Thread: Prayer as a 'force'; where did this come from? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023874

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I've noticed that a lot of charismatic—evangelicals in particular (though by no means exclusively) perceive a 'power' in prayer and/or faith in themselves; like a kind of 'force' in Star Wars, where if only you learn how to 'do it right', then you can effect God's will. This misapprehension is so pervasive that I once heard the 'prayer minister' (or some such title) at HTB in London ask the congo to 'aim a beam of prayer' at someone. This is, of course, an extreme and wacky example, but I get the impression that this notion of both prayer and faith as a 'power' in and of themselves is now fairly common in such circles.

To complicate matters further, it seems linked, at least in part, to the ideas behind advocates of the Prosperity Gospel. This seemed like a pretty neat explanation of such errors.

How common is this pattern?

K.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Fortunately not as common as it used to be, I believe. It seems to have originated with the whole Word of Faith movement of Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland et al, and their misuse of faith.

A recurring theme in Copeland’s works is the idea of faith, and particularly the spoken word of faith, as a force in itself – hence the term ‘Faith-Word Movement’. It would seem that he would interpret the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 - the Greek word hypostasis used here – in terms of faith as some kind of elemental power in its own right. By speaking words of faith, the believer can bring things into being, can cause events to come to pass.
quote:
Speak out God’s words until they take on form and substance and become a reality in your life.
- Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, ‘From Faith to Faith’ reading for April 14, referring to Hebrews 11:3

With specific reference to the above, the definition of faith expounded by Kenneth Copeland is simply theologically incorrect. The word used in Hebrews 11:1 to describe what faith is, hypostasis, literally means ‘substance’, but it has connotations of ‘state of thinking’ and is used in the New Testament to mean ‘assurance’ or ‘certainty’ and refers to an attitude of heart or mind rather than a substance or force having an independent existence (cf. Hebrews 3:14, where translation of hypostasis as ‘force’ does not fit):
quote:
In the context of Hebrews 11:1 [hypostasis] means an assured impression, a mental realizing”. Far from being some tangible material or energetic force, faith is a channel of living trust stretching from man to God.
- Hendrik H. Hanegraff and Erwin M. de Castro, “What’s wrong with the Faith Movement? Part Two: the Teachings of Kenneth Copeland”, copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O.Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693, p.4. (It should however be pointed out that Hanegraff in other work such as ‘Counterfeit Revival’ also attacks the charismatic movement in general as being false, so one has to take his criticisms with a pinch of salt; nevertheless, the points about Copeland have some weight. Both the CRI and Hanegraff also have a respected track record of exposing fringe cults.)

Other translators more qualified than Copeland – Biblical compilers – render hypostasis thus: “being sure” (NIV), “to be sure” (TEV) and “assurance” (NASB). With Kenneth Copeland’s definition of faith/hypostasis, we are back to ‘Star Wars’ and ‘The Force’; an impersonal power that exists independently and has no need of a deity, thus eliminating man’s dependence on God – who needs God when you have faith?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Many thanks Matt—very helpful! It still seems so common here in the UK—I suspect that it is, more or less, widely accepted in American Evo-Charo circles (if my experience is anything to go by).

K.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
A form of this idea operates in almost every church I've ever attended (possibly not to the extent of claiming it is a force which can be directed, though).

Seems to me to be a natural extension of the idea that God changes his mind when you put to him an argument that it'd be better if something (illness, death, health etc) didn't happen. Not to far from there to claiming you're a Jedi knight operating with a special power given to you by the Almighty.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Th idea that a prayer works rather like a light sabre is clearly daft.

By contrast, the belief that prayer is effective has a pretty solid pedigree.

There is this, for example. Which implies some connections between confession, prayer, healing and righteousness. How all that works together is another matter, which seems to me to be contained within the doctrine of grace.

Probably more appropriate to Kerygmania, but I did look more closely at the scripture from the book of James. For those who like to check out the "Nearly Infallible Version", particularly the use of the word "powerful", you can do so here. The Greek "energeo" may be translated as "putting forth power".

So there's nothing wrong in the belief in powerful and effective praying, but a lot wrong in believing that we're somehow equipped with prayer "light-sabres". In so far as there is "power" at work, traditional belief teaches that it is God's power, mediated by His grace, through faithful prayers. That seems to be a balanced way of looking at it.

(xposted with the first three responders)

[ 17. September 2012, 09:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Barnabas62: Th idea that a prayer works rather like a light sabre is clearly daft.
(Well, I think it would be pretty cool. Wooosh... amen!)
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Barnabus, that sounds good, but I think that the idea of 'faith' in such circles is closely bound to this kind of 'effective' prayer. The assumption is that 'God only wants good things for you' [health, wealth and happiness], if you don't get them it is likely because you lack faith. Faith is seen as the kind of battery or motor for prayer.

I kept my mouth shut, but when I raised some concerns about my job my wife told me that God's plan is that only good things happen to me and in order for that to work, I have to have faith. I know just where she hears this sort of thing, but decided to discuss it just yet. If it comes from the pulpit of HTB, it must be true.

K.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
This idea is actually quite widespread, even among people who, if they actually engaged some critical thinking for a moment, should surely know better. For example, it seems to lie behind medical studies on the efficacy of intercessory prayer, such as the headline-grabbing MANTRA II study a few years back. (To which I'm eternally grateful as it gave me some of the subject matter for my MA dissertation!)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Komensky, I think you're quite right not to buy into such views. There's a need for a theology of suffering working in harmony with notions of blessing and healing. Else we trivialise the very real and stark suffering of many believing people.

It all seems linked currently with "Bill Johnson-bethel-isms", which seem to fly in the face of the traditional beliefs about the kingdom. When we pray "your kingdom come", do we do so believing, with tradition, that the kingdom is, and is not (or not yet)? Bill Johnson seems to believe that this traditional understanding is a kind of failure of nerve. The argument seems to go like something this.

"We pray 'if it be your will' and mean 'well, really, we think they probably won't get healed - or blessed with a new job - or whatever'. That's a cop out."

For my part, I think such overweening self-confidence seems to fly in the face of orthodox understandings of God's sovereignty and wisdom.

Bad things happen to good people. Which means neither that we shouldn't pray nor that we should believe that all our prayers will somehow "do the necessary" as we see it.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"We pray 'if it be your will' and mean 'well, really, we think they probably won't get healed - or blessed with a new job - or whatever'. That's a cop out."

I wonder if people who say this would be happy to pray, "Lord, I want X Y Z, regardless of whether it's your will or not"?
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
The problem with this kind of talk is not that prayer is just wishful thinking - that might well have an effect, if only in a mental placebo way.

The problem is that there is an implicit understanding of Blessing - namely that the prayer is linked to effects which is linked to God which is linked to him-loving-us. So we get the notion that God must really love us because A got better, B got a job, the money for C was raised and so on.

Which is all very well, except that those who did not experience the answers to prayer of A B and C are relegated to a 'not-blessed' category (explicitly or subconsciously).

And the ridiculous thing is that the teaching on blessing from much of the New Testament is totally reversed. The things we consider blessings, according to Jesus, are not blessings. The things we should earnestly seek are the things we would not normally consider blessings.

And this has all kinds of implications. I think the Blessing teaching (which is a unspoken variant of the Prosperity gospel) is very widespread and reflected in the practices of many western Christians.

[edit, changed notation due to potential confusion with other posters)

[ 17. September 2012, 10:11: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Also the idea that God is only going to let good things happen to you, if only you have the exact right amount and type of faith, is daft. It spits in the face of every Christian martyr. It is the sort of self-indulgent pabulum that could only be thought up in a time and place where Christians have it pretty easy. It's a philosophy of first-world ease, not fit for the real world that most humans live in. It wouldn't last a minute under real persecution, like under the Soviets. Flee from such nonsense. It is antiChristian.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
I've got a slightly different take on this. Note how in the New Testament all (I think) the prayers regarding healing and the like are in the form 'be healed' rather than 'Lord, please heal this person'; and not just when Jesus is doing the healing but with the disciples too.

This implies, to me, that the disciples were exercising some power within themselves, rather than simply asking God to bring about the healing. Of course, the power came from God and his power within them, but I do think it shows we need to exercise the power of God. We don't simply ask God to demonstrate his power.

