathy - "with the judgment you use, you will be judged").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
Thirdly, having alerted a trustee to RT's plagiarism, I said here that another important indicator would be how the church responded. If they had responded with an apology (as Wesley did, by the way) I would have given them all the benefit of the doubt, but they didn't.

---

quote:

---

“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”

They said to Him, “The first.”

---

quote:

---

Now stop dragging Wesley into this and address the current sorry situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Frankly, I think this is more about you demanding personal vindication and acknowledgment, than anything to do with correcting VC.

---

quote:

---

While it would have been nice to have had a response from VC, what really matters to God is that they actually did respond by pulling the material.

---

quote:

---

Now you want to cover up this historical evidence of how plagiarism can be a manifestation of nothing more than human weakness even in a prominent Christian leader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But how the church responds is not for you to judge, but for God to judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity Killed...
Plagiarism is taken extremely seriously at a much lower level than degree level. So your argument about undergraduate level study doesn't hold up.

---

But I never said that it was not taken seriously at undergraduate level, but rather that someone like Richard Taylor would probably not have had an acute awareness of its seriousness. A probable silence on the issue on a particular course does not mean that it would not be taken seriously were it to arise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I never said that it was not taken seriously at undergraduate level, but rather that someone like Richard Taylor would probably not have had an acute awareness of its seriousness. A probable silence on the issue on a particular course does not mean that it would not be taken seriously were it to arise.

We need to assess Taylor's likely level of accountability given his background, before making serious moral judgments about his character and spiritual integrity (knowing that God will judge us with the same level of severity and lack of sympathy - "with the judgment you use, you will be judged").

Furthermore, it may not have occurred to some people that reposting an article on a website is in the same moral category as cheating in coursework. Such a failing could therefore be down to nothing more than human weakness. If someone of the recognised spiritual stature of John Wesley can fail in this regard, then I think someone of Richard Taylor's background should be shown a bit more understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
If you think you're interacting intelligently with the topic in hand, so be it. I don't, and I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you are, to my mind, simply digging yourself a deeper hole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Why are you defending him so desperately?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
if you thought I was interacting intelligently with the topic, then I would be worried.

---

quote:

---

I expect someone of your position and attitude to despise my criticism of you.

---

quote:

---

I have always affirmed that plagiarism is wrong.

---

quote:

---

If you want to rubbish VC and the alleged 'revival', then start addressing the spiritual and theological issues.

---

quote:

---

Rarely on the Ship - or in the real world - have I seen a Christian with such an absolutist, technocratic view of morality, as you have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Why are you defending him so desperately?

---

Why is Eutychus et al attacking him so desperately?

---

quote:

---

I am simply defending him, because I believe that everyone "deserves a fair trial".

---

quote:

---

Funny, but I thought a debate involved the expression of different and even opposing positions.

---

quote:

---

Or am I supposed to get into line and submit to the latest bullying trend on the Ship?

---

quote:

---

(After all, this site has a terrible track record concerning cyberbullying - something far far more serious than plagiarism, and yet I don't see Eutychus speaking out against that!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Why are you defending him so desperately?

---

Why is Eutychus et al attacking him so desperately?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have now personally written to Victory Church, and without mentioning any names (not that I know anyone here anyway, because you're virtually all anonymous) I have explained to them the nature of the debate in which I have been engaged. I have set out my position to them and encouraged them accordingly. I have, of course, given them my real name and location.

I hope that this will act as a counterweight to the many attacks on them and on Richard Taylor personally.

As a Christian I feel that this is the least I could do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why are you telling us this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
...the rest of us...

---

QED


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
Why are you telling us this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As ever, EE's response is transparently NOTHING to do with the failure at VC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Sorry, but I am not going on the hell thread, because I am fed up with the abuse* on that board. I've got better things to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have now personally written to Victory Church, and without mentioning any names (not that I know anyone here anyway, because you're virtually all anonymous) I have explained to them the nature of the debate in which I have been engaged. I have set out my position to them and encouraged them accordingly. I have, of course, given them my real name and location.

---

Yes, that's right. Continue to promote the view that if you're "doing God's work" it doesn't matter if you lie, cheat, plagiarise, or do anything else that is fundamentally opposed to the spirit of truth and integrity (both personal and corporate) that should be the foundation of Christian ministry. Continue to perpetuate the idea that God's Anointed Ones can do no wrong, and if anyone points out any such wrongdoing then it is they who are at fault, not the Anointed Ones themselves.

Hell, it's not like such an attitude has ever led to severe and profound failings before.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
EE - you are a bright bloke but sometimes it seems to me that you enjoy taking up an 'EE Contra Mundum' stance ...

That's fine, provided, as Albertus has observed, it's a cause worth fighting for and a position worth defending. In this instance I'm not convinced there is such a position to defend. But then, you are well within your rights to seek to defend whatever it is you are seeking to defend.

By the 'rest of us' I was simply referring to the general consensus on this thread. You'll notice that people from different theological backgrounds and approaches are largely agreed here on this particular issue - irrespective of what other variances there might be in theology and approach.

You also appear to be accusing Eutychus of waging some kind of one-man crusade on issues like this. That's not how it comes over to me at all. I've never met Eutychus so he's not my 'mate' in the sense you've suggested.

I've never met South Coast Kevin either - and he and I often disagree about things but hopefully without us falling out and it becoming personal.

I'm by no means suggesting that the majority view is always the right one. In this instance, if it were only people of a certain persuasion who were meting out criticism of Victory Church then I'd agree with you ... but it isn't.

I'm not engaging on the Hell thread either. But I can see why the Hell call was issued.

To get back to the OP - I'm just hoping that the fall-out from all of this isn't too damaging. Given the very vulnerable people involved - drug addicts, people with alcohol problems etc etc - I can't imagine that it will all pass over smoothly.

Equally, I can imagine there being a feeding frenzy of 'I told you so' gloating on the part of some of the other churches in the area - which won't help either.

It's always sad when this sort of thing happens. But it looks like what's happening is what we've seen a number of times in churches of this kind - which leads me to believe that there are systemic problems in revivalist style fellowships.

Other kinds of church have other kinds of systemic problems.

I'm not singling VC out over against anywhere else - all churches have their problems and issues.

I just hope they can salvage something from the rubble when it all collapses in on top of them.


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin... Biohazard
As ever, EE's response is transparently NOTHING to do with the failure at VC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
OK, well then keep off the ad hominem suppositions...

---

quote:

---

Why, here on this board, are you telling us you wrote to Victory Church? Not why you imagine I wrote, why you told us you wrote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
OK, well then keep off the ad hominem suppositions...

---

Thank you for that rebuke. I can't find the same rebuke directed at Gamaliel, but I assume you'll have a private word with him about it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why, here on this board, are you telling us you wrote to Victory Church? Not why you imagine I wrote, why you told us you wrote.

---

You have already heard an answer: because apparently "EE feels he has the moral high ground on this one and the rest of us don't."

---

quote:

---

By the way... why did you tell us that you wrote to Victory Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
To get back to the OP - I'm just hoping that the fall-out from all of this isn't too damaging. Given the very vulnerable people involved - drug addicts, people with alcohol problems etc etc - I can't imagine that it will all pass over smoothly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
perhaps you could confirm that the churches there, which are highly critical of VC, have successful programmes for bringing healing and blessing to drug addicts, alcoholics and ex-offenders?

---

Let's assume for the moment that VC had all those things.

It may have escaped your notice, but Victory Church has just had its founding pastor, who also headed up its rehab programme, dismissed, allegedly on grounds of "moral failure".

Don't you think this turn of events is sending shock waves through the church and indeed, is in danger of destroying any good that was there? (Indeed, the most charitable explanation I can come up with for their silence is that they are still reeling).

As I posted earlier, they are having to cancel major evangelistic events at short notice. That must hurt financially apart from anything else.

Do you think none of us here (for instance, in my final paragraph here) don't feel for the church and its congregation, the vulnerable first and foremost??

And do you really think any of this is the result of our online comments?

What does it matter what other churches are or aren't doing? Any success Victory Church may have had is seriously compromised as of now. We can have theological pissing contests till the cows come home. Right now, theology and programmes aside, they are part of the body of Christ and that body is suffering, so we should be suffering too. I can't imagine what this is doing to the addicts in their programme.

Don't you think there's mileage in bringing to light the possible causes for this meltdown and trying to learn from the mistakes made?
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Eutychus -

I have read your explanation on the hell thread.

