Thread: Who is leading whom? 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=027015
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The priest decided that a new project in a church should be abandoned, or perhaps indefinitely post-poned, despite its popularity with visitors. Some of the regular congregation members didn't like it and had complained.
The project was preceded by prayer, and put into action in the belief that it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There was evidence of the Holy Spirit having been active through it, by reaching out to people who would not usually go into a church.
The questions that arise for me are:
Was the priest quenching the Holy Spirit and going against God's will by abandoning or post-poning the project?
Can a priest say with certainty that if he or she thinks a decision to be right, it must conform to God's will?
Does the 'what you bind on earth you bind in heaven' message to Peter in Matt. 18:18 have any bearing on this?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Without knowing the details, it's difficult to answer these questions, but in general terms I would say (IMHO)...
1. Was the priest quenching the Holy Spirit and going against God's will by abandoning or post-poning the project?
Not necessarily. The context could have changed, such that what God originally wanted has been thwarted by something that has been introduced that was not part of the original idea. For example, it may be that the members prayed and sought God on the basis that the project would function under a certain evangelistic message. As a result of subsequent discussion, the influence of certain (perhaps very strong-minded) members could have caused that message to change in some way, such that God was not pleased to carry on with the project. Of course, you could argue that God should have foreseen that, being omniscient (although those who subscribe to Open Theism would question that). But God works on the basis of integrity in the present moment, and thus it is possible that His ways can be genuinely thwarted.
2. Can a priest say with certainty that if he or she thinks a decision to be right, it must conform to God's will?
I very much doubt it.
3. Does the 'what you bind on earth you bind in heaven' message to Peter in Matt. 18:18 have any bearing on this?
I would say that God does not raise up dictators in His Church, and He wants the Church to function as a body. I would suggest that 'Peter' represented the Church (in Matthew 16), not just a particular individual or office in the Church. So the Church should move together as a body. The 'you' in Matthew 18:18 is plural (as detected in the verb conjugation).
[ 14. March 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
What do the PCC* (or other church committee) think? The priest in most churches rarely acts alone. If the committee happen to agree with him, then there's not much the other members of the congregation can do. Except, perhaps, to get yourself elected next year and bring up the subject on the agenda again.
*I'm CofE - other churches may have different ways of making decisions.
Posted by jrw (# 18045) on
:
I would be wary of anyone (priest or otherwise) who claims to be 100 per cent certain of God's will.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
A priest is a human being. In consultation with others they should try to discern the way forward for the church - this may not always be popular, so it is not about a democratic organisation.
Having said that, the priest and people do not always get it right. They may start things that are wrong, and they may stop things that are right. They may do it for the right reasons or the wrong reasons. And they have to live with their decisions.
As a rule, when people say they are following Gods leading to justify bad decisions, I become very cynical. When people use "quenching the spirit" as an argument against decision they don't like, I get equally cynical.
Of course, if you believe that priests are something more, then a) you should probably meet more of them and b) you should simply accept their decisions.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The priest decided that a new project in a church should be abandoned, or perhaps indefinitely post-poned, despite its popularity with visitors. Some of the regular congregation members didn't like it and had complained.
The project was preceded by prayer, and put into action in the belief that it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There was evidence of the Holy Spirit having been active through it, by reaching out to people who would not usually go into a church.
The questions that arise for me are:
Was the priest quenching the Holy Spirit and going against God's will by abandoning or post-poning the project?
Can a priest say with certainty that if he or she thinks a decision to be right, it must conform to God's will?
Does the 'what you bind on earth you bind in heaven' message to Peter in Matt. 18:18 have any bearing on this?
The way you describe it, it sounds like the priest bottled a decent evangelistic outreach scheme for fear of the "no change here" brigade. Of course, I suspect that if I spoke to the priest concerned he might tell me a different story. Priests are, basically, fallible mortals and not inspired vessels for the will of the Holy Ghost (if any of you tell my PCC this I will hunt you down and kill you!) and schemes and projects in churches are subject to the usual cost benefit analyses that apply to schemes and projects in the secular world. So I think that you are asking the wrong questions.