I doubt I'd go as far as talking of a 'beam of prayer' but I can see what they're getting at, I think...
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Kevin, if it were true that the disciples were exercising some 'power within themselves' then much of the last 2000 of theology and understanding is pretty much useless. God's power does not rely on—at all—human prayer or 'power' or faith.

Raising hands in prayer or blessing is a symbol—you are not channelling some kind of force with your hands and arms acting as transmitters or receptors. Yet that's what a lot of people seem to think.

K.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Komensky

It is NOT new at all, go and read the book of Job and you will find his friends extending exactly the same argument. Look at the parable of the man born Blind the disciples (yeh that crew) ask "Is he blind because of his sin or that of his parents?" the implication being that to suffer that then something wrong must have been done. In other words I think this idea is very common amongst humans.

Few move onto prayer as relationship and being as much about listening as talking.

Jengie
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
What a great thread topic, this has been bugging me for years. And not just about prayer, but about faith and grace as well. So many people treating these things as things-in-their-own-right rather than things that are only of value when connected with the person prayed to, the one believed in, the one who is-being-gracious.

The grace thing particularly bothers me (forgive the tangent?). How can anyone have "grace" as some sort of substance separable and separate from the God-who-is-gracious? I have to keep kicking myself not to fall into this trap, which I think might be possibly caused by linguistics. I mean, if the language lets you think of it as a noun rather than an adjective or verb (grace instead of gracious, prayers instead of praying), then it becomes fatally easy to treat it mentally as an end-in-itself. At least it does for me.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
My OH wondered what would happen if the 'beam of prayer' missed. One can imagine Fred in bed getting sicker and sicker, whilst Jim in the bed next door gets miraculously better..
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"We pray 'if it be your will' and mean 'well, really, we think they probably won't get healed - or blessed with a new job - or whatever'. That's a cop out."

I wonder if people who say this would be happy to pray, "Lord, I want X Y Z, regardless of whether it's your will or not"?
Regrettably yes: take this marvellous nugget from the Copelands:

quote:
If you’re sitting around waiting for Jesus to decide to heal you…for Jesus to decide to help you…for Jesus to decide to prosper you and give you victory…you’re in for a long wait. Because that’s not Jesus’ decision. It’s yours!
- ibid., reading for October 30th

So, Man is a god and God is merely his servant.... [Projectile]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Raising hands in prayer or blessing is a symbol—you are not channelling some kind of force with your hands and arms acting as transmitters or receptors.

I think there's a sense in which we do 'channel some kind of force'. We are conduits for God's power, we express God's will on earth, we are the agents of God's kingdom - are those statements controversial?

I mean, think about the people through history who have allegedly done remarkable things for God's glory. Most of them, if not all, led or lead lives of great discipline and devotion, which I'd explain as making them more able to 'channel' God's power. Without God we are nothing, but God has chosen to act through his people and we can either go along with or hinder this by the way we live, ISTM.
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
At Easter People some years ago (the Methodist version of Spring Harvest), one of the preachers instructed us to direct 'arrow prayers' at the people we came into contact with. Rather like aiming lasers at them. I've heard of 'shooting arrow prayers' at God before, but not at other people. I think I tried it briefly, but felt uncomfortable with it and gave up.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Proof at least that Benny Hinn works that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1093Xd-Qwk

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Proof at least that Benny Hinn works that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1093Xd-Qwk

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I went to a charismatic meeting in the mid 70s, where the speaker encouraged us to raise one hand up to heaven as we prayed, and stretch the other out towards the person we were praying for. In that way we would "channel the power of God" into them. Even then I was mildly amused by this - except for the sight of the 8 yr old boy whose mother had cancer. He was desperately moving his heavenward hand around to catch the power, so that his mum would be healed.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I went to a charismatic meeting in the mid 70s, where the speaker encouraged us to raise one hand up to heaven as we prayed, and stretch the other out towards the person we were praying for. In that way we would "channel the power of God" into them. Even then I was mildly amused by this - except for the sight of the 8 yr old boy whose mother had cancer. He was desperately moving his heavenward hand around to catch the power, so that his mum would be healed.

This is a heart-breaking example of just how asinine the concept is. As a symbol, extending your hands, etc., can be very powerful for those watching or doing it; but we are not like old TV antennas, which, if twisted and held just right will get a clear signal. That seems to me a catastrophic theological blunder.

Churches like HTB have gone in very, very heavy for this sort of approach.

K.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think there's a sense in which we do 'channel some kind of force'. We are conduits for God's power, we express God's will on earth, we are the agents of God's kingdom - are those statements controversial?

Thanks for these comments, I've been trying to arrange my thoughts in answer. First, I think there are upsetting issues with regard to the power relationship in churches which use this language. When we call ourselves conduits, we appear to be putting ourselves in the position of God's earthly guttering, directing the flow and deciding who gets the blessings of God. I think there are very difficult issues for those who claim to speak for God, never mind act for him.

Second, I think your question seems to suggest that we are (in some way) directing God rather than us being subservient beings and him being the Almighty.

Third, whilst there is some basis for this kind of 'power direction' in the New Testament, it strikes me that the kind of kingdom we're agents to be of is not one where this kind of thing happens. So I'd have to answer that, yes, your comments are controversial and actually wrong.

quote:
I mean, think about the people through history who have allegedly done remarkable things for God's glory. Most of them, if not all, led or lead lives of great discipline and devotion, which I'd explain as making them more able to 'channel' God's power. Without God we are nothing, but God has chosen to act through his people and we can either go along with or hinder this by the way we live, ISTM.
Again, I don't like the word channel. Nor the implication that God somehow needs us. Nor really that he only uses the devout. In fact, I find the whole notion pretty objectionable.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
This is an excellent thread, and it helps me to put into context various Christians I have met over the last 30 years, who seemed to be expressing something like 'prayer - kapow!'

This has always puzzled me, and disturbed me, but I could never quite identify why.

There is some kind of reification of both prayer and the person praying, so that they become a 'force field' or something like that.

I suppose it is actually dechristianizing Christianity in some ways.

[ 17. September 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I've got a slightly different take on this. Note how in the New Testament all (I think) the prayers regarding healing and the like are in the form 'be healed' rather than 'Lord, please heal this person'; and not just when Jesus is doing the healing but with the disciples too.

This implies, to me, that the disciples were exercising some power within themselves, rather than simply asking God to bring about the healing. Of course, the power came from God and his power within them, but I do think it shows we need to exercise the power of God. We don't simply ask God to demonstrate his power.

I doubt I'd go as far as talking of a 'beam of prayer' but I can see what they're getting at, I think...

Yes, and if you point your hand at somebody and say "be healed" and they aren't healed IMMEDIATELY, then you ain't got that particular power.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Although I admit it wasn't very helpful, I once suggested to someone that they add the words "by the power of Greyskull… I have THE POWER!" at the end of each prayer.

I guess telling people that they have no magic powers might not be as appealing.

K.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think there are upsetting issues with regard to the power relationship in churches which use this language... I think there are very difficult issues for those who claim to speak for God, never mind act for him.

Yes, agreed! But I'm struck by how clear the voices of the New Testament are; prayer for healing is done by command, not by request. I don't think we should just ignore that.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Second, I think your question seems to suggest that we are (in some way) directing God rather than us being subservient beings and him being the Almighty.

Again, I'm with you to a large extent. But, looking at the story of the Bible again, don't we see God delegating much of his power to human beings? Right from the start, the first people are told to tend the garden, subdue the earth, name the animals. One could describe all of this as bringing order to the world, and likewise all the miraculous stuff in the New Testament; it's about being fit to be a channel of God's power to bring order and restoration to a broken world.

There are problems with all this, for sure. Not least the question of why so many of our prayers (whether in request or command form) seem not to be effective. But the other main approach, that it's completely and directly up to God whether any given prayer gets answered, has big problems of its own, right? So I think the line I'm trying to explain is at least worth giving some credence.

BTW, that Benny Hinn video I found hysterically funny and tragic all at once! I can't see any place in God's service for that sort of 'look at me, the mighty man of God on the stage' exhibitionism, bleurgh.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:


There are problems with all this, for sure. Not least the question of why so many of our prayers (whether in request or command form) seem not to be effective. But the other main approach, that it's completely and directly up to God whether any given prayer gets answered, has big problems of its own, right? So I think the line I'm trying to explain is at least worth giving some credence.