I think it is right for Christians to defend and encourage one another, when there is a public debate concerning the faults of any section of the church. I also think it is a righteous thing to inform those engaged in the public debate that such encouragement has been given.

I don't feel that it is right to reproduce the letter here, because it is personal correspondence. I did let VC have the url of the home page of SOF, because it is a publicly available debate on a publicly available site. I did not give the thread url, but if they are interested I am sure they can find the debate. I think the members of the church have a right to know what people are publicly saying about them.

I think it is also right that those engaging in the debate realise that I am serious about this issue, and not merely playing "devil's advocate", as if I am just bored and treating this as a kind of computer game.

That is the reason. (Along with, of course, the desire to morally look down on the rest of you. Or something like that, apparently! )
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think it is right for Christians to defend and encourage one another, when there is a public debate concerning the faults of any section of the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think the members of the church have a right to know what people are publicly saying about them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I think it is right for Christians to defend and encourage one another, when there is a public debate concerning the faults of any section of the church.

---

You'd apply this in all cases? Rwandan genocides, RC kiddy-fiddlers? (Yes, I know that in the overall scheme of things these are bigger issues than a bit of plagiarism in the Gwent valleys, but I'm just probing to see how far your principle extends.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The discussion of the Rwandan genocide and child abuse in the Catholic Church were highly public debates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
There have been no documented and attested healings from the so-called 'Welsh Outpouring' in Cwmbran that I am aware of - simply the usual unsubstantiated claims that we have come to expect from certain quarters of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It has been claimed that the alleged hype surrounding a church like VC will cause the ministry to crash with the shipwreck of the spiritual lives of vulnerable people. I would have thought that it is the cynicism and scepticism of outsiders, who always question every healing claim and every experience of blessing, which is more likely to shipwreck the faith of the vulnerable than any OTT claim by the likes of Richard Taylor!

---

quote:

---

It is not safe and comfortable. So expect turbulence. But the answer is to get it right, not resort to lowering our expectations of what God can do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John316
I would like to very politely point out something to EE, in relation to your defence of the alleged healing of Paul Haynes When this whole scenario was questioned, the person who supposedly received the healing went into hiding He was unavailable for comment and aside from a short interview which they aired via their website, has not openly testified to this healing to the community at large at all Dont you think thats rather odd? Wouldnt you think that if a healing had genuinely taken place, that he would want to share the miracle in order to glorify God and provide a powerful witness? Being the person who was at the centre of the healing that kicked off the whole 'outpouring', surely he would be very eager to show people exactly what His Lord is made of, and the miracle He is capable of by sharing the wondrous news of the Gospel? Wouldnt you think that He would be on fire for God and bursting to share the good news that He alone is capable of such a healing touch?
Because I do
Instead he went into hiding. This tells us everything we need to know about this whole act 1 scenario 1
God bless you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What do you mean by "documented and attested" healings?

Documented and attested by whom and for whom?

I would have thought that many healings could never be proven to be miraculous, because there is always the possibility - no matter how slim - that a naturalistic explanation would suffice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I've made this plea many times before and I make it again - can we have a single case of "healing" which actually stands up to investigation? Not completely proven - just "this has really happened and we can't be sure why".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch
I know you don't like hearing this EE, but the onus is on those who are claiming miraculous healings to actually bring forth the evidence to substantiate such claims.

---

If I say that I believe that God has healed me of some complaint, the onus is only on me to bring forth evidence if I want other people to believe me. What if I just testify that this is what I believe - in the same way that I would testify to some particular spiritual experience which, by its very nature, cannot be proven to anyone else - and others can take it or leave it? Why should my spiritual life be subject to cross examination and the assessment of some jury or committee of sceptics of varying degrees?

So Paul Haynes believes he was healed and a bunch of other people in his church believe him? And a whole load of other people don't believe him? So what?

While I cannot prove it (although I could post a relevant supporting document on the internet if need be, if I can lay my hand on it in my piles of paperwork), and while there could be a naturalistic explanation (whatever 'naturalistic' actually means, which I will elaborate on below), I believe that God has had His hand on my life when I was living with an 100% occluded left anterior descending coronary artery. Normally if that artery gets blocked you die pretty quickly. That is why the LAD artery is known as "the widow maker". It may very well be that somehow my heart found a way round it, and developed what are called collateral arteries, but it seems rather strange that such a major artery (see description of its function in the link above) should be completed blocked and yet not result even in a minor heart attack. The blockage was removed by angioplasty, which, of course, is a normal medical procedure, and therefore "no involvement of God" according to the accepted burden of proof criteria.

Now was God involved in this process? Some would say 'no', because I cannot prove that there was a miracle. I would respond to that by saying: "I cannot prove that there was a miracle, in the sense of an event which cannot - and could never - be explained naturalistically, and so if YOU want to believe that God had no hand in this, then fine. But what you believe does not dictate what I believe. My spiritual life is not subject to your approval, whoever you are."

Which brings me to the question of how we define "natural explanation". This discussion of the miraculous presupposes a view of reality in which nature is viewed as a closed mechanistic system, which operates according to certain laws, and if any event can be explained with reference to those laws, then that somehow proves that God - or any supernatural agency - had no part in the event. Of course, we could take the view that no supernatural agencies exists, but I don't think we are discussing atheism here. As Christians we believe in an active supernatural agent: God.

Now is it consistent with biblical Christianity to say that nature is a completely closed mechanistic system and God only involves Himself in it by means of interventions which cannot be explained with reference to the laws of physics? Clearly no. Hebrews 1:3 - Christ "upholds all things by the word of His power..." If we believe in a spiritual world, then clearly there is a continual interaction between and interlocking of the natural and the spiritual. I believe that my consciousness involves my spirit - or even is my spirit. My spirit interacts with God and with my soul and my body responds to decisions I make in my spirit and soul (subject of course to the normal natural constraints of physical law). The reality of free will constitutes strong evidence that nature cannot be a closed mechanistic system, otherwise choice is an illusion. Moral responsibility would also be an illusion, and if so, then Richard Taylor would not be guilty of plagiarism, because "nature made him do it".

The very fact that we display moral indignation suggests an implicit belief in authentic moral responsibility, and such responsibility cannot exist without genuine free will and not the pseudo free-will of compatibilism. Genuine free will is impossible within a deterministic system. Of course, it is also worth pointing out that science itself seems to find the closed system deterministic model inadequate, as a result of the challenge of quantum mechanics.

Therefore we cannot talk about healings within a worldview which is completely inappropriate. God interacts in His creation in ways that we cannot possibly understand. What we may see as "the placebo effect" may not be. It does not follow that God is only allowed to exist and operate among us if He performs miracles that are defined as "that which cannot be explained naturalistically". The sceptic will usually just say "Oh, but we cannot explain it now, but as science progresses we will eventually work it out", which is really a kind of "expectation of scientific progress of the gaps".

In other words, there is actually no burden of proof in reality. A burden of proof which is of infinite weight is no burden at all. To say to Christians: "the burden of proof is on you, but whatever evidence you provide we will dismiss on the basis that 'science will work it out one day'" is completely ridiculous.
I am therefore happy to give fellow believers the benefit of the doubt, unless I can see clear evidence that they have a strong need to lie.

It may very well be that Victory Church is one huge scam, but I doubt it. I think that would mean that former drug addicts are still drug addicts, because it does seem rather remarkable that addicts with a record of criminality should suddenly change their behaviour. But I guess that can just be explained naturalistically, and if it can't, well, the "brain can do amazing things..." (the very clever and cute "brain of the gaps" explanation )
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What if I just testify that this is what I believe - in the same way that I would testify to some particular spiritual experience which, by its very nature, cannot be proven to anyone else - and others can take it or leave it? Why should my spiritual life be subject to cross examination and the assessment of some jury or committee of sceptics of varying degrees?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't see what any of that has to do with the question of whether a church leader should be held to certain standards of morality and integrity, and/or what should be done should it be demonstrated that said church leader does not meet said standards.

---

Those questions apply across the board, yes.

The discussion of healing is partly relevant to my mind in that the more extraordinary the claims made by the leader, the more those standards should be applied; whereas often the more extraordinary the claims, the more it is argued by their champions that such standards should not apply.

Furthermore, the argument for not applying these standards often comes down to saying that (claimed) extraordinary things are happening and we shouldn't spoil them.