In one parish I was involved with I tried, and failed, to persuade the PCC to go along with Plan A, some of my young families persuaded me over beers and hot dogs to go along with Plan B, which fell through and we ended up with Plan C, which did reasonably well all things considered. Now it may be that the Holy Ghost wanted Plan C all along but all three plans had similar outcomes in mind (encourage young families) all of which, I imagine, would not have grieved the Holy Ghost. I think that what I am driving at is that God works through contingency and fallible human beings giving it the old hit and hope bit and rather than talking about Binding and Loosing and Quenching the Holy Spirit and God's Will Revealed In One Option we ought to think that there might be a plurality of options which are in accordance with God's will and which one we choose may well be contested by the interested parties and will depend on the temperament and choices of the individuals making the decision.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Thank you for your thoughts.
EE: That's very helpful, particularly the point about the plural 'you'.
Chorister: It seems that what the priest says goes, pretty much.
Schroedinger's cat: I can see that some will use whatever language will back up their own pov. I'm wondering how much reliance there can be on consensus of opinion when discerning God's will, for that very reason.
Gildas: It sounds as if you're expecting God to follow the lead of the decisions made by people, albeit based on the general consensus in the church based on the various factors feeding into it. It might be naive of me (and of your PCC members), but as someone called by God into the Church, isn't a priest supposed to aim to be led by the Holy Spirit? That doesn't imply any superhuman traits to me, quite the opposite.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
No way to know
No
No
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Raptor Eye: quote:
It seems that what the priest says goes, pretty much.
On a worship issue that should be pretty much it. If it were a more lay oriented outreach there should be more wriggle room, IMO. But I guess in some parishes Father Knows Best.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Given the dire state of liturgical formation give out in our seminaries, I wouldn't trust clergy with masking decisions without some knowledgeable lay input.
Unless we want endless repetitions of 'Shine Jesus shine' and other such inanities.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I would be extremely wary of thinking of any church project, no matter how noble or successful, as a product of some unquestionable directive of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I would be extremely wary of thinking of any church project, no matter how noble or successful, as a product of some unquestionable directive of the Holy Spirit.
Does this say that you would not expect any project to have been led or fed by the Holy Spirit?
It's one thing to question, to ensure as far as possible that a prompting of the Holy Spirit is just that, and not a whim or a preference of those able to influence decision-making.
It's another to deny or ignore any input of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Raptor Eye, I didn't read Gildas's post as implying that at all. I simply say it as the voice of sound commonsense.
He's also suggesting that the will of God isn't always some kind of razor-blade knife-edge thing but that a range of outcomes may be permissable within the over-arching providence and economy of God - to use an old-fashioned term.
Anyone who insists on some kind of knife-edge ridge-back thing in connection with how God might be leading people is on thin ice, it seems to me. We can't boss God around.
Plus, we see as through a glass darkly. Anyone who claims otherwise is on a sticky wicket.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Raptor Eye, I didn't read Gildas's post as implying that at all. I simply say it as the voice of sound commonsense.
He's also suggesting that the will of God isn't always some kind of razor-blade knife-edge thing but that a range of outcomes may be permissable within the over-arching providence and economy of God - to use an old-fashioned term.
Anyone who insists on some kind of knife-edge ridge-back thing in connection with how God might be leading people is on thin ice, it seems to me. We can't boss God around.
Plus, we see as through a glass darkly. Anyone who claims otherwise is on a sticky wicket.
'A plurality of options in accordance with God's will' and 'wouldn't grieve the Holy Spirit' sound more to me like 'I think we'll do this, it might be what God would like' rather than 'God is wanting us to do this here, now.' You're saying that I shouldn't insist on the latter?
You're right to say that we can't boss God around. That's the point I'm trying to make, and why I'm exploring this.
Surely, when making decisions within Church life, people should try to discern God's will, in prayer and through discernment? There must be room in the Church for the spontaneous prompting of the Holy Spirit to instigate a new venture too, surely? (Again, with discernment). If God isn't the architect, don't we labour in vain? (Ps.127.1)
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
'A plurality of options in accordance with God's will' and 'wouldn't grieve the Holy Spirit' sound more to me like 'I think we'll do this, it might be what God would like' rather than 'God is wanting us to do this here, now.' You're saying that I shouldn't insist on the latter?
In Process theology, isn't the idea that the Primordial nature of God has a hierarchically arranged set of ideal options which He presents in sequence via the Superjective nature of God, whichever of which being realised is redeemed in the Consequent nature of God?