I don't believe in prayer like that. At all. We can't tell God what to do, if we think we can, we're mistaken. I know that few Christians agree with me, though.
 
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
I don't think there is a theological answer that explains everything here. Clearly faith (a trusting confidence in the goodness of God and Jesus) is something Christ was looking for. Again and again he mentions faith or the lack of it in the gospels. However there are limits - God is not going to decide to abolish death for all humanity today if we only had 'enough faith'. It operates within God's sovereignty, and rules he has set himself. Some of these rules we know about , and some we probably don't.

That said, we are required to have faith. Without it God seems to be more limited in what he can do. Jesus couldn't get many people healed in his home town due to their unbelief. By contrast the Roman centurion saw his servant healed by believing Jesus would heal him remotely - even though he never actually went out to meet Jesus. Had he not done this, would the servant have been healed ? Probably not.

Its not unreasonable to believe that the same Jesus who reacted in this way to faith 2,000 years ago is likely to react the same way today. You can't reduce this stuff to a formula, because its really about a relationship between us and God. Faith is about who we think he is, not about us trying to do something to persuade him. If you do believe something you don't bother asking God time and time again for it or getting hundreds of Christians to pray together in a prayer chain ! Once is enough.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
I don't think there is a theological answer that explains everything here. Clearly faith (a trusting confidence in the goodness of God and Jesus) is something Christ was looking for. Again and again he mentions faith or the lack of it in the gospels. However there are limits - God is not going to decide to abolish death for all humanity today if we only had 'enough faith'. It operates within God's sovereignty, and rules he has set himself. Some of these rules we know about , and some we probably don't.

The account is not consistent. Sometimes he admonishes people for their lack of faith, sometimes he rewards and heals people even with their lack of faith.

It largely depends on which gospel you're reading (he says quietly).

quote:
That said, we are required to have faith. Without it God seems to be more limited in what he can do. Jesus couldn't get many people healed in his home town due to their unbelief. By contrast the Roman centurion saw his servant healed by believing Jesus would heal him remotely - even though he never actually went out to meet Jesus. Had he not done this, would the servant have been healed ? Probably not.
A strange idea, but you're right it is there.

quote:
Its not unreasonable to believe that the same Jesus who reacted in this way to faith 2,000 years ago is likely to react the same way today. You can't reduce this stuff to a formula, because its really about a relationship between us and God. Faith is about who we think he is, not about us trying to do something to persuade him. If you do believe something you don't bother asking God time and time again for it or getting hundreds of Christians to pray together in a prayer chain ! Once is enough.
How do you know that? If you believe in the God who knows and cares about you, why do you ask at all?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I thought this comment from an Anglican vicar was rather succinct and correct.

quote:
The prosperity gospel teaches that God’s miraculous work is necessarily tied to the strength of human belief. The Gospels show this to be a lie. While Jesus at times requires that people trust in his power to heal before healing, at other times he simply decides to heal regardless. Dead people, for example, do not have the power to name nor claim anything. And yet Jesus raises them (Luke 7:11-17). And he decides to heal people who neither ask for it nor believe it can happen (John 5:1-9). God’s power to heal and deliver does not depend on human faith.
It rightly highlights the selfishness of this approach and how it became so closely tied to the prosperity gospel error.

K.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, the danger is that it becomes an ego-trip, whereby the strength of my own needs and desires are paramount. God must reply to me, as I really really want him to.

Again, I think that dechristianizes Christianity, and replaces it with a 'prosthetic God', to use Freud's term.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think there are upsetting issues with regard to the power relationship in churches which use this language... I think there are very difficult issues for those who claim to speak for God, never mind act for him.

Yes, agreed! But I'm struck by how clear the voices of the New Testament are; prayer for healing is done by command, not by request. I don't think we should just ignore that.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Second, I think your question seems to suggest that we are (in some way) directing God rather than us being subservient beings and him being the Almighty.

Again, I'm with you to a large extent. But, looking at the story of the Bible again, don't we see God delegating much of his power to human beings? Right from the start, the first people are told to tend the garden, subdue the earth, name the animals. One could describe all of this as bringing order to the world, and likewise all the miraculous stuff in the New Testament; it's about being fit to be a channel of God's power to bring order and restoration to a broken world.


Yes, but at no stage is there even a hint of God being subject to Man in the way the earth might be as described above. That's my fundamental problem with the WoF people - they create a subjected, servant god who is impotent to act unless we give him our gracious permission. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...at no stage is there even a hint of God being subject to Man in the way the earth might be as described above. That's my fundamental problem with the WoF people - they create a subjected, servant god who is impotent to act unless we give him our gracious permission. [Disappointed]

Sure, and if I gave any impression I think this then I'm sorry; that wasn't my intention.

How's this: God is absolutely free to act as he wishes, irrespective of people's faith, obedience, holiness and so on, but most of the time it seems he chooses to act through his people. And this all the more so when they are living faithful, holy lives.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...at no stage is there even a hint of God being subject to Man in the way the earth might be as described above. That's my fundamental problem with the WoF people - they create a subjected, servant god who is impotent to act unless we give him our gracious permission. [Disappointed]

Sure, and if I gave any impression I think this then I'm sorry; that wasn't my intention.

How's this: God is absolutely free to act as he wishes, irrespective of people's faith, obedience, holiness and so on, but most of the time it seems he chooses to act through his people. And this all the more so when they are living faithful, holy lives.

Kevin,

It seems that you cannot resist projecting a particular modern evangelical and charismatic understanding onto an omnipotent God. Don't try so hard--you don't have to make it fit.

K.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Proof at least that Benny Hinn works that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1093Xd-Qwk

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

**[[ LIKED ]]**

I can see the video has been doctored - but not that much!
 
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
quote:
How do you know that? If you believe in the God who knows and cares about you, why do you ask at all?
Well he did say 'ask and you shall receive'. If your not supposed to ask, why did he tell us to ?

As for the relationship bit, clearly Jesus tells his disciples before his death that he considers them friends. Its not a wild leap of faith to hope that the same might apply to us who put our trust in his name.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
quote:
How do you know that? If you believe in the God who knows and cares about you, why do you ask at all?
Well he did say 'ask and you shall receive'. If your not supposed to ask, why did he tell us to ?

As for the relationship bit, clearly Jesus tells his disciples before his death that he considers them friends. Its not a wild leap of faith to hope that the same might apply to us who put our trust in his name.

Sounds like a wild leap to me.

K.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Kevin,

It seems that you cannot resist projecting a particular modern evangelical and charismatic understanding onto an omnipotent God. Don't try so hard--you don't have to make it fit.

K.

You might be right, but which part of my comment did you disagree with? If you think I've got the wrong end of the stick then please show me how; there's not much I can do with an unspecific criticism like your comment above...
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
If you think I've got the wrong end of the stick then please show me how; there's not much I can do with an unspecific criticism like your comment above...

As someone who is not evangelical or charismatic, but knows (parts of both) traditions quite well, I think you are articulating commonly held beliefs. As far as I am concerned, you're trying to make round shapes fit square holes.

It is hard to be more specific in the criticism because you just seem to be reiterating the comments I criticised earlier.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've not had opportunity to post on this thread before now, but my two-happ'orth comment is that it's identified something that seems to be common to all Christian traditions - whether more 'traditional' and sacramental or more evangelical and charismatic in the contemporary sense.

And that common feature is this - a tendency to regard sacraments or particular gestures/practices and so on as somehow being 'magic' or acting as channels of the divine and the numinous. On the more Catholic side of things this tendency becomes focussed on objects and places - shrines, relics, icons etc - whereas on the evangelical charismatic side it becomes associated with 'the anointing' or the idea of spiritual power that can somehow be conveyed or passed on by the observance of particular techniques or by the exercise of faith.

Now, it's understandable how this happens and there are scriptural precedents - the handkerchief in the book of Acts, Peter's shadow falling on the sick, the bloke in the OT who was brought back to life when he was flung into a grave containing Elijah's bones ...

Add to that some apparent testimonies and experiences and bingo ...