This argument is heard outside charismatic settings too, by the way.

[edited for clarity]

[ 21. August 2014, 09:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
(Cross-posted with Eutychus)

I didn't mean to imply that you had 'consciously' adopted the rebuking attitude - so I apologise if that's the impression I gave.

I understood you to mean that this was a spontaneous reaction and not something adopted consciously as per some kind of pulpiteering or platform revivalist stunt.

I do think that the 'natural' and the 'supernatural' - or 'supranatural' - can combine ... we are told that some NT prayers were uttered 'in a loud voice' for instance. It isn't the 'volume' that does the trick as it were - but the volume was part of the process.

Which is why, these days, I have less of a theological issue with RC/Orthodox use of relics, icons and physical objects in healing prayer etc ... but by the same token wouldn't automatically accept any claim that came from that direction either.

I was simply suggesting that the rebuke - however made - supplied the 'shock' element that triggered the physical reaction. A bit like the old thing about saying, 'Boo!' to people with hiccoughs or inflating and banging a paper bag behind them.

Ok - that doesn't explain the 20 year remission, of course. Which is why I'd file it in the 'unexplained' box.


 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
whereas often the more extraordinary the claims, the more it is argued by their champions that such standards should not apply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Euthychus
The discussion of healing is partly relevant to my mind in that the more extraordinary the claims made by the leader, the more those standards should be applied; whereas often the more extraordinary the claims, the more it is argued by their champions that such standards should not apply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The detractors of this church have made their point loud and clear. Now what?

---

quote:

---

And presumably once VC have properly 'repented' (in accordance with the stringent demands of their critics), the critics will begin their campaign against other churches and denominations which are guilty of far greater sins (the RC should surely now throw in the towel after their centuries of murder and mayhem). Or doesn't it work like that?

---

There is no "campaign". We are all independent posters here.

Besides, the vast majority of criticisms on this thread concern the leadership and its practices, not the church as a whole (can you quote anyone here saying it should close down?).

As already pointed out, people direct their attention to areas where they have experience and expertise. As regards Richard Taylor and Victory Church, I have experience with addicts, convicts, ex-convicts, plagiarism, proven deceit on the part of acclaimed christian leaders, issues of healing, evangelicalism and charismaticism, so I feel somewhat qualified to comment.

[ 21. August 2014, 11:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


No-one here is saying that the RCs should be let off the hook for their sins and mistakes in the past ... heck, the RCs don't even say that themselves. I spoke to an RC priest last week who would readily acknowledge wrong-doing by the RCs in relation both to the Protestants and to the Orthodox.

It's a bit like resurrecting the Wesley controversy. Wesley is no longer with us, neither are the RCs and Protestants who killed one another in the name of Christ.

I'm not saying that VC should close down - nor do I think anyone else is saying that. Sadly, it looks as if VC could capsize. If it does then it only has itself to blame and not its critics.

I have been quite critical here of the critics of VC in the local area because I distrust their motives.

Some of them seem out to gloat at the potential implosion of that particular church.

I see nothing to rejoice in at that prospect, even though I am no longer on the same page theologically to the likes of VC. A lot of people could get hurt.

What should VC have done in the case of the claimed healing of Paul Haynes?

Well, for a kick-off they shouldn't have made such a big deal of it and used it as a poster-boy exemplar for what they took - mistakenly in my view - to be an 'outpouring' and a revival.

It was nothing of the kind, as any student of revival could tell you. Mudfrog has already outlined why he doesn't believe it to have been a revival and although I'm not on the same page as he is on all these things I concur with his conclusions.

Likewise with Steve Langton and I'm not particularly on the same page as he is either.

What seems to me to have happened is that - probably for well-intentioned reasons - VC has allowed itself to go down a revivalist route that has subsequently proved to be its undoing.

I would suggest that this is a systemic problem with churches of that kind because the level of expectation is such that people are under pressure to produce apparent results.

It's no coincidence that Pentecostal pastors are proportionately more likely to suffer burn-out then ministers of other denominations ... the proportion is higher for Pentecostal denominations than it is for Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists or anyone else.

Why? Because things are ratcheted up to the extent that they are expected to deliver the goods in terms of healing, revival and mass conversions.

With the stakes that high it's small wonder that there's so much crash and burn within the movement as a whole.

I don't think it has to be a binary choice between full-on revivalism on the one hand and a kind of staid and respectable churchianity on the other.

With some modification and adjustment, VC could have continued to offer its ministry to drug addicts and alcoholics and to offer lively, Pentecostal style worship in Cwmbran. Instead, it seems to have jumped on a revival bandwagon that has led to it toppling over and potentially losing what good fruit it has garnered along the way.

That's a real shame.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Please define how you see the "burden of proof" in the area of healing (...) It seems to me that this demand for proof is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that the sceptics actually do not believe in divine healing at all, and never would whatever the evidence offered!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so let's assume that the Paul Haynes healing did not happen, or if he did experience some relief, that it could easily be explained with reference to natural laws.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
There is no "campaign". We are all independent posters here.

---

quote:

---

I honestly don't know what you, EE, think this "point" is. Just to be sure, and perhaps offer an answer that will make some sort of sense to you even if you don't agree with it, can you summarise what you think it is?

---

Unless I have been hallucinating when reading this thread, I discern that the leadership of Victory Church are being criticised for the sins of deception and exaggeration.

Well I can only hope that the leadership say: "OK. You are right. We have not been completely honest. We are sorry." End of. And it is to be hoped that Victory Church will carry on seeking God and believing in His desire and ability to do wonderful things in people's lives, and that they will not compromise their belief in divine healing, spiritual gifts and revival. If that were to happen, will that shut up all the critics?

If the evidence of history is anything to go by, the answer is: emphatically NO.

(Anyway, the fact that Richard Taylor has been removed from ministry for some moral failure, indicates that the leadership is taking its role seriously. But no! That is interpreted as a cover-up. Not necessarily by you, but by others. Frankly, that church just cannot win, whatever it does.)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, I think that church could 'win', and I've already highlighted how it could do so.

It could continue to bear Pentecostal witness in my home-town and continue to offer rehabilitation ministry to down-and-outs, drug-addicts and alcoholics.

What is preventing it from doing that aren't the actions of sceptics nor the hyper-critical attitudes of some of the other churches in the area who wish that they could have their 15 minutes of fame in the revivalist spotlight.

No, what's preventing it from happening is their own overblown understanding of what has been going on.

All that's happened is that Pentecostal enthusiasm has boiled over into exaggerated claims of revival and outpouring. Allied with the plagiarism and false - or at least misleading - claims that have been made on the church's website that adds up to a pretty inflammable mix.

I'm not in the least surprised that it appears to have all blown up in their face. They've been playing with fire, they are going to get burnt.

Oranges are not the only fruit. There are lots of other ways that God can work without having to conform to Pentecostal expectations based on a fairly skewed reading/interpretation of the Book of Acts.

If there was a genuine revival going on in my home-town with people being healed or having their lives changed etc etc then don't you think I'd be rather pleased about it?

But that's not what's been happening and not what we've been seeing. I'm sure that many of the people involved have had genuine encounters with God ... but VC itself hasn't been observing health and safety regulations in spiritual terms. That means there's going to be an awful lot of collateral damage unfortunately.

It's sad, but there it is. We can't stop people going overboard on religious enthusiasm - nor should we try. But what I hope we can do is to be there for the victims and the casualties when the whole thing blows up in their faces.

What I fear will happen here is that those hurt by the whole thing will get, 'Na nur na na nur ... we told you so ...' comments from some of the other churches in the area. That would be a shame but I strongly suspect it'll happen.

I just hope that there are other churches down there with the wisdom, insight and compassion to deal with the fall-out when it occurs.

There are going to be a lot of damaged and hurting people down there in Cwmbran pretty soon.


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I'm not in the least surprised that it appears to have all blown up in their face.

---

Could you just clarify in what way it has "all blown up in their face"?

All I have heard is that Richard Taylor allegedly has a problem.

Any other things to report?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The numbers at the meetings have been steadily declining for a while now and from what others have posted on this thread VC seems to be retrenching and cancelling various evangelistic initiatives and so on.

I suspect things will quickly fizzle out as they did at Lakeland, at Pensacola and Dudley, Telford and other places where there have been claims of outpourings and revival.

I really don't know why you feel such a strong desire to defend all of this. It's not as if the success or failure of VC calls your own charismatic/Pentecostal spirituality into question or jeopardises anything.