It's been a long time...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think 'insist' would be the term that would rankle with me, Raptor Eye.
I'm not suggesting that we pietistically prefix everything with 'Deus Vult' - or suffix it that way either, as per the old Brethren way of making announcements:
'Our next Gospel Meeting, God willing, will be on November 26th ...'
Just in case the world ended before the next gathering ...
No, all I'm suggesting is that we can say that we believe God is prompting us to do this that or the other, or that is 'owning' our efforts - but we can't presume upon it nor can be insist upon it.
That way lies Kool-Aid.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In a different context, I think it was St Augustine who said, 'Love God and do what you will ...' (or do what you like) ...
The idea being that if we loved God we would only seek to do what pleases him.
In terms of discerning God's particular will in particular circumstances ie. should this particular church purchase this particular building or embark on this particular project etc.
Well, 'it seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit' ... whatever church or tradition we're in, I'd suggest that it was more likely to be a collective thing - although not necessarily everyone will agree.
If there was a single leader, a priest, pastor, elder or whatever else we might call them, calling the shots and brow-beating the people into supporting their particular hobby-horse or initiative then I'd wonder what was going on ...
Generally, in any of these kinds of decisions I'd suggest that there were a range of options available and any number of them wouldn't be outside God's will - if we put it like that.
I'm a great believer in getting on with things and then the way will become clearer.
Otherwise, we'd never do anything. I'd never apply for any jobs, for instance, if I waited for some kind of 'prompt'. I apply for jobs and if I get them, I get them. If I don't, I don't.
Sometimes I may feel strongly that it had my name on it, and lo and behold. Other times I've thought that and was wide of the mark.
I don't live my life on a knife-edge. It's too wearing. We can't live like that nor do I believe God wants us to.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
Forgive my cynicism, but why do churches talk about discerning the will of the Holy Spirit in situations which for any other organisation would be simple politics?
And if the Holy Spirit comes up with the wrong decision, the church has to revisit the issue as often as it takes until the Holy Spirit gets it right.
The supporters of women bishops in the Church of England were enthusiastic invokers of the Holy Spirit, and after several attempts the Holy Spirit has at last had the good sense to listen to them!
(For the record I support women bishops, but I see it as a political issue.)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, people have a tendency to over-spiritualise things. Which is why I agreed with Gildas's comment about commonsense and cost-benefit analysis and so on being just as applicable in church life as in any other aspect of life.
Back in my more full-on charismatic days, I realised that you had to have a short memory to be involved with those sort of fellowships for any length of time - the Holy Spirit seemingly kept changing His mind.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Gildas: It sounds as if you're expecting God to follow the lead of the decisions made by people, albeit based on the general consensus in the church based on the various factors feeding into it. It might be naive of me (and of your PCC members), but as someone called by God into the Church, isn't a priest supposed to aim to be led by the Holy Spirit? That doesn't imply any superhuman traits to me, quite the opposite.
No, what I am saying is that in the instance I am talking about is that I hope we were generally receptive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our aims to do a bit of evangelism and to build up the faith and commitment of our younger people but that we had to work out how that worked out in practice. That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit won't guide us with specifics if we ask Him nicely. It's just that I imagine that we can't shuffle off our responsibility for decision making, taking responsibility for our actions and thinking for ourselves. The Holy Spirit guides us. He doesn't micromanage us. Does that make sense?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
No, what I am saying is that in the instance I am talking about is that I hope we were generally receptive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our aims to do a bit of evangelism and to build up the faith and commitment of our younger people but that we had to work out how that worked out in practice. That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit won't guide us with specifics if we ask Him nicely. It's just that I imagine that we can't shuffle off our responsibility for decision making, taking responsibility for our actions and thinking for ourselves. The Holy Spirit guides us. He doesn't micromanage us. Does that make sense?
Yes, that makes a lot of sense, thank you. I think it reflects what you were saying too, Gamaliel.
Taking it back to the original scenario, how might cancelling or postponing the project once it is bearing fruit reflect on that guidance?
Gwalchmai: This is the area I'm thinking about: At what point do our preferences and desires come into it, if we're carrying out the will of God? There's surely no place for politics, only for co-operation in the Church, as it is counter-secular.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The church is certainly meant to be counter-cultural and 'counter-secular' as you put it, Raptor Eye, but in reality there's as much - if not more - politics going on within the church/es as there is anywhere else.