It's confession time ... back in the day when I was a fully-paid up charismatic I sometimes felt tingles and jolts and sensations in my arm when the the 'Toronto' style stuff was about to happen. On several occasions my right arm began to shake uncontrollably so that my hand was almost like a blur - and I'd go around praying for people and laying hands on them - as far as I could with my hand shaking - and they'd fall over or start shaking themselves.

Looking back, I'm not sure how I rationalised this, but I wouldn't have expressed it in terms of my 'channelling' or transmitting something - although that was how it appeared at times. I backed off from this stuff fairly quickly when I began to feel proud of myself - 'Look at me, people fall over when I pray for them, I must have arrived ...'

Before long I'd concluded that it was a matter of nervous energy and a kind of built-up/built-in response to particular cues. I felt that it wasn't necessarily anything to do with 'anointing' and so on but physical reactions to enthusiastic religious stimuli.

This kind of thing is pretty endemic in charismatic circles, although I'm surprised (and saddened) to hear from Komensky that it seems characteristic of HTB practice.

The Vineyard seem to have promulgated this kind of thing - albeit in a milder way than some of the more full-on US outfits. Hence its popularity among Anglican charismatic evangelicals and so on.

I do believe that people can be channels of divine grace - 'make me a channel of your peace' as the Franciscan/quasi Franciscan (?) hymn has it. But I don't tend to see it as a matter of us picking up spiritual radioactivity somehow and transmitting it to other people.

I wouldn't attempt to suss out how this sort of thing works, but I think what we see in contemporary charismatic practice is a rather over-blown and over-realised attempt to build on things that might be very real at their core, but which are subject to all too human shenanigans and misunderstandings.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
Please allow me to explore my current thoughts on this. I'm ready to be shot down in flames [Mad] if they're not joined up.

Jesus came to show God to the people of the world. He didn't come to heal or to do miracles, they were part of the presentation of God. He invited them to see, hear and participate. Where they didn't accept, he didn't force the issue. Lack of acceptance showed lack of faith.

The apostles, Paul and other members of the early Church were given various gifts by God so that they too would show people God. The power wasn't theirs, but they were invited and authorised by God into specific service: "What you bind on earth", etc. For this to be effective, their relationship with God must be so closely tight that their will and God's will must be in alignment. 'Be healed' are words used in sure knowledge that God's will is to heal. God must be glorified by the event.

God still invites people to receive gifts and authorises their use within the community of the Church so that in co-operation we serve with the same purpose, to show people God. Unless we're authorised, we should not try to practice them and they should not be assumed. In fact, we must humbly approach God in every instance and be sensitive to his will.

If it is the person who is being held up as having powers rather than God, it's not God's work that's being done.

Our requests to God are more than welcome, God wants us to ask and invites us to pray for each other. Not everything can happen as we would like it to, but as we trust in God we know that all shall ultimately be well. Joint focus too is a good thing in prayer, imv. However, if it's used to try to manipulate God or other people, it's not God's work.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I also think that not having power could well be a sign of God's grace. Or being without. Or being destitute. Or being empty.

All this talk of powers and abilities makes me feel queasy.

It smacks so much of ego - look at me doing this stuff!

But what about being truly emptied out? Being stripped of your clothes, or your persona? What is that?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
That's ouchy. That's also where I spend a great deal of my time, much against my will, i think because God knows I' m just the person to damn myself through pride if I had half an excuse.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
John of the Cross describes it very well, as our being at first rewarded with all kinds of interesting and exciting experiences, and then, quite often, these disappear, and one is barren.

It's not so much that this is superior, as that it seems almost inevitable, since the first set of gifts are pleasing to the ego. This is fine, but these can easily become like personal accumulations or like bank deposits.

Well, I think Mother Teresa described it pretty well, the emptiness I mean. Going off topic really.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, I don't think that's off-topic, I think that kind of emphasis is pertinent to what we're talking about here.

Inherent within charismatic evangelical spirituality is a kind of theandric and thaumaturgical assumption (look them up, I had to ... [Biased] ) that can be distilled as:

'God is a good God and the devil is a bad devil.'

Therefore, the assumption is that anything bad or negative has to be resisted and over-come and that its the role of Christians to bring healing, light, positive influences and role-models and also miraculous powers to bear in alleviating the darkness.

So far, perhaps so good ... but it soon becomes apparent that there can be an over-realised or (forgive me Eutychus) over-egged element here - whereby we are tempted to see ourselves as 'God's man of faith and power for the hour' and so on.

In fairness, the restorationist strand within contemporary evangelical charismaticdom did stress the corporate and communal aspects over the individualistic - but arguably it was too close to contemporary 'revivalism' to elide this tendency completely.

The modus-operandi of such churches encourages the extrovert and the egotistical. I used to enjoy praying long, erudite prayers and bringing 'words' and so on. I used to get a lot of affirmation out of it. Interestingly, I noticed that this tended to stop/fizzle out when I found other creative outlets such as poetry workshops, open-mic sessions and so on.

There is an emphasis on creativity and self-expression within charismatic churches and consequently they attract people who like that sort of thing. My wife isn't at all extrovert and she struggled for years with the discomfort of being in a full-on ra-ra-ra-ra charismatic setting.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Inherent within charismatic evangelical spirituality is a kind of theandric and thaumaturgical assumption (look them up, I had to ... [Biased] ) that can be distilled as:

'God is a good God and the devil is a bad devil.'

Therefore, the assumption is that anything bad or negative has to be resisted and over-come and that its the role of Christians to bring healing, light, positive influences and role-models and also miraculous powers to bear in alleviating the darkness.

As I get older, I find it increasingly difficult to resist the conclusion that it's God who sends good and ill, and also that I have absolutely no idea why.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
...it's about being fit to be a channel of God's power to bring order and restoration to a broken world.

I find the idea of "being a channel of God's power" quite wrong. About 25 years ago I was in a small independent Pentecostal church, and one of our favourite hymns went as follows:

Channels only, blessed Master, / But with all Thy wondrous power / Flowing through us, Thou canst use us / Every day and every hour.

One of the major themes of the fellowship was to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" so that we could then go out and be channels of God's power. Of course, when we failed to "come up with the goods" then our receptiveness to the Holy Spirit was called into question, and we were duly psychologically tormented (e.g. told that God was going to vomit us out of his mouth for being lukewarm) until we got to the root of the problem of why we were being so stubborn and resistant to God. It never occurred to the leadership (which consisted of a married couple) that they were the ones labouring under vomit-worthy theology.

We often used to sing the anthem of spiritual masochism as well:

Spirit of the living God, / fall afresh on me. / Break me, melt me, mould me, fill me.

(...which is the spiritual equivalent of a child going up to his father and asking: "Daddy, can you please give me a good beating, because I feel I need it to make me more mature and obedient to you..." Such a father would, it is hoped, be completely freaked out...)

All this is just man's vain and desperate effort to try to control God.

For all its difficulty (and potential for viewing God as outrageously unjust), I find the book of Job interesting concerning the idea of the power of God. Job, in his suffering, broke every "Word of Faith" rule in the book by letting rip at God (understandably!), but it was his self-righteous and controlling friends who were censured at the end. God manifested his power to Job, by drawing Job out of himself (despite the severity of his problems) and directing his eyes to the wonders of creation: in other words, to the creative sovereignty of God. Once Job had taken his eyes off himself and given up his attempts to control God, then the real healing could begin. After years of disappointment with the control theology of the charismatic-pentecostal paradigm, I guess this is where I am at also.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some excellent comments above.

Being a channel of God - oh wow, hubris or what.

No, try being emptied out of all things. Now, where is the channel?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Wow. Thanks EE.

K.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
I was thinking about this 'controlling God' criticism earlier today, as I really don't think I'm suggesting anything of the sort. Instead, I see it as something like a runner waiting on the start line or a hunter waiting for the bird to take flight. The start gun doesn't make the runner set off, neither does the pheasant make the hunter shoot; the gun and the bird are simply the prompt for action.

Likewise, my view is that God has chosen to (most of the time) act in accordance with the faithfulness and holiness of his people. We don't control God by our righteous living, we merely co-operate with his way of working.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
But Kevin, I just don't see it. Someone recently put it nicely: 'we pray in hope'. I'm afraid that's it. God does not rely on human faith for his actions. God is God is God. There is no secret recipe. We are called to pray quietly (nota bene!) and in hope.