You seem relentlessly to be hanging on to any scrap of special pleading you can find to confound what you take to be inordinate criticism.

You'll be telling me that they are all speaking in Mexican 'whispering languages' next ...

Now, that's a joke ... a joke ... a joke I tell you ...

I'd be all for cutting VC some slack if I thought there was a genuine revival going on down there. But I don't believe there is.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well I can only hope that the leadership say: "OK. You are right. We have not been completely honest. We are sorry." End of. And it is to be hoped that Victory Church will carry on seeking God and believing in His desire and ability to do wonderful things in people's lives, and that they will not compromise their belief in divine healing, spiritual gifts and revival. If that were to happen, will that shut up all the critics?

---

quote:

---

(Anyway, the fact that Richard Taylor has been removed from ministry for some moral failure, indicates that the leadership is taking its role seriously. But no! That is interpreted as a cover-up. Not necessarily by you, but by others. Frankly, that church just cannot win, whatever it does.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd be all for cutting VC some slack if I thought there was a genuine revival going on down there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I really don't know why you feel such a strong desire to defend all of this.

---

quote:

---

It's not as if the success or failure of VC calls your own charismatic/Pentecostal spirituality into question or jeopardises anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
His removal is not a cover up. The utter lack of any explanation is the cover up.

It's like the RCC quietly moving abusive priests to different parishes when complaints were made. Sure, it may have removed the problem from that specific place, but it does nothing to actually atone for the crimes - and much less to ensure that they don't happen again.

Where is the repentance for what happened? Where is the plan to ensure that it doesn't happen again? Where is the apology to those who were harmed? Do you not think these things are important?

---

Hang on a minute...!! You don't know whether the sin or crime has any equivalence to child abuse. From what I have read, the allegation is of adultery, but that his wife and family are standing by him. Now, if this is true, then the real victim of this sin is his wife, and by extension, his family. By further extension, his church family, who looked to him for spiritual leadership. If this news is correct, then the church family have obviously been informed and some of them have leaked the information. Therefore, as far as the victims are concerned, there is no cover-up. I can thoroughly understand that the church will not want to advertise this to the whole world, but since the news has leaked out, I don't feel too bad about talking about it here, especially as I am trying to inject some balance into the discussion.

There is also an allegation of financial impropriety, but an investigation does not equate to a conviction. "Innocent until proven guilty".

As for the critics, it seems they want to run to the press - the Sun newspaper no less! Such a desire for truth, fairness and balance, I see!!! We wouldn't want all this sensationalised now, would we?!? Ooooh no!

What were you saying about truth and honesty again....?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This looks to me like you are on a campaign (perhaps just a one-man campaign, but a campaign nonetheless)

---

quote:

---

the critics will begin their campaign

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Eutychus:
I honestly don't know what you, EE, think this "point" is. Just to be sure, and perhaps offer an answer that will make some sort of sense to you even if you don't agree with it, can you summarise what you think it is?

---

Unless I have been hallucinating when reading this thread, I discern that the leadership of Victory Church are being criticised for the sins of deception and exaggeration.

---

quote:

---

Well I can only hope that the leadership say: "OK. You are right. We have not been completely honest. We are sorry."

---

quote:

---

And it is to be hoped that Victory Church will carry on seeking God and believing in His desire and ability to do wonderful things in people's lives, and that they will not compromise their belief in divine healing, spiritual gifts and revival. If that were to happen, will that shut up all the critics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Hang on a minute...!! You don't know whether the sin or crime has any equivalence to child abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

This looks to me like you are on a campaign (perhaps just a one-man campaign, but a campaign nonetheless), and that you are trying to make a point to those Christians with whom you have a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John316:
Could I just lovingly point everyone to the cross The enemy is having a field day now as he watches everyone arguing over this

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Hang on a minute...!! You don't know whether the sin or crime has any equivalence to child abuse. From what I have read, the allegation is of adultery, but that his wife and family are standing by him. Now, if this is true, then the real victim of this sin is his wife, and by extension, his family. By further extension, his church family, who looked to him for spiritual leadership. If this news is correct, then the church family have obviously been informed and some of them have leaked the information. Therefore, as far as the victims are concerned, there is no cover-up. I can thoroughly understand that the church will not want to advertise this to the whole world

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
So, I agree with those up-thread about the importance of accountability. However, this is not a public matter. Rather, those in leadership positions should place themselves in an accountable position with someone or a small group who are outside the church in which they work - otherwise you get the Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill scenario where the leader is accountable to those he actually controls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Avila:
Victory Outreach - the programme supporting addicts to get off drugs etc pre dates the church by at least a decade IIRC, we used to have collections of supplies for them at our Newport church. They had a certain theological position that wasn't ours but were active in work we wanted to support.

The church emerged from the project not the other way around, and again seemed to be doing a great work in welcoming those others are not good at being there for.

It is only since the outpouring stuff that all the rest has been put under threat. There is a danger with others' expectations and your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Whatever the ins and outs, rights and wrongs; it's really sad that the great work being done with marginalised people, those struggling with addiction etc., looks like it is now at risk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

It was another thing I noticed right back when all the initial excitement emerged. It's not a sin™, but I'd say it's an unwise management decision, and one from which useful lessons could be learned right across the denominational and theological spectrum.

---

I wish I could share your faith in lessons learned but as one who earns his crust on IT projects which always have a Lessons Learned phase, it's fair to say that the participants are carefully chosen and the LL exercise, which could be useful, turns out to be a combination of a whitewash and blamestorming, with any problems laid outside the organisation or, if inside, on people not present at the LL exercise. On the occasions when lessons are learned I'm afraid we tend to repeat them, because we come under the same pressures again and again. I doubt the situation is different in faith-based initiatives, and if there are problems we can always blame Satan, can't we?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I live and post in the probably forlorn hope that somewhere out there are people reading this discussion who might actually make use of what they've learned in a constructive way. I certainly try to do so.
 

---

Posted by DJ MONK (# 18204) on :
 
I am stunned by the posts under this topic. I am a Baptist not a charismatic, have known of Victory Outreach for many years, and visited Cwmbran several times in recent months. There were conversions every evening and they seemed as genuine and as well handled as any other Christian event that does similar appeals. The worship was mixed from old hymns to ultra recent, but there was an incredible sense of Gods presence that you do not normally get in Church. There were healings in the meetings but nothing was claimed until it had been verified by a Doctor and the testimony brought back to a later meeting, of which there were many. But this is not unique to Cwmbran, there have been many healings at Church events in the last year. The preaching e.g. from Pastor Kenny & Pastor Clyde are biblically based and well delivered. I can only imagine those of you who have had the knives out for this services have not been there regularly because your accusations appear very false to me. As regards Pastor Richard, he is indeed notable by his absence over the last few months, and it may be that it is not just his TV work that has led to this. I myself have heard nothing of any discretion but if he has fallen short, then is not the Christian reaction to provide love and support to those that fall, rather than turn verbal machine guns on them. Come on guys you are better than that.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Can you provide any evidence of these healings, D J Monk?

Likewise the conversions?

I'm not a huge fan of 'appeals' but don't doubt that some people genuinely come to faith through such things. I'm glad to hear that these things are handled as well as they are anywhere where there are appeals of this kind ... but that doesn't necessarily imply good practice.

It might simply be that appeals of this kind generally aren't handled very well right across the board ... I've seen dozens and dozens of such appeals in my time and in those cases where those who have 'gone forward' have stayed the course it's generally been because they've pretty much been at the 'tipping point' as it were, already.

I was once involved with a 'crusade' where several hundred conversions were claimed. There must have been about 4 or 5 people from that who actually stuck around and became part of the church.

People are pretty suggestible and it doesn't take much to get people to 'go forward'.

On the presence of God aspect ... that can be a tricky one to handle, I've found. A generally upbeat or warm and lively atmosphere can sometimes be taken for a strong sense of the presence of God. That might well be the case. We can sense the presence of God in all kinds of places and settings - I certainly believe that is possible.

I've sensed what I've taken to be the presence of God in all manner of settings ... not just evangelical ones but RC and Orthodox ones too.

These days though, having been round the block a few times, I am wary of such claims in revivalist contexts.

If what you are saying is the case, then great ... but I tend to think these days that we see what we want to see when it comes to this sort of thing.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
DJ MONK -

Thanks for your post.

It's encouraging to hear "the other side of the story".