Wherever there are people there are politics. We can't avoid them. It's how we manage the process that counts.
On the issue of a project being started and then abandoned part way through or when it appears to be bearing fruit and what that says about the initial 'guidance' ...
Gildas can express these things better than I can and from a position of having worked these things through on the ground as a church leader/minister.
But I would have thought that his telling comment about God guiding us but not micro-managing us would apply in a situation like this too.
I think it pays to hold to these things loosely.
As an extreme example, I can remember a church I was involved with setting out to purchase a building. One became available and the wife of one of the itinerant leaders (or 'apostles' as we called them back then, bishops to you and me and everyone else ...) had a dream in which she claimed to have seen us all worshipping inside it.
On the basis of that and other so-called prophecies and so on, we all went and marched around it seven times (rather like Jericho) to 'claim' it for Christ.
No, it didn't fall down but the sale fell through and we didn't get the building.
The fall-out was considerable, though, particularly given the level of hype and heightened expectation.
That's why I'm suggesting it doesn't 'do' to go around with grandiose claims about being led into this that or the other project. Such inclinations can so easily be the result of wishful thinking or too much cheese before going to bed ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There's also the issue that God can work through our preferences and desires. These are not necessarily in and of themselves incompatible with what we might consider to be the will of God.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
In Process theology, isn't the idea that the Primordial nature of God has a hierarchically arranged set of ideal options which He presents in sequence via the Superjective nature of God, whichever of which being realised is redeemed in the Consequent nature of God?
It's been a long time...
This is a little hard to translate, but seems to mean that whatever we do it will be one of God's choices, albeit not God's preferred option. Hmm. It will go into the cooking pot, thank you.
Gamaliel, you made me laugh with this: quote:
As an extreme example, I can remember a church I was involved with setting out to purchase a building. One became available and the wife of one of the itinerant leaders (or 'apostles' as we called them back then, bishops to you and me and everyone else ...) had a dream in which she claimed to have seen us all worshipping inside it.
On the basis of that and other so-called prophecies and so on, we all went and marched around it seven times (rather like Jericho) to 'claim' it for Christ.
No, it didn't fall down but the sale fell through and we didn't get the building.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
The disappointment was a shame, though. I can see that in this case discernment was skewed, as the decision and the dream were probably based more on preferred outcomes - but at least they were trying to seek God's guidance. To 'hold loosely' might indicate complacency & an assumption that God will inevitably work through whatever we do.
I'm not thinking so much about grandiose claims, but of the quiet and prayerful seeking of the will of God in everything we do, both individually and corporately.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As an extreme example, I can remember a church I was involved with setting out to purchase a building. One became available and the wife of one of the itinerant leaders (or 'apostles' as we called them back then, bishops to you and me and everyone else ...) had a dream in which she claimed to have seen us all worshipping inside it.
On the basis of that and other so-called prophecies and so on, we all went and marched around it seven times (rather like Jericho) to 'claim' it for Christ.
No, it didn't fall down but the sale fell through and we didn't get the building.
The fall-out was considerable, though, particularly given the level of hype and heightened expectation.
That's why I'm suggesting it doesn't 'do' to go around with grandiose claims about being led into this that or the other project. Such inclinations can so easily be the result of wishful thinking or too much cheese before going to bed ...
In my NewFrontiers days, at one point (about fifteen years ago now) we were homeless as a church, in dire need of a new church building, and could not find one. In the wake of someone vaunting 24-hour prayer at a conference and my reading of the story of Naaman, as lead pastor I formed the conviction that God was calling us as a church to fast and pray seven times 24 hours, following which we would find our building. We had some prophecies to go on which we held onto too.
We arranged this once a month, with those people who could putting in whatever hours they could. We were a bit tired by the end but I recall some great times of prayer and I see the story of Naaman a whole lot differently now.
Mrs Eutychus remembers me waking up depressed after the sixth time (thus six months into the project and absolutely no promising building in sight) and then saying "well of course, we haven't prayed seven times yet".
Within three days of our final session we had found the building. We moved in, put in a lot more hard work and fun fixing it up, saw attendance more than double - and it remained our home until the whole thing blew up. It's still being used as a church building today, by a completely different church.