There is no 'but sometimes' or 'most of the time'. He just *is* are you are stuck with it. The Todd Bently and Bill Johnson (just to name two notorious examples) circus acts are, sadly, the logical conclusions of this sort of erroneous thinking.

K.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Kevin, the Church (however defined) is AN agent of the Kingdom, but it is not the ONLY agent of the Kingdom.

It ain't all about us. It ain't all about li'l' ol' you and me.

Nice and laid-back though the Vineyard is, I think it too has been susceptible to what I might call the 'commodification' of grace ie. you can go to a special place (The Toronto Vineyard) or wherever God is apparently 'moving' in a particular way and somehow 'catch' the anointing (as if it is a kind of spiritual infection) and carry it back with you to wherever you happen to come from.

I don't see it working like that.

Ok, there are some intriguing and unanswered questions - I've long been struck by how Elisha and the other Israelites didn't appear to disabuse Naaman the Leper of the apparent belief that God's power was 'located' in the very soil of Israel when he asked to take two mule-loads of earth back with him to assist in his worship of the One True God.

See 2 Kings 5:17-19

It's interesting, isn't it, that Naaman is asked to dip himself in the Jordan (rather than any other river including the 'superior' rivers of his native Syria which he considered 'Pharpar' better ...) [Biased]

You could argue that this incident is reinforcing the idea that God's grace and power is found in particular places rather than being generally available, as it were. Equally, one could argue that the Lord was meeting Naaman where he was at ...

Whatever the case, if we accept sacraments (or ordinances) as some kind of means of grace I don't see why we should baulk at the idea of people somehow acting as conduits of that same grace and power - 'if anyone gives you a cup of cold water in my name ...'

But that's not to suggest that we act as some kind of spiritual lightning conductors or as laser-beams directing God's grace and power to particular locations or situations. We often talk as if that's the case - I've done so myself - but I think we need to recognise what we are actually doing and saying if we make those kind of claims.

That's a lot of slipshod and lazy thinking about in charismaticdom and I think the impression that you somehow stretch out your hand and some kind of force-field or power-beam emanates ... bzzzztttt ... like something in Star Wars or science fiction is part and parcel of all that.

Similar things happen in RC and Orthodox circles, of course, Mediterranean peasants crossing themselves to ward off the Evil Eye and so on.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Interesting - this is another good discussion. I do love the Ship.

I do think that while God is 'everywhere' there seems to be times when he is more 'somewhere' than others. The are both biblical (Plagues of Egypt, Mount Carmel, Day of Pentecost etc ) and extra-biblical (Historic Shrines, Toronto Airport (for the sake of argument), some of my more Celtic inclined folk talk of Iona and Lindesfarne in these terms).

My own view is that the Kingdom goes with us, and where we are gathered we should expect signs and wonders on occasions. In most cases that will be in church meetings but certainly doesnt have to be.

There are things we dont need to think too much about, in that we are told to do them. Healing is one, Preaching the Good News. Check. , Making disciples. Check. Setting Captives free. Check. Feed the Poor. Check. Not so keen on the snakes and deadly poison, though, give those a miss.

There is indeed a temptation to exalt yourself. Thats where the risk comes - but i think thats a temptation common to all types of church leadership not just the Charismatics....
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, beatmenace, and plenty of sacramentally inclined Christians would see Christ as being especially present or 'realised' if you like, in the Eucharist.

We all 'sacralise' things and I would suggest that the tendency among charismatics is to sacralise things like the worship time or the preaching of the word or 'ministry times' and so on and so forth because this tendency is innate within all of us.

If I wanted to be snarky from a more fully sacramental viewpoint, I could suggest that it's precisely because they've denigrated the 'proper' sacraments to a certain extent that they've had to develop sacraments of their own - in a 'nature abhors a vacuum' kind of way.

But that would be equally as reductionist as the sort of things charismatics get up to ...

[Razz]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A kind of leakage effect, I suppose. Block up the 'channels' in one area, and new 'channels' open up in another. But lo and behold, it turns out I'm the channel!
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
I do feel torn about this. On the one hand, I do think we're called to pray and to ask God for things. Jesus' point about God knowing what we already need wasn't made, ISTM, to discourage prayer but to encourage trusting, simple prayer (as opposed to untrusting, loud, attention-seeking prayer).

Furthermore, I think there are instances in the Bible when God & Christ do seem to change their minds about things because of human petition. I'm thinking of Abraham negotiating with God over Sodom and Gomorrah; or Moses persuading God not to wipe out the whole of the Israelites after the Golden Calf; or the Syro-Phoenician woman talking Jesus into healing her daughter when he'd (seemingly) refused on ethnic grounds. The picture of God that Scripture portrays doesn't seem to be one of someone who puts His fingers in His ears to our prayers and ignores them, but who listens and answers.

On the other hand, I do have huge problems with the view of prayer as a 'force' in the sense that's been described here. That seems to be the opposite of the trusting faith in God that, IMHO, Scripture suggests should be our motivation for prayer - it's putting faith in ourselves and in our level of faith that will make miracles work (if that makes any sense at all). It does seem to treat certain words and phrases almost as "magic words" , that if we say them will make wondrous things happen. That, ISTM, isn't the faith that the Bible calls us to.

On the Acts question, I do take the point that a lot of the miracles that happen there do come from the apostles saying "be healed!" rather than "God, please heal them!" or something similar. But the question in my mind is: how much are the events in Acts supposed to be normative for the church now and how much are they a description of something new that was breaking out then? Is Acts simply a template for us to copy, or a description of how the nascent church operated which may not translate easily into our current experience? If the latter, then praying and doing things in the same way as those in Acts may not be appropriate.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Interesting - this is another good discussion. I do love the Ship.

[snip]
There are things we dont need to think too much about, in that we are told to do them. Healing is one, Preaching the Good News. Check. , Making disciples. Check. Setting Captives free. Check. Feed the Poor. Check. Not so keen on the snakes and deadly poison, though, give those a miss.
[snip]

There you go already with selective readings. Firstly, why on earth are these things we 'don't need to think about'? Also, I'm guessing from your language that by 'healing' you mean of the 'be healed in the name of jay-sus!' type of healing. If you are reading magic into some of these, why not others? Why does the healing have to be supernatural but not the snake handling? Or, could it be, that idiom needs to be considered in all cases?

K.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We all 'sacralise' things and I would suggest that the tendency among charismatics is to sacralise things like the worship time or the preaching of the word or 'ministry times' and so on and so forth because this tendency is innate within all of us.

I think you're largely bang on the money here, Gamaliel. I see this tendency in some of the talk about big conferences like New Wine, and at the local level in the way some people want a lengthy section of sung worship as the focus of church services.

I guess I'm 'sacralising' people rather than activities or places. Reflecting on that, I think it's legitimate; or at least it's consistent with what I've been saying in this thread about God (mainly) working through people who are devotedly, humbly following him.
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But the question in my mind is: how much are the events in Acts supposed to be normative for the church now and how much are they a description of something new that was breaking out then? Is Acts simply a template for us to copy, or a description of how the nascent church operated which may not translate easily into our current experience?

Such a key question, IMO! Tentatively, I'd say we should take practices we see in the NT as normative unless we can give a reasonable explanation as to why we shouldn't. Perhaps a trivial example: 'Greet one another with a holy kiss'. Kissing was used as a greeting in Jesus' and Paul's time and culture far more than in mine, so I won't take this as a direct command to me. Instead I'll adapt it to my own context and greet my Christian brethren warmly in a way that fits my culture.

With the 'be healed' prayer thing, I guess I simply don't see why we should pray in a different way to Jesus' early followers. Any thoughts, Stejjie or others...?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Kevin,

I don't think that we should pray in a way different from Jesus's early followers (by which I assume you mean the book of Acts, rather than Jesus's early followers, that is, the people who made up the early church and established the Bible, Creeds and so on).

Also, I don't see that 'be healed' is more or less than a prayer in hope of God's healing. Sometimes he does this, sometimes not; and getting back to the OP, that's what we have no power over.


K.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Interesting - this is another good discussion. I do love the Ship.