[ 31. August 2014, 21:59: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Particularly when it backs up your own presuppositions ...



But yes, it is good to hear another account.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Oh, and welcome to the Ship...

And Gamaliel...

It is not about "backing up my presuppositions". Funny, but judging by all your pleas on the other thread, I thought you were all into being fair and balanced!
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
And by the way, Gamaliel, on the subject of appeals, what you have said could apply to ANY church of ANY denomination - charismatic, Pentecostal or otherwise.

As for healings: well, we know that it is virtually impossible to prove a healing to the satisfaction of sceptics. If no cause is found for a healing, then there is always "sleight of hand" or "spontaneous remission" or "magicians like Dynamo could pull off tricks like that" blah blah blah...

The sceptics have loaded the topic in such a way that their conclusions will always be proven true.

Thankfully some of us are not fooled by this.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
D J MONK, welcome to the Ship!

quote:

---

Originally posted by DJ MONK:
There were healings in the meetings but nothing was claimed until it had been verified by a Doctor and the testimony brought back to a later meeting, of which there were many. But this is not unique to Cwmbran, there have been many healings at Church events in the last year.

---

quote:

---

I can only imagine those of you who have had the knives out for this services have not been there regularly because your accusations appear very false to me.

---

quote:

---

As regards Pastor Richard, he is indeed notable by his absence over the last few months, and it may be that it is not just his TV work that has led to this. I myself have heard nothing of any discretion but if he has fallen short, then is not the Christian reaction to provide love and support to those that fall, rather than turn verbal machine guns on them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC...
So what are you fooled by?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am sure many young people got a bit of a 'boost', but let's not call it revival!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Avila:
Victory Outreach - the programme supporting addicts to get off drugs etc pre dates the church by at least a decade IIRC, we used to have collections of supplies for them at our Newport church. They had a certain theological position that wasn't ours but were active in work we wanted to support.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

The fact is that it is actually very difficult to lie. That is why half truths and subtle exaggeration are far more effective than brazen "big lies", or when there is a desire to pull off the "big lies" it has to be done through a process of lesser half truths.

---

quote:

---

The evidence gathered so far suggests that perhaps something genuine has been happening at Victory Church, Cwmbran, but there may have been some exaggeration to over-egg it.

Therefore a balanced and fair analysis is required.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
VC has also been 'called' by someone here for Richard Taylor apparently posting other people's testimonies and material on the VC website as if they were his own.

I call that plagiarism. What do you call it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, perhaps it was a bit OTT of me to say that "it was almost all fake", but the event was really nothing more than a Christian music event - i.e. performance more than worship. Big egos were certainly on show that night.

I am sure many young people got a bit of a 'boost', but let's not call it revival!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wishandaprayer:

The point I'm making, probably very badly, is that it's not simply "some exaggeration to over-egg it"; it's small amounts of exaggeration in lots of dimensions - that make the appearance of something extra-ordinary from something very ordinary. I suggest that with the advance of technology and the prevalance of the viral we will see more of that effect, as we see in the secular.

---

Thank you. You explained the point I was trying to get across above, far more clearly than I did.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I give Richard Taylor the benefit of the doubt too. I'm inclined to see the plagiarism as the result of 'human weakness' rather than cynical and deliberate manipulation.

However, as Chris Stiles has pointed out and as others have highlighted earlier on these threads, once we start rolling down the revivalist slope you start to gather speed and momentum as well as bits of moss, sticks, mud, sharp stones and other loose objects ...

The whole thing becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

You've mentioned the Toronto thing. I well remember how quickly certain stories and 'testimonies' - which later proved to be false or exaggerated - gained currency and were repeated on platforms and churches up and down the country.

We saw a similar thing more recently with a debunked story about a Buddhist monk in Burma who died and saw the Buddha suffering in the fires of Hell ... only to be resurrected in response to the prayers of Christians and who became a Christian evangelist spreading the Gospel despite death-threats from his former co-religionists ...

That story was spread on platforms by figures like Mark Stibbes and, I believe, J John ... despite it having no basis in fact whatsoever. The story was roundly debunked by responsible mission agencies and by Burmese Christians ... yet it still did the rounds on the revivalist circuit.

Then people wonder why some of us become rather jaded and sceptical ...

It's because we've seen all this sort of thing before.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And sorry, I too should have credited wishandaprayer.



He has put this far more articulately than I could.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by wishandaprayer
As to the anatomy of a "revival" like this, and the clever exaggerations behind it:

- The elders of the church call the church to prayer regularly for a week to seek after God (with, of course, the promise that if we gather together God will honour that by "showing up")

---

quote:

---

Given the hunger within these movements...

---

quote:

---

These are people who are naturally more "open" to "seeing God move" in this way...

---

quote:

---

Again the use of social media, of youtube videos inviting people to come to the outpouring, of "prophets" and "apostles" encouraging their followers to go via their social media channels, all makes it easy to see how, with a core of a few hundred in the local area, this could easily be sustained for weeks upon weeks; especially when you are stirring up both hype and expectation within a congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

When do you think God actually does show up?

Ever?

According to some sovereign inscrutable will?

Or do the promises of the Bible - such as "seek and you will find" - not count?

By the way... I agree with much of what you are saying, but I'm just trying to inject a bit of much needed balance and fairness into the subject...

---

Sorry, the quote marks in my last post may have been a little inflammatory - they were largely to isolate what are largely charismatic specific verbiage that can be interpreted differently. In fact, you sort of emphasise that by your response - god "showing up" means different things to different people; however there is an expectation in charismatic circles that it outworks in certain ways; gifts, etc. The point is not so much when I believe God shows up (which is perpendicular to my oscillating agnosticism/atheism); but how it is characterised in charismatic circles. "God showing up" has an expectation of something specific in these instances - healings, displays of gifts, etc. Sitting in silence and praying for 5 minutes and then leaving would, clearly not, be characterised as "god showing up".

The point is not that there are charismatics who will believe this, but that such an amount of importance is attached to it that people will trek around the country in search of something tangible. I know, I did. It wasn't a criticism of people who are open to seeing god move either, just a statement of fact that when you have people like that in the room, rather than the "hardened cynics" you speak of, you are much more likely to see the symptoms of "god showing up" displayed. That's just how it is.

You seem to have mixed up what I was trying to put forward as a statement of fact, with a criticism. I'm not criticising people from using social media to promote this; after all, they believe it was a sovereign work of god, and therefore they would be remiss not to spread it via all means at their disposal. The point was that this information now travels faster - and so something like Cwmbran has the ability to build up where it would not in the past, and would not without the support of the infrastructure around it.

I believe the people in Cwmbran were probably very, very sincere in their belief - but at some point there is a confirmation bias that ends up with a blessed if you do, blessed if you don't approach to response to your ministry - and we see that all over the place; that is, any criticism comes from "the enemy" and any encouragement is god showing his blessing to you. When you live in the hyper-spiritualized context of charismaticism, this can often be the only way to take things. Whether it is true, that the enemy is attacking, or not is another question - but this is the fact; and we can see it plainly, revival or not, in much of Christendom.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
God 'shows up' as you put it ... and man, how I hate that phrase ... in all sorts of place and all sorts of ways.

Indeed, as the old prayer puts it, ' ... Who art everywhere present and fillest all things.'

If someone is RC, Anglo-Catholic or Orthodox or in any way sacramental in a Real Presence sense, then they believe that God 'shows up' week by week in the Eucharist.

Jesus promised that where 'two or three' were gathered, there he would be.

God being present isn't necessarily a revivalist thing or subject to particular phenomena and expectations as to how this should be apparent.

All Christian traditions have a concept of the presence of God being particularly palpable at particular times or in particular places ...

I don't think anyone here has any particular difficulty with that idea.

Loud and lairy isn't necessarily any more a sign of the particular 'manifest presence' if you like than cool and detached is ...

Revivalist excitement will take us so far, but as I've often said in the past, however exciting the meeting is, you've still got to wash your socks ...

Particular claims have to judged and evaluated.

I know a Christian doctor in a northern city who has had several people come to him over the years asking him to provide verification for claimed healings in response to prayer - whether from charismatic and Pentecostal backgrounds or RC ones.

He told me that the only instance where he had actually agreed to give the person a clean bill of health on the basis of the evidence presented was in the instance of someone who had been to Lourdes. The other claims had all been found wanting in some aspect or other.