Now I'm a million miles from that way of doing things today and from NewFrontiers theology, but I can't undo that experience or shake off the feeling God worked through it. In fact I think I had genuine faith for the whole exercise, as a sovereign gift from God, and that what happened was an outworking of faith.
Should I be watching out for Kool-Aid?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Probably not.
I would suggest that God, in his wonderful grace and compassion, worked through this despite your 'enthusiasm' and not because of it ... although I'm reluctant to pin-point a cause and effect thing either way ... although I do take Raptor's point about assuming that God will invariably work things out regardless of what we do or don't do ...
I'm always wary of a mechanistic approach. For me, this was best exemplified by a numpty 'prophecy' that was doing the rounds before the outbreak of the Second Gulf War.
If only, the 'prophet' was saying, God could gather 100,000 women to pray then war would be averted. A friend in South Africa was well into this and was emailing everyone she knew to get them onboard.
In the event, of course, the war did break out. I found myself wondering whether God was going, 'Dang! I only got 99,999 women to pray - just one more and that would really have tipped the scales!'
Raptor Eye would probably think I've gone too far in the opposite direction, but I must admit, I'm not one these days for expecting God to tell us what to do - whether as individuals or as churches.
It seems to me we should set out to do what we believe to be right according to the light that we've received and if God's 'in' it then the details will work themselves out.
That might sound a bit laisser-faire but I'm not sure I like the alternatives I've seen so far ... some people don't fast, they go on hunger strike ... others don't 'prayerfully seek God's will' they browbeat the Almighty and everyone else and thrcream and thrcream until they are thick ...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the event, of course, the war did break out. I found myself wondering whether God was going, 'Dang! I only got 99,999 women to pray - just one more and that would really have tipped the scales!'
It makes a lot more sense if you think of this prayer as spiritual warfare against the forces of the evil one, rather than as trying to persuade God...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
Now I'm a million miles from that way of doing things today and from NewFrontiers theology, but I can't undo that experience or shake off the feeling God worked through it. In fact I think I had genuine faith for the whole exercise, as a sovereign gift from God, and that what happened was an outworking of faith.
I am sure that God works through many 'dodgy' charismatic fellowships. In fact, if God could only work through non-dodgy churches, then He would not be able to work at all, since there are no perfect churches (and if any Christian ever finds a perfect church, he mustn't join it, as it needs to remain perfect!)
In some ways I feel a bit sorry for charismatic churches, because it is so easy to knock them. For all their faults, at least they "have a go" at engaging with the spiritual gifts and taking seriously what many other churches conveniently avoid. There are non-charismatic churches, which may appear more 'mature', but is it because they are more spiritual, or just more timid? Anyone can stand on the sidelines and criticise those who dare to have a go at playing the game.
I think it is limiting God to say that He cannot work by means which may seem more unusual and even extravagant. It is clear from Scripture that He most certainly can speak in many different ways, and associate Himself with bodies of believers who may be a bit OTT.
I also believe, as I said in the second post of this thread, that God can change His mind concerning a project. A project may start in God's will, but then revert to "the flesh", with the result that the work is killed. If therefore a project fails, it doesn't follow that "we didn't hear from God initially". It may mean that, or it may not. It depends, of course, on the context.
Furthermore, I suppose it's true that just because a project succeeds, we should not assume that it must have been "of God" (i.e. "of God" in a direct sense rather than permissive sense). It all depends on the spiritual context, but from the sound of it I sense that your experience was a genuine work of God, even if eventually the fellowship fell apart.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
It makes a lot more sense if you think of this prayer as spiritual warfare against the forces of the evil one, rather than as trying to persuade God...
Good point.
It could be that, for some reason, in God's sovereign will war was going to break out, but that the faithful prayers of believers could limit its effect. It doesn't follow that, just because the major overarching request is not granted, the prayers are ineffectual or that God doesn't call people to pray. We don't know how much worse certain situations could have been had people not prayed, even though, for some reason, God still allowed a certain degree of evil to be manifested and to succeed. Of course, that may be an argument from silence, but then believers generally do not pray to prove a point to sceptics, but rather to respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I also believe, as I said in the second post of this thread, that God can change His mind concerning a project. A project may start in God's will, but then revert to "the flesh", with the result that the work is killed. If therefore a project fails, it doesn't follow that "we didn't hear from God initially". It may mean that, or it may not. It depends, of course, on the context.