[snip]
There are things we dont need to think too much about, in that we are told to do them. Healing is one, Preaching the Good News. Check. , Making disciples. Check. Setting Captives free. Check. Feed the Poor. Check. Not so keen on the snakes and deadly poison, though, give those a miss.
[snip]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go already with selective readings. Firstly, why on earth are these things we 'don't need to think about'? Also, I'm guessing from your language that by 'healing' you mean of the 'be healed in the name of jay-sus!' type of healing. If you are reading magic into some of these, why not others? Why does the healing have to be supernatural but not the snake handling? Or, could it be, that idiom needs to be considered in all cases?


I wouldn't have thought that any of these could be argued against as being things that Jesus did and taught his disciples to do. I would argue these are all things that Christians should be about. If you have an issue with that i think its another discussion waiting!

Another one that springs to mind is that 'the greatest among you is the one who serves'. Which is quite pertinent to the above discussion i think.

While we have probably done healing to death in other threads - i believe that healing in Jesus's name is supported by both Scripture, Tradition and Practice and have known those physically healed (and also those who have died who were not healed physically) after prayer.

Its not a wacky modern transatlantic add-on but something which has always been taught and practiced.

In that sense you could include the snakes and poison. And perhaps you should.

I dont think you should necessarily go out of your way to to find snakes and poison (sorry snake-handlers) because Mark 16 is more Jesus predicting the kind of signs that would go along with doing the preaching of the good news, but as you say healing is in that segment).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Stejjie - 'God and Christ' ? - being pedantic, don't you mean 'God the Father and Christ' ie. Christ as God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.

@South Coast Kevin - well, if you want to go around saying to people 'Be healed!' and so forth, that's up to you. The onus is on you though, to demonstrate that you've got the power/right/authority or whatever-it-is to do so. I could go round declaring 'be healed!' to people until I'm blue in the face but that doesn't mean that any of them would necessarily be healed.

I s'pose it's a bit of a circular argument - you don't know until you've tried. I used to go laying hands on people and praying for healing every now and then when I was a good-little-charismatic - sometimes even with 'unbelievers' in the street. I can remember doing that on two occasions and feeling quite uncomfortable about the whole thing but doing it nevertheless - they were both occasions when people asked me to do so.

Nothing happened. Neither were healed through my prayers as far as I can tell.

As Mousethief says, if you can do that ... well, then that shows something. But if you can't, you can't. I can't. So I don't.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@South Coast Kevin - well, if you want to go around saying to people 'Be healed!' and so forth, that's up to you. The onus is on you though, to demonstrate that you've got the power/right/authority or whatever-it-is to do so. I could go round declaring 'be healed!' to people until I'm blue in the face but that doesn't mean that any of them would necessarily be healed.

I s'pose it's a bit of a circular argument - you don't know until you've tried. I used to go laying hands on people and praying for healing every now and then when I was a good-little-charismatic - sometimes even with 'unbelievers' in the street. I can remember doing that on two occasions and feeling quite uncomfortable about the whole thing but doing it nevertheless - they were both occasions when people asked me to do so.

Nothing happened. Neither were healed through my prayers as far as I can tell.

As Mousethief says, if you can do that ... well, then that shows something. But if you can't, you can't. I can't. So I don't.

I think it harmful to try to do so, unless convinced by the Holy Spirit that we must - not only by other human beings. Harmful that is to yourself, as you're compromising your relationship with God, harmful to Christianity as it gives people to believe that its followers are on another planet/giving false hope/thinking we have powers etc; and harmful to the reputation of God's holy name as it appears that God is not there. Similarly with those who try to evangelise out of kilter with God's will.

I believe that God still gives people gifts, some of healing, some of tongues, some of prophecy, etc and God calls some to be evangelists, some to be nurturers, etc. Unless we're offered the gift from God and we accept, knowing the responsibility it carries, we should tread with extreme caution, and even then we must remain very close to God in consciousness at all times.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I wouldn't have thought that any of these could be argued against as being things that Jesus did and taught his disciples to do. I would argue these are all things that Christians should be about. If you have an issue with that i think its another discussion waiting!

Care to unpack that? Surely it is down to you to show a) the activities you describe as being 'things that Jesus did and taught his disciples to do' are actually in the New Testament in the way that you enact them and b) some kind of rationale behind why you in the 21 Century should behave in the same way as the first apostles, given we all know that there are things recorded by the early apostles that you/we do not do.

quote:
Another one that springs to mind is that 'the greatest among you is the one who serves'. Which is quite pertinent to the above discussion i think.

While we have probably done healing to death in other threads - i believe that healing in Jesus's name is supported by both Scripture, Tradition and Practice and have known those physically healed (and also those who have died who were not healed physically) after prayer.

I don't think it is necessarily consistent with scripture to assume that the actions of the apostles with regard to healing continued beyond their lives. And this is part of the problem discussed in this thread.

quote:
Its not a wacky modern transatlantic add-on but something which has always been taught and practiced.
Nope, it is a (current) transatlantic add-on. In the past, periodic groups of people claimed charismatic gifts of healing at different times, but by far the majority saw this as a very rare miraculous occurrence, if it happened at all.

quote:
In that sense you could include the snakes and poison. And perhaps you should.

I dont think you should necessarily go out of your way to to find snakes and poison (sorry snake-handlers) because Mark 16 is more Jesus predicting the kind of signs that would go along with doing the preaching of the good news, but as you say healing is in that segment).

I'd submit that it'd be rather stupid to make a point of the snake-and-poison verse given it is not present in the earliest and most reliable sources and was added much later.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Ouch - some of this will take a bit of time but to start with :


quote:
I don't think it is necessarily consistent with scripture to assume that the actions of the apostles with regard to healing continued beyond their lives. And this is part of the problem discussed in this thread.


quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not a wacky modern transatlantic add-on but something which has always been taught and practiced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, it is a (current) transatlantic add-on. In the past, periodic groups of people claimed charismatic gifts of healing at different times, but by far the majority saw this as a very rare miraculous occurrence, if it happened at all.

Assuming you dont really mean that the apostles kept doing the miraculous after their deaths, which wouldnt be too likely, and you really mean - did the church continue to practice this stuff?

The 'Next Generation' would be the Church Fathers. Did they practice signs etc....

Some Quotes - more time with Google would surely find others - this is just my work lunchtime!

'Daily some are becoming disciples in the name of Christ.....who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worth. These are illuminated through the name of this Christ. For one receives the Spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing. justin martyr (c160, e)1.214'


'For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christian men. exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilot, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs. Justin Martyr 2nd apology, chapter 6, addressed to the Roman senate, Ad 165'


'Those who are truly his disciples, receive grace from him,....perform works in his name, in order to promote the welfare of others, according to the gift that each one has received from Him. Some truly and certinally cast out devils. The result is that those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe and join themselves to the church...still others heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and the sick are made whole. What is more, as I have said, even the dead have been raised up and remained among us for years. What more can I say? it is not possible to name the number of gifts which the church throughout the whole world has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ. irenaeus (c180, e/w) 1.409, Irenaues against heresies, book 1, chapter 32, section 4, Ad 200'


'And some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvellous power by the cures which they perform, revoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, and of Jesus, along with a mention of His history. For by these means we too have seen many persons freed from grievous calamities, and from distractions of mind,and madness, and countless other ills, which could be cured neither by men nor devils. Origen against Celsus, book 3, chapter 24, Ad 250'


'Clement ordered those to approach who were distressed with disease, and thus many approached having come together through the experiences of those having been healed yesterday, and he having laid hands upon them and prayed and immediatly healed them Clement, homily 9, chapter 23, 3rd century '


this list could go on and on, not only was healing a part of ministry work in the new testament, but it was also within the church after the new testament.


quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not a wacky modern transatlantic add-on but something which has always been taught and practiced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, it is a (current) transatlantic add-on. In the past, periodic groups of people claimed charismatic gifts of healing at different times, but by far the majority saw this as a very rare miraculous occurrence, if it happened at all.

These were the most prominent Christian figures of their day - not just members of fringe groups, so i suggest it was more normal than you think.

I dont doubt there are Medieaeval saints with similar stories (Francis of Assisi springs to mind) , but i hope i dont need to exhaustively document these too, to make the point.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Raptor Eye - yes, indeed.