Now, that doesn't mean that I'm going to go round proclaiming that RC healings at Lourdes are the real deal and that all Protestant charismatic and Pentecostal ones are phoney.

Far from it.

I agree with EE that is difficult to verify claims of healing ... but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Nor does it mean that we should overlook what we might see as imbalances in particular places.

EE has already highlighted why he didn't accept the Champion of the World thing as a genuine sign of revival - and I completely concur. In fact, I'm sure had I attended that event my view would have been very, very similar to the conclusion he reached.

All I'm doing is applying similar criteria to what I've heard about Cwmbran. I don't in any wise suggest that I'm going to be 100% right on all counts. Nor am I at all suggesting that there is nothing of any value there.

Nor has anyone else here from what I can see.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
When does He ever go away?
 

---

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
When does He ever go away?

---

Precisely.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that 'confirmation bias' works both ways.

I've been to meetings which charismatic evangelicals have thought were marvellous and signally blessed by God ... whereas people of a different persuasion were completely unmoved by the whole thing.

We tend to see what we want to see.

People become 'acclimatised' to whatever form of Christian expression they become involved with.

I used to hate anything liturgical or bells-and-smells-ish because I thought it was 'dead' and formal ...

Now, I quite like that sort of thing.

Likewise with charismatic style worship. I didn't take to it at all the first time I encountered it ... I thought the songs and sentiments were twee and was puzzled by the constant repetition and the singing of worship songs over and over again. I decided to stick with it and gradually became acclimatised to it ... and eventually was in my element in the whole thing ... you name it, I did it ... the whole tongues, prophecy, laying hands on people stuff ... praying for people who would then fall over ... all that.

I wouldn't entirely dismiss all of that, but I do know how relatively easy it is to induce an atmosphere where this sort of thing is more likely to take place. In an atmosphere of heightened expectation, it's not long before you have people falling over or claims of healing and so on.

I wouldn't say that all of it was done on cue or in response to particular prompts and suggestions ... although a lot of it is.

There are still one or two instances I would be hard-pressed to explain away - if I so wished - from my more full-on charismatic days ... which is one reason why I don't dismiss the whole thing entirely.

I don't doubt that genuine stuff does happen in charismatic and Pentecostal circles.

But all too often there is a semblance of something happening when the rhetoric belies the reality.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC...
When does He ever go away?

---

quote:

---

I cannot see how one can claim to believe in God (other than the deist God), on the one hand, and dismiss all spiritual experiences and manifestations within a Christian setting as mere psychology, on the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, as Chris Stiles has pointed out and as others have highlighted earlier on these threads, once we start rolling down the revivalist slope you start to gather speed and momentum as well as bits of moss, sticks, mud, sharp stones and other loose objects ...

The whole thing becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

You've mentioned the Toronto thing. I well remember how quickly certain stories and 'testimonies' - which later proved to be false or exaggerated - gained currency and were repeated on platforms and churches up and down the country.

We saw a similar thing more recently with a debunked story about a Buddhist monk in Burma who died and saw the Buddha suffering in the fires of Hell ... only to be resurrected in response to the prayers of Christians and who became a Christian evangelist spreading the Gospel despite death-threats from his former co-religionists ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
VC has also been 'called' by someone here for Richard Taylor apparently posting other people's testimonies and material on the VC website as if they were his own.

I call that plagiarism. What do you call it?

---

It's either deliberate deceit or human weakness.(...)

Therefore I am inclined to give Richard Taylor the benefit of the doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark
Now I've got that off my chest, I assume it's not that sort of "God turning up" that EE is thinking about. Thing is that is all so very subjective: I remember a time when a (Tbh rather arrogant) young man told me that he got nothing from my sermons as God hadn't turned up.

Trouble was he was rather short sighted spiritually, if not physically: at that very moment there were 3 people being prayed with/for in that very building within feet of him, who had clearly come to a point of needing to do business with God. OK it didn't "happen" for him but it did others.

It all goes to demonstrate that this isn't a Jedi moment: you can't just "trust your feelings, my young friend" - we have to bite on something way more solid that the bible calls testing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
1. It may be that this man was indeed arrogant, but as an outsider just evaluating the bare information that you have presented in your comment, it seems to me that what this chap said has some merit. Maybe he was being honest and saying that your sermon had not had a strong spiritual impact on him, in accordance with the convicting inner witness of the Holy Spirit (something that the Bible does actually talk about). I can see that a preacher might be upset by such a response, but then preachers should display humility as well as their flock.

2. I make no apology for saying that there are times when God's presence is more marked than at other times. AFAIAC, this is a spiritual fact, and it can be backed up with Scripture. There is so much evidence in Scripture that the reality of God is not just a "lowest common denominator" experience distributed to all believers equally at all times.


3. Firstly, God is present in all His creation as an omnipresent being; secondly, He is present in a deeper way as Saviour with all believers and thirdly, He also manifests His presence at a yet deeper and more intense level to different believers at various times.

4. The anointing and empowering of the Holy Spirit cannot simply be reduced to mere 'feelings'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark
Why then have you been asking us just to go with the flow (feelings) at VC and not to test/engage with it?

---

I plead "not guilty" to that charge.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not sure I am fence-sitting in this instance, ExclamationMark ... although it can be difficult to tell because my backside is so calloused from sitting on fences on lots of issues. You get a good view from the top of the fence too ...



But it can play havoc with the old rump ...

I can see what EE is getting at but think (feel?) he's in danger of defending the indefensible if he's not careful.

He clearly believes that there is a bias against Pentecostalism in particular and charismatics in general here and is trying to correct what he sees as an imbalance.

For some reason, claims by other people that they are actually trying to occupy a balanced position don't appear to wash ...

If being balanced means letting revivalism off the hook when it veers off into cloud-cuckoo land territory then yes, count me in ... I'm imbalanced.

'Test everything' means exactly that. Not 'test everything except for particular theological positions I happen to agree with,' or 'test everything apart from certain experiences lest you frighten people off from having those experiences in the first place.'

God is big enough to give people whatever charismatic experiences he wants. Calls for caution on the part of people like me aren't going to stop him ...

The issue here isn't the validity or otherwise of particular charismatic gifts but of revivalism, the way things are reported and how easy it is for hype to take hold.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
I am a great believer in "test all things".

Hence my approach to this subject.

But... "you are only testing all things if you draw the conclusions that, from the outset, we (who vastly outnumber you) demand" is not the correct application of the biblical principle.

Just sayin'...
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
As someone very un-charismatic but by no means cessationist - I do wonder why my own A-C worship preferences get called (by some charismatics) 'spiritually dead' and have been told that I 'know Jesus in [my] head but not in [my] heart', but stuff that actually damages people and their faith like this drama is fine? I have no doubt that most of the people involved here and in the churches that despair of my faith genuinely love God, but I just don't understand why opposition to other groups is so fervent that I got my soul prayed for when I started exploring a call to the monastic life (sadly not an exaggeration!).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Who is saying otherwise, EE?

Although there is a biblical principle about things being established by 'two or three witnesses' ...



Provided those two or three witnesses agree with 'us', or with 'me' of course ...



Having an apparent witness of the Spirit or sense of conviction about something isn't a water-tight criterion either. Plenty of people have claimed such things.

Joseph Smith for one.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Anecdotally, Jade Constable ... not far from here a group of people have left a particular Pentecostal church and want to become Copts ...

They are currently attending an Orthodox Church until such time as they can establish their own Coptic parish. This has been squared with the Orthodox Bishop and so on.

Meanwhile, if the rumours are true, some of their former religionists have been praying for them to be delivered from the 'demons' that are so evidently leading them astray ...



I'm not saying that what they are doing is right or wrong, but to over-spiritualise it to the point where demonic elements are invoked sounds way, way over the top to me.

The problem is the whole super-spiritualised mindset behind a lot of this malarkey.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
OK, for the sake of argument, let us assume that your position is correct, Gamaliel.

Now what?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical, emphasis mine:
Those who use experience two to be dismissive of experience three (and perhaps there are experiences four, five, six and so on) are simply missing out on spiritual blessing, and tragically perhaps even encouraging others to miss out

---

quote:

---

For you say, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.” You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Although there is a biblical principle about things being established by 'two or three witnesses' ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
But both of those are entirely subjective and unsupported by third-party evidence.

---

quote:

---

Is anybody here saying God couldn't possibly be at work at all in any way in Cwmbran? I don't think so.