Furthermore, I suppose it's true that just because a project succeeds, we should not assume that it must have been "of God" (i.e. "of God" in a direct sense rather than permissive sense). It all depends on the spiritual context, but from the sound of it I sense that your experience was a genuine work of God, even if eventually the fellowship fell apart.
Yes, absolutely. It strikes me as severely immature thinking to believe that something which succeeds must necessarily be within God's will, and that something which fails could not have been God's will. People are involved; people (even Christians!) don't always do what God would have us do.
(This is a general comment, reflecting things I've heard and read in various places; it's not specifically directed at anyone here.)
EDIT - Cross-post of mutual back-slapping! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 18. March 2014, 16:01: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure ...
I keep coming back to the St Augustine thing, 'Love God and do what you like ...'
I'm not sure that there is any overly specific 'will of God' thing in a knife-edge kind of way. It seems more a question of general principles to me, that which is 'good, pleasing and perfect'.
I'm very reluctant these days to get into pietistic forms of trying to discern God's will and so forth. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that God guides us. Simply that I tend not to buy into an overly prescriptive approach as to how this might happen.
I'm not suggesting anyone here does, I hasten to add.
On the charismatic churches thing - yes, they do a lot of good stuff. I'm increasingly of the view, though, that their charismaticism is incidental and whilst it undoubtedly provides the motor and motivator for what they do the real action and their real accomplishments are often in areas that might not neatly fit into what might be considered a charismatic framework ...
It's the drive and enthusiasm, the strong sense of community and shared purpose that delivers for them. There are spiritual gifts there, but often quite different gifts to the ones they think are operating ...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Yes, there are spiritual gifts.
They are listed in the Bible, particularly in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14.
What they are not, are simply natural talents baptised in pious rhetoric. After all, even atheists can put on piety.
I remember one Anglican church, which ran what they called a "Body Building" course. This was basically a personality test based on the MBTI (which in turn is based on the occult philosophy of Carl Jung). By means of this test, members of the church could "discover their gift" and thereby be allocated their place within the Body of Christ.
In other words... "Let's forget about the Holy Spirit, and take it upon ourselves to organise the Church of Jesus Christ along the lines of naturalistic principles of putative personality differences spiced with an occult philosophy." Yeah, let's make all sorts of assumptions about people, and pigeonhole them, so we can control them.
This approach caused incalculable damage in the life of at least one person I know.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I remember one Anglican church, which ran what they called a "Body Building" course. This was basically a personality test based on the MBTI (which in turn is based on the occult philosophy of Carl Jung). By means of this test, members of the church could "discover their gift" and thereby be allocated their place within the Body of Christ...
This approach caused incalculable damage in the life of at least one person I know.
On the other hand, I've found the Myers-Briggs test (and similar personality profiling tools) invaluable in helping me understand myself and how I react to people of various characters.
In particular, I now realise that, while I find being around people draining, it is important for me to seek company, not shun it. Especially when I'm feeling strongly tempted to isolate myself.
Personality profiling can be used in immensely damaging ways, of course (such as using it to "allocate [people] their place within the Body of Christ" ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
) , but I think it can also be a very positive tool.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I think the situation in the OP is extraordinarily hard to unravel. The initial belief that the project was undertaken in the guidance of the Spirit may have been mistaken. Popularity with visitors isn't a touchstone for its rightness either. God's grace to those were reached may have been in spite of rather than because of the project.
Christian people with genuine, thought through, deeply felt concerns about the project may have found it hard to raise them because of statements that it was "preceded by prayer, and put into action in the belief that it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit". It requires a certain kind of knowledge, experience and spiritual courage to say in a situation like that "you may believe this is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I think your belief is misplaced"
As for the questions:
1 Maybe, or maybe not.
2 No
3 No
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I attended a MOTR church that was convinced that God wanted them to do a certain thing. When that thing didn't come to fruition, there was no enunciation of a revised view of what God wanted. I've always thought that was a bit off.
I suppose most Christians (at least in the rational West) just have to make do with saying their prayers, muddling through and hoping for the best. But that doesn't seem very spiritual, so it's unsurprising that some Christians look for ways to know God's will more deeply. Whether they should do so is another matter. I'm inclined to think that Christianity needs both its rational and its irrational aspects.