@thelongranger - you'll appreciate, of course, that it is taken as axiomatic in charismatic/evangelical circles that we are meant to be doing the same things as we read about Jesus and the disciples doing - although the mileage varies as to the extent that this expectation works out in terms of frequency etc.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that contemporary evangelical charismatics (or charismatic evangelicals) are reading their own experiences (or apparent experiences) back into the pages of the NT - rather than the other way round.

As for the apparent continuation of these things beyond the lives of the original apostles, well, there are certain Patristic voices that imply that these things continued to some extent and others which suggest that the frequency of their occurrence diminished over time.

Certainly the expectation that these things should be the almost natural, habitual experience of the believer is a very recent one - dating from the Pentecostal movement in the early 20th century.

I'm reminded of Bishop Butler's remonstration with John Wesley, 'Sir, the pretending to revelations and gifts of the Holy Spirit is an horrid thing, a very horrid thing!'

For all the good Bishop's Enlightenment rectitude, I sometimes think he had his head screwed on ...

I'm certainly no cessationist but I'm increasingly finding the notion that we can all go around doing the spectacular stuff if only we were faithful enough, holy enough, committed enough, bold enough ... add-whatever-you-please enough - to be less than tenable.

It's just not borne out by observation. There's loads and loads of talk but very little evidence on the ground.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Whoops - I cross posted with beatmenace.

These are well-known quotes. I've come across most of them before. There are others which suggest that miraculous healings and so on diminished in frequency.

That said, I don't think these things completely disappeared. We could cite examples from medieval Catholicism and also from Eastern Orthodoxy - I'm thinking of Saints like Saint Seraphim of Sarov and others.

But what you don't get in either medieval Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy is the idea that these things are easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy occurrences that would be happening every five minutes if only we were bold enough or holy enough.

I've always found that the claims for healings and prophecies and so on in contemporary charismatic circles are out of all proportion to their actual occurrence. That these things can and do happen in contemporary charismatic circles I don't doubt. Whether they are happening week by week on a regular basis I doubt most assuredly.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Yeah. Well, I've been to a modern charismatic church (actually, lots of times) and I know the current frequency with which healings and the miraculous are supposed to occur. Even taking into account the Church Fathers - who, incidentally, had some pretty wild ideas compared to the standard charismatic evangelical line on things. It surprises to hear people quote Justin Martyr, Iranaeus in the context of orthopraxy given that a lot of what they taught is flatly denied by those same churches... but never mind.

Those guys are not talking about the same thing as current Charismatics. Not at all.

But y'know, there is a feature of many churches to claim precedence of activity based on the early Christians, without any real foundation. Save perhaps the Orthodox, we don't have any traditions that go back that far. Par for the course, they can't all be right.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Stejjie - 'God and Christ' ? - being pedantic, don't you mean 'God the Father and Christ' ie. Christ as God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.

Yes, you're entirely right about that - didn't mean to come across all heretical there! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You've hit on something else there, the lone ranger ...

Charismatic evangelicals are highly selective. They'll pick on the bits they like from the Fathers (such as healings and so on) and dismiss/reject those aspects that they find less appealing - such as a more sacramental theology or a high view of the Virgin Mary and so on.

We are all guilty of such things, though, but I tend to find a particular kind of charismatic evangelical to be more prone to this sort of thing. Heck, I ought to know, I've done it myself ...

They don't just do it with the Fathers, they do the same thing with the Reformers and with John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards and the 18th century revivalists - as well as 19th century figures such as Spurgeon, Moody, Hudson Taylor etc.

It took me a while to realise this and only when I began to read some of the source documents did I realise that:

- Neither Wesley nor Edwards were the kind of 'enthusiasts' they claimed them to be - at least, not all of the time and their views modified over time.

- Quotes from Spurgeon, Moody or whoever else were often taken out of context.

- They were applying the same isolated proof-texting approach to this material as they do to the scriptures.

Of course, charismatic evangelicals aren't the only ones who are guilty of this kind of thing, but I submit that if beatmenace subjected the quotes he's found to rather more scrutiny and submitted them to some contextual analysis and understanding he wouldn't be so quick to bring this stuff on board as justification for what his own church gets up to ...

I was involved with a full-on charismatic church for 18 years, then a mildly charismatic one for six and the one I've been involved with for the last five years is trying to become more charismatic.

I can cite a few examples of what may have been divine healings/healings in responses to prayer - but not many. No more than three or four if I'm brutally honest.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Oh absolutely, I agree we all pick and choose. The point is not that the charismatics are worse at it than anyone else - just that they claim to be being authentic and not picking and chosing when they blatantly are. All the time.

I suspect this is largely a feature of all churches without a well defined (and usually pretty old) written set of of beliefs. For example, I do not accept the Westminster Confession of 1646 as authoritative, but at least if someone appeals to it as an authority, you know where they get their ideas from (of course, it is a fun exercise to pick holes in the reasoning of those that wrote the confession as well). I think you can say the same thing for almost any church which has this kind of doctrinal document. You might not agree with it, but it is at least there.

As far as I am concerned, charismatic churches of all denominations lack any kind of written document that has the benefit of age - largely because they've rejected these kinds of documents in favour of their 'clear and obvious' reading of the New Testament, which as far as I am concerned is anything but clear and obvious. And where these congregations exist within longer established traditions, they tend to behave more similarly to each other (and share similar beliefs) than to other parts of the denomination to which they supposedly belong.

I believe this is largely because the charismatic expression has been sporadic and has very little continuity throughout the ages.

[ 20. September 2012, 14:59: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Indeed. 'A spirituality in search of a theology' as it has often been described.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a soupcon of the charismatic dimension to add some spice to the total mix - and I'd argue that it's possible to encounter the vatic and the numinous in all Christian traditions, not just the more demonstrative ones.

I s'pose my main issue with it all is that it veers towards dualism and can become quite Gnostic at the fringes - particularly when it gets into 'word-of-faith' style territory - or even with the idea of special revelations per se.

That and the fact that the rhetoric clearly belies the reality.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:


The 'Next Generation' would be the Church Fathers. Did they practice signs etc....

Some Quotes - more time with Google would surely find others - this is just my work lunchtime!

'Daily some are becoming disciples in the name of Christ.....who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worth. These are illuminated through the name of this Christ. For one receives the Spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing. justin martyr (c160, e)1.214'

etc


I'd genuinely be interested to know if you've actually read any of the sources you've quoted here or whether they're all found on a blogpost or some kind of proof from a charismatic organisation.

Charismatics I've known seem very focused on the New Testament era and the present and have little knowledge/interest of the intervening 2000 years.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Well yes and no actually.

This lot, as i said is a quick lunchtime google. Although a few (probably more than a few now) I spent some time some time trying to fathom a more or less chronological church history in my head.

So I did read some of the early writings (mostly out of a book modestly called 'Part III', which collected together highlights of Christian writing from the Fathers on) including stuff like 'the teaching of the 12 apostles', 'the shepherd of hermeas' and the 'letter of Clement' which is pretty early. All the standard Fathers such as Oriegen, Justin etc are there (I was particularly impressed by Justin i remember).

At one stage i could remember details of all the early heresies, Monatism, Arianism, Marcionism etc but i reckon i would now have to look them up to make sure i didnt mix them up!

Also read some later stuff - Bernard of Clairvaux (forget the title) , Dark Night of the Soul (treatise) - not that overwhelmed by the original poem - but St John was in jail so i can forgive that, and Augustine's Confessions (never read City of God). Gave up on Thomas a Kempis.

Got a bit bogged down in mediaeval history - really ..3 Popes at the same time (my brain hurts) and those Borgias....... Not bothered with Luther and Calvin much as i think i would likely want to punch them every so often.

Wesley's Journal makes interesting reading as there are a number of accounts of signs and wonders along side the preaching, which was always the main focus - and yes, to a previous poster , i did read all i had of it - although is suspect its abridged a bit ( i believe the original covered a very long time period)

As i said in other threads - i have not read some docs, well known in Orthodoxy and the Gnostic Gospels , not at all. So there are plenty of gaps.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin - well, if you want to go around saying to people 'Be healed!' and so forth, that's up to you. The onus is on you though, to demonstrate that you've got the power/right/authority or whatever-it-is to do so. I could go round declaring 'be healed!' to people until I'm blue in the face but that doesn't mean that any of them would necessarily be healed.