Are people saying "he might not be doing all that's being claimed"? Yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And if you hang your entire case on the plagiarism issue

---

quote:

---

then you will need to explain why you demand absolute moral perfection from this church

---

quote:

---

whereas you don't judge other churches by the same standard.

---

quote:

---

After all, it is clear that many pastors commit plagiarism, hence the article I linked to earlier.

---

quote:

---

OK, so there is an imperfect church in Wales. Big deal. What's new?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So all this criticism of Victory Church hasn't really changed anything?

It all seems a hideous waste of precious time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure I am fence-sitting in this instance, ExclamationMark ... although it can be difficult to tell because my backside is so calloused from sitting on fences on lots of issues. You get a good view from the top of the fence too ...

But it can play havoc with the old rump ...

I can see what EE is getting at but think (feel?) he's in danger of defending the indefensible if he's not careful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark
EE is trying to defend the indefensible.

---

I think I have a right to know the nature of the charge being made against me.

What exactly is this "indefensible" thing that I am trying to defend?

Perhaps you would like to quote something I have written to support this claim?

I am intrigued.

And puzzled.

All very strange...
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
That's even stranger.
 

---

Posted by DJ MONK (# 18204) on :
 
Thanks for the welcome guys. You asked if I could substantiate the Cwmbran conversions. No not really. I live in the Midlands so am not that close to it, but they have planted a number of new churches in the last few months and seen significant growth. I can though substantiate some healings from first hand experience. What is interested is that they never once called it Revival, but for the first 7 months used the word 'Outpouring' which I think was fair enough. They now say that the outpouring was for a season and is over and they now call their Wednesday gatherings 'Encounter' meetings'. There is still a strong sense of Gods presence, and first time commitments, but less emphases on healing and healing testimonies. I too have had a fair few negative experiences of charismatic gatherings especially the big hit and run missions where there is no careful follow-up by local churches. I am also asthmatic and have been prayed for in big meetings, expected healing and not been healed. But God works in mysterious ways, for I once prayed for a girl who had very serious asthma, she was instantly healed and never suffered again. I don't say I understand this stuff. I just know that I have found my trips to Cwmbran very encouraging, and a place where I feel free to open up in Worship, in ways I would normally find difficult. Its a long drive me on a Wednesday night after a days work, so don't go often, but have never been disappointed by my visits. I thank them for that and wish them all the best. I would like to find out too what happened to Pastor Richard, but I am sure that God did use him significantly in the Victory Church outpouring, and hope what ever he's done (if anything), he can get over his fall, and move on with God, whether that be within or outside of Victory Church. God bless you shipmates.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DJ MONK:
Thanks for the welcome guys. You asked if I could substantiate the Cwmbran conversions. No not really. I live in the Midlands so am not that close to it, but they have planted a number of new churches in the last few months and seen significant growth. I can though substantiate some healings from first hand experience. What is interested is that they never once called it Revival, but for the first 7 months used the word 'Outpouring' which I think was fair enough. They now say that the outpouring was for a season and is over and they now call their Wednesday gatherings 'Encounter' meetings'. There is still a strong sense of Gods presence, and first time commitments, but less emphases on healing and healing testimonies. I too have had a fair few negative experiences of charismatic gatherings especially the big hit and run missions where there is no careful follow-up by local churches. I am also asthmatic and have been prayed for in big meetings, expected healing and not been healed. But God works in mysterious ways, for I once prayed for a girl who had very serious asthma, she was instantly healed and never suffered again. I don't say I understand this stuff. I just know that I have found my trips to Cwmbran very encouraging, and a place where I feel free to open up in Worship, in ways I would normally find difficult. Its a long drive me on a Wednesday night after a days work, so don't go often, but have never been disappointed by my visits. I thank them for that and wish them all the best. I would like to find out too what happened to Pastor Richard, but I am sure that God did use him significantly in the Victory Church outpouring, and hope what ever he's done (if anything), he can get over his fall, and move on with God, whether that be within or outside of Victory Church. God bless you shipmates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable
If they had weekly Eucharist, there would be a strong sense of God's presence in that, surely? Don't all churches where 'two or more are gathered' have God's presence with them? Any RC church in Cwmbran has it weekly at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If some people want to understand "God's presence" in that limited sense, then that's fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark
EE is trying to defend the indefensible.

---

I think I have a right to know the nature of the charge being made against me.

What exactly is this "indefensible" thing that I am trying to defend?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is this a "limited" understanding of God's presence?

---

Because EE says it is.

Get with the programme ...


Meanwhile, joking aside, I agree with ExclamationMark.

It's also been good to hear some more from DJ MONK and that he has benefited from his visits.

These days, though, I'm wary of terms like 'first time commitments' and evangelical short-hand jargon of that kind ... but don't deny the reality of what can and does happen in circles which go in for that sort of terminology.

It can, however, bubble and boil over into over-hyped enthusiasm and much of the blessing can be lost.

Watchman Nee noticed this during an 'outpouring' in Shanghai in the 1930s and wrote cogently about it in a way that few charismatics and Pentecostals appear to have noticed ... whilst continuing to cite Nee in other ways.

As for the terminology used by VC ... I've seen this sort of thing before and could get quite cynical about the way they've described what's been happening ... it sounds like a scaling back of expectations once the initial enthusiasm failed to deliver what was expected.

The same thing happened during the Toronto Blessing thing ... it was mooted as revival, then it became an 'outpouring', then a 'time of refreshing' then a 'season of ...' this, that or the other ...

I hope that VC does consolidate and establish something more solid and longer lasting than bursts of enthusiastic activity.

[code]

[ 02. September 2014, 08:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The same thing happened during the Toronto Blessing thing ... it was mooted as revival, then it became an 'outpouring', then a 'time of refreshing' then a 'season of ...' this, that or the other ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable
If they had weekly Eucharist, there would be a strong sense of God's presence in that, surely? Don't all churches where 'two or more are gathered' have God's presence with them? Any RC church in Cwmbran has it weekly at least.

---

If some people want to understand "God's presence" in that limited sense, then that's fine.

---

Why is this a "limited" understanding of God's presence?

---

Because Jade's response to DJ MONK implies that all you need in church life is the weekly Eucharist, or all you need is any church with a minimum of two people.

I would say the same is true if all you need is a charismatic time of worship (i.e. singing) and ministry time.

Both are spiritually limiting, for obvious reasons.

To quote a truly great thinker: It's "both...and" not "either...or".

Clearly DJ MONK believed it was right for him to travel a long distance on a Wednesday evening, because Victory Church was offering an aspect of spiritual life not available to him in his own locality. What's wrong with that? I thought pilgrimage was part of Christian tradition.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

quote:

---

Jade Constable wrote:

If they had weekly Eucharist, there would be a strong sense of God's presence in that, surely? Don't all churches where 'two or more are gathered' have God's presence with them? Any RC church in Cwmbran has it weekly at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

As for DJ MONK travelling miles and miles to visit Victory Church, then that's entirely up to him. If he feels he derives some benefit from that in a way that he doesn't from services and meetings closer to home then that's his prerogative. I'm glad he finds it helpful and uplifting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
This is what Jade Constable wrote. I don't see anything in there which implies that a weekly eucharist is 'all' that anyone needs.

---

quote:

---

Eutychus has identified some superlatives that you tend to use in debate, EE.

---

quote:

---

Here, I would like to add to that by highlighting what I see as a propensity to either argue from silence - ie. from something Jade Constable hasn't actually said - or to read between the lines and put 2 and 2 together to make 48.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, I participated in charismatic services week-in, week-out for years and years and years ... it wouldn't bother me unduly if I never attended another charismatic or Pentecostal service ever again.

It would bother me a great deal if I were never able to attend a eucharistic service ever again though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Sure, Jade Constable quoted DJ MONK's post in its entirety before responding with the quote I reproduced.

I might be wrong, but I took her to be referring to the overall sense that one gets with certain forms of evangelicalism and charismatic-ism that regular, faithful reception of the sacraments is somehow substandard and needs some kind of pneumatic boost of the kind that services such as those held at VC provide ...

---

Well, I am just amazed. You accuse me of arguing from silence, but I have just reread DJ MONK's post carefully (even out loud just to check that I am not missing anything), and I cannot find anything in his comment that suggests that he is putting down sacramental churches!

So for someone who apparently doesn't argue from silence, how the heck did you manage to interpret Jade's post in this way?