[ 19. March 2014, 18:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've promised not to interact with EE over Lent so I won't reply to his comment beyond noting that he's missed my point.
I was being deliberately provocative.
What I was suggesting was that, in practice, the real spiritual gifts that are operating in many charismatic churches are different to the ones that the people there think are operating ... or rather, are aware are operating.
Many of these places have people who are particularly gifted in 'helps', administration and all manner of other spiritual gifts that we find in 1 Corinthians and not simply the apparently 'spectacular' gifts such as tongues and prophecy and healing and so on.
It's not that I don't believe that tongues and prophecy and healing don't take place - simply that they are far rarer than many practitioners and proponents claim and that the real action in these churches is going on despite these things - or what 'look' like these things and not because of them ...
That's not to say that we should ignore the work of God the Holy Spirit, simply that the Spirit is often working in and through the less spectacular aspects of such fellowships ... and indeed, is working in various unprepossessing fellowships and communities where there is no apparent emphasis on the more supernatural gifts at all.
Heck, for all we know, God the Holy Spirit might be working through Myers-Briggs ...
But no, that would never do because it's based on occult Jungian theology ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
My own take would be that Myers-Briggs has it's place but it doesn't solve all problems nor is it intended to.
South Coast Kevin has found it useful and helpful - great.
Ken hates it with a passion and if he were posting on this thread he'd be telling us so.
Both are entitled to their opinion on this. As is EE, of course.
My own position would be that Myers-Briggs is pretty neutral and if some people want to use it, fine. If others don't, then that's fine too.
The proof of any pudding is in the eating.
On the guidance thing - yes, I do believe that there can be providences and promptings and so on that might indicate a particular course of action - whether individually and collectively. By and large though, we discern through discussion, consideration and debate.
That, too, can be a work of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose most Christians (at least in the rational West) just have to make do with saying their prayers, muddling through and hoping for the best. But that doesn't seem very spiritual, so it's unsurprising that some Christians look for ways to know God's will more deeply. Whether they should do so is another matter. I'm inclined to think that Christianity needs both its rational and its irrational aspects.
Yes, Christianity needs both the rational and more mystical aspects - if that's what you mean by 'irrational'.
I can't see why saying their prayers and muddling through 'doesn't seem very spiritual'. Why not?
That's what we all do. I've not read many handbooks on prayer but all those I've read seem to suggest that saying our prayers and muddling through is all we can do - until God steps in or intervenes or 'reveals' something.
It strikes me that saying our prayers and muddling through is thoroughly biblical. Isn't that what Ananias was doing in Acts 9 when the Lord spoke to him in a vision? Or at least, I assume so.
Isn't that what Cornelius was doing in Acts 10 when an angel appeared to him in a vision and instructed him to send to Joppa for Simon Peter?
He was a man of prayer and he gave alms to the poor, we're told. He was simply getting on with it, not seeking visions in and of themselves.
If God wants to give us visions, he can do so. We needn't necessarily go round chasing after such things.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't have much experience of religious mysticism, TBH. It's not part of the MOTR church culture I know. I think it'll somehow have to break out of its high church strongholds to be able to challenge the spread of more interventionist forms of spirituality (so to speak) in the Christian world.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
To put it another way, I've found mysticism to be presented as an optional extra for those who happen to be interested. Maybe you can hope that charismatics and Pentecostals start to see the 'gifts of the Spirit' in the same way.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think some already do. I'm using 'mystic' in a pretty wide sense. There are certainly mystics in non-conformist and Pentecostal settings, even if they might not put it in those terms.
By its nature this sort of thing is difficult to define. It's more something you 'recognise' when you encounter it.
I've known Pentecostals react very strongly, both positively and negatively, when they've encountered something 'there' in High Church settings. They respond this way, I would suggest, partly because of conditioning and inclination, but also because they 'clock' that there is something 'extra' there, something going on that they recognise at a gut level but which messes with their heads because it doesn't correspond with how they've been trained/acclimatised to approach things at the cognitive level - if that makes sense.
There's some left-brain/right-brain stuff going on.
A Orthodox priest - a former evangelical charismatic - once told me how a Pentecostal minister he knew walked out of an Orthodox Liturgy - not in disgust because he didn't like the bells, smells and iconography so much, but because he said he'd felt the 'presence of God' very powerfully and strongly and it disturbed him - because he didn't associate that