Thing is, I think the power/right/authority comes from Jesus' words in the NT - he taught his followers to do many things, one of which was to proclaim healing. For sure, most of the time when I or others do it nowadays nothing happens, but I can't escape what I see as Jesus' clear teaching to carry on doing it.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
But y'know, there is a feature of many churches to claim precedence of activity based on the early Christians, without any real foundation. Save perhaps the Orthodox, we don't have any traditions that go back that far. Par for the course, they can't all be right.

Why must we have an unbroken line of tradition, though? I think this misunderstands the appeal to radicalism (going back to the root) that is at the heart of much charismatic theology and practice.

Just as Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers broke with tradition because they thought something had been lost (or maybe I should say they thought many extraneous things had been added).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@beatmenace, if it helps at all, you've probably read a similar amount of Patristic stuff as me and rather a lot more medieval RC material than I have ... so I'm certainly not claiming to be Mr-Source-Document or be any better appraised of these things than your average reasonably well-read charismatic.

I've read Wesley's journals though and whilst there are 'signs and wonders' I think his position on them, like that of other 18th century contemporaries, was rather ambivalent - or at least, more ambivalent than is popularly portrayed. As indeed my position (and that of many of us) is today, so that's no real surprise.

@South Coast Kevin - sure, I can see where you're coming from. Jesus commanded his disciples to do this stuff, I'm a disciple so therefore off I go in obedience to his command - whether it 'works' or not ...

That's the view I'd have taken at one point. I'm not sure whether I'm older, wiser, more cynical or what - but there's only so long you can keep doing the same thing over and over and over again without any apparent 'results' without becoming disillusioned or rethinking things somewhat.

Who was it who said that folly is doing the same things repeatedly and expecting a different result?

If one believes in a 'gift of healing' as it were, then it would quickly become apparent whether one had that gift or not.

As for praying for people in general - sure, we can all do that. I'm quite happy to pray for people's well-being, healing etc in the privacy of my own house if I've been made aware that they are ill or something. I'm not sure I'd go round and lay hands on them and pray for their healing there and then or 'command' them to be healed.

One of the dafter things, I think, that Wimber bequeathed the charismatic scene was this idea that you somehow built up from smaller miracles to bigger ones - as if you could learn and improve on your performance and 'strike-rate' as it were.

I s'pose one could argue that the more you go around praying for healing the more likely it is to occur eventually - but I'm not sure it works like that.

I really don't know how this sort of thing 'works'. All I do know is that I have no desire to be part of anything that builds up a sense of false expectation only for these expectations to be cruelly dashed. I've seen too many instances of people who thought they'd been healed and where the apparent healing didn't 'stick' or materialise.

Sure, all healing is temporary, even Lazarus died at some point - but common-sense, observation and even the scriptures ('Trophimus I left sick at Miletus') seem to suggest that we can't turn this stuff on at will like a tap.

The reason the signs and wonders in Acts and so on were recorded were because that's what they were - signs and wonders - not everyday occurrences.

If you're going to go around laying hands on people and praying for them to be healed and nothing ever (or rarely) happens as a result then sooner or later someone's going to get hurt. I think the chances of someone suffering psychological damage or trauma or becoming disillusioned and losing their faith entirely is a far more likely result of you and your pals' little faith adventures than miracles of healing to be brutally frank.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I've been around churches that believed in healing all my life. And have known charismatics of various kinds (and attended various sorts of charismatic churches for much of that time).

I can think of quite a few people within those congregations who have died of serious illness. Of those, I can recall quite a few where the churches made a considerable effort to pray (nights of prayer and so on). I can remember several instances of oil being poured over the sick person and special declarations of healing.

Of those, I can only remember a very small number who actually were healed. And of those, I can't think of any where there was no other explanation - all were being cared for by the NHS system.

To my mind there is no evidence that those who get specially prayed for are any more likely to survive than the general population. Most of the time the prayer clearly makes no difference as the person gets sicker and dies.

On the whole, the charismatics make claims about healing which cannot be justified. They make extravagant claims about things which might just be the way of things, they ignore all the people who are clearly not healed, they claim the miraculous in ordinary things - such as someone getting a job, someone traveling somewhere without getting ill, someone else selling a house and so on.

The troubling thing for me is not that these are evidence of blessing from a benevolent deity, but they are a special blessing for this special group of people as a result of special pleading by specially holy or Spirit-filled people. And as I said before, the clear teaching of Jesus seems to be that these things are not the sorts of blessing Christians should be seeking!
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
On the whole, the charismatics make claims about healing which cannot be justified. They make extravagant claims about things which might just be the way of things, they ignore all the people who are clearly not healed, they claim the miraculous in ordinary things - such as someone getting a job, someone traveling somewhere without getting ill, someone else selling a house and so on.

While i can see where your coming from , i feel you are starting to batter a Scarecrow here.

Anyone who has ever prayed for healing on any kind of regular basis will know that some folk are not healed. Does that mean we should never pray for anyone to be healed? I dont think so.
But to say this issue is ignored is simply untrue.

quote:

The troubling thing for me is not that these are evidence of blessing from a benevolent deity, but they are a special blessing for this special group of people as a result of special pleading by specially holy or Spirit-filled people. And as I said before, the clear teaching of Jesus seems to be that these things are not the sorts of blessing Christians should be seeking!

Most Charismatic Christians will argue that any believer can potentially demonstrate signs and wonders and would never claim to be in anyway 'more special' than anyone else. There MUST be some exceptions but i wouldn't think they are the norm.

What you describe sounds more like a Gnostic varient - with all the 'specials' in it - i guess some may veer in this direction!

Lastly, the timing of perfectly natural things can also be an answer to prayer. I dont know the specifics of your cases so i can't speculate if it is or not.
In todays economic climate finding a job or selling a house may well need divine intervention! I live in the North.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
While i can see where your coming from , i feel you are starting to batter a Scarecrow here.

Anyone who has ever prayed for healing on any kind of regular basis will know that some folk are not healed. Does that mean we should never pray for anyone to be healed? I dont think so.
But to say this issue is ignored is simply untrue.

Personally, I'd say yes. But even if you do believe in the 'power of prayer', surely the fact that it doesn't work should give rise to some hestitancy to make the extravagant claims made by some, as seen further up this thread.

quote:

Most Charismatic Christians will argue that any believer can potentially demonstrate signs and wonders and would never claim to be in anyway 'more special' than anyone else. There MUST be some exceptions but i wouldn't think they are the norm.

Again, see further up this thread where claims about the holiness of the life was cited as potential reasons for this kind of spiritual gift.

The very fact of being a charismatic Christian is to imply that you're more special - specifically shown by terms like the 'baptism of the spirit'.

quote:
What you describe sounds more like a Gnostic varient - with all the 'specials' in it - i guess some may veer in this direction!
I think a good argument can be made that many charismatic forms of Christianity are actually a form of gnosticism. If you are claiming to have a special relationship with God and that he gives you special miraculous powers as a result, that isn't far from claiming special mysterious knowledge of the divine.

quote:
Lastly, the timing of perfectly natural things can also be an answer to prayer. I dont know the specifics of your cases so i can't speculate if it is or not.
In todays economic climate finding a job or selling a house may well need divine intervention! I live in the North.

I don't think prayer works like that, more specially I teaching from Jesus seems to suggest that those kinds of things are not even the sorts of blessings we should desire.

As I waffled before, repeatedly talking about Blessings, and then associating these with health, wealth and success are closely related to the Prosperity Gospel.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that much popular charismaticism is actually a lot more Gnostic than its proponents would like to accept ... but on the whole I think it tends to fall short of full-on Gnosticism, the long ranger.

There is an inherent dualism within it, though, but arguably that's true of evangelicalism per se.

One of the things that strikes me is that would one surely expect there to be a lot more healings and a lot more of the miraculous given the number of charismatics that there are around.

I would hazard a guess that there are around 100 people in my small town of 12,000 people who would makes some kind of claim to charismatic experience. I don't see that making any kind of difference to the level of supernatural healings and what have you that take place around here - can't say that I'm aware of any ...

In a US time of the same size, depending on its location, I could imagine there being many times that number of charismatic Christians. I wonder whether the incidences of supernatural healings would be commensurately increased?

I very much doubt it.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0