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Now that is disingenuous ...

I've actually re-read D J MONK's post and Jade Constable's response to it and still can't see how her response implied what you suggested it did.

Quetzalcoatl posted saying that he/she had been wondering the same thing. I'd also been wondering the same ... not in response to specific aspects of D J MONK's post so much as the general tenor and assumptions expressed by some on this thread as to what it should look like, as it were, when 'God shows up' ...

Hence my accusation that you were arguing from silence and reading between the lines and coming up with something that Jade Constable mightn't have been saying or applying at all.

If 'God showing up' in the way people like VC understand it implies a licence to ignore plagiarism and other shenanigans until they're 'called' on it and without any response or explanation then I'd rather not have God 'showing up' that way at all ...

So, no, I'm not going to have a go at Eutychus because I agree with him and think that the action he has taken is entirely appropriate.

In fact, he is to be commended for his actions.

It's called taking responsibility.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Courageous, open, honest, fully accountable, transparent, sound, faithful.

Looks like the Spirit of God showed up there.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
"a licence to ignore plagiarism"

That's why they took down the offending text, is it?

At least get your facts right, if you are going to accuse me of being disingenuous.

Making up the rules as you go along (e.g. concerning what constitutes an "argument from silence") is far worse than disingenuousness.

Some people might call it post-modernism or liberalism. I call it deceit.

[ 02. September 2014, 13:41: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Jade Constable can speak for herself but I didn't take her post as necessarily implying that D J MONK had a downer on sacramental churches ...

She was simply wondering, with all this stuff about God's presence being felt in a particularly powerful way at Cwmbran - as per D J MONK's claim - why the same courtesy, if you like, wasn't being extended to sacramental churches where the belief is that God's presence is particularly apparent in the Eucharist.

Hence her reference to RC churches in Cwmbran. Nobody seems to be travelling miles and miles to visit those ... yet, if we take their claims seriously then God's presence will be particularly apparent there too.

I was wondering along similar lines and would probably have posted something akin to that at some point myself.

You were the one who argued that such a position was 'spiritually limiting'.

All Jade Constable was arguing, from my understanding of her posts, was that if we're saying that God's presence is particularly apparent in a revivalist setting like VC, then why aren't we saying the same - or extending the same favour - to RC and other sacramental churches.

Which I think is a fair point.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You can call it what you like, EE because as far as you're concerned you are always right and everyone else is wrong unless they agree with you.

More fool me for not recognising that and for even thinking it was possible to have a sensible debate with you on these boards.

(sighs)

I'd call you to Hell if I didn't think it would piss off all the Shipmates who are pissed off with continual Hell calls with your name on it and my foolishness in even attempting to have a conversation with you.

You've accused me of not even being a Christian in the past and now you're accusing me of deceit.

That's par for the course, I suppose.

More fool me for even posting on this thread in the first place.

I'll start a thread on the Toronto thing 20 years on at some point. At least I know that you think that was dodgy despite the slack you seem prepared to give to indefensible practices down in Cwmbran.

I'm outta here and I apologise to the Hosts if this sounds at all personal. It's either a Hell call or a

So I'm off. See you anon on another thread hopefully and a different topic.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
She was simply wondering, with all this stuff about God's presence being felt in a particularly powerful way at Cwmbran - as per D J MONK's claim - why the same courtesy, if you like, wasn't being extended to sacramental churches where the belief is that God's presence is particularly apparent in the Eucharist.

---

quote:

---

If they had weekly Eucharist, there would be a strong sense of God's presence in that, surely?

---

I know it's a question, but the use of 'surely?' indicates its rhetorical nature. I am sure I don't need a degree in English to make 4 from that 2+2= .

It may very well be true that everyone who partakes in the Eucharist has an amazing experience of God every time they do it. I can't say that this has been my experience, but, you know, maybe that's just me. But whatever the experience, it is still limited. Certainly this is the case from a biblical point of view, because we know that the disciples broke bread before the Day of Pentecost, and it is clear that the latter experience of God was in addition to whatever fundamental experience of God they had in the regular disciplines of their spiritual lives.

I am not suggesting that the authentic experience of Pentecost is prevalent in contemporary Charismatic and Pentecostal churches necessarily, but to suggest that the most basic experience of God ministered through the normal regular disciplines of the Christian life is really all that there is for us as believers in this life, is just untrue. Whether greater blessings can be found in the charis / pente churches, is another matter, but don't let's limit what we can know of God. It is this "lowest common denominator" Christianity, presented as "all there is", which irks me.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
OK, I apologise for using the word 'deceit'.

It was a reaction to the use of disingenuous.

I apologise to the hosts (and everyone else) for the tone of the recent posts.


[ 02. September 2014, 14:10: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is not one shred of evidence that VC are trying to cover up anything. The only 'evidence' offered is the mere fact that they did not respond to Eutychus' missive. That is not admissible evidence, but rather an inadmissible argument from silence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
I have now lost count of the times I've lost count of the times I have corrected this misstatement.

The evidence of the church's poor communication is a) the plagiarism PLUS b) failure to acknowledge receipt of a letter following a personal phonecall about it PLUS c) immediately thereafter, pulling the plagiarised material and the entire blog on which it was posted in its entirety with no explanation.

(PLUS d) apparently and allegedly removing their founding pastor and treasurer with no comment to the world outside).

This is abundant evidence of unreliable communication of reality and is not an argument from silence.

I'm still not completely sure you've assimilated the combined import of a, b and c because you have never reformulated them in one post. The same applies to d).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what?

I live in a town in which just about every church communicates badly.

This hardly merits the kind of rhetoric we have seen concerning the problems of Victory Church, Cwmbran.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Fine.

So we have a church which does not communicate well.

So what?

I live in a town in which just about every church communicates badly.

This hardly merits the kind of rhetoric we have seen concerning the problems of Victory Church, Cwmbran.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

OK, so there is an imperfect church in Wales. Big deal. What's new?

---

That they made huge claims, seeking to attract a national and/or international audience.

Some of these claims have been shown to be suspect and none that I can see have been supported by third-party evidence.

The church has made things worse for itself, in my view, by completely failing (so far) to communicate about all this to the wider audience it was formerly so keen to attract.

If the church had not self-publicised as it did, we probably wouldn't be discussing this here.

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: (I don't know what the other churches in Cwmbran are like, so just used RC churches as an example since there's normally one everywhere)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark
Poor communication is not, thankfully, an arbiter of spiritual decrepitude or heresy. It's also common in very walk of life including the commercial sector.

---

quote:

---

VC's problems aren't simply the product of poor communication. On the basis of the evidence we have, VC's problems amount to deception, fuelled by poor (and spinned) communication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
It can hardly have escaped your notice that we have been discussing it for so long, over so many threads, largely because you keep saying "yes but"...

---

quote:

---

Despite the proof of Richard Taylor's plagiarism, VC has neither acknowledged nor responded to the issues this raises. Removing the evidence doesn't remove the action .... just think how powerful an admission of wrongdoing and repentance might have become. That would show that God and everyone else at VC really did mean business. [After all, prayer and repentance are powerful forces in most historical revivals].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
1. At worst, it could indeed be a manifestation of deceit, or at best, it could simply be a symptom of human weakness. We just do not know.

2. I am tired of being railroaded into accepting a totally irrational and immoral position (namely, accepting something as definitely true for which there is no conclusive evidence). It is not a righteous thing to jump to conclusions about someone's integrity, especially using an argument from silence.

3. Why should I be pressured into accepting a spurious argument?

4. If you are going to make a big song and dance about plagiarism, then I could make an equally shrill noise about confidentiality and data protection. This is a very serious issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So if they had responded to you, what would you have done with the information? Come on now, be honest...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Eutychus has acknowledged that this is to do with poor communication.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, I have argued that VC's lack of response to Eutychus' communication to them could suggest a cover-up or it may not.

---

quote:

---

It is not a righteous thing to jump to conclusions about someone's integrity

---

quote:

---

I say "yes, but...", because you have not proven your case.

---

quote:

---

A private message or letter could be sent on the understanding that it is private. Would you therefore have mentioned it to anyone else? Would you have made it public?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[edited to remove superfluous QUOTE tag!!]

---

quote:

---

What I disagree with is the claim that the plagiarism problem is incontestably serious. At worst, it could indeed be a manifestation of deceit, or at best, it could simply be a symptom of human weakness. We just do not know.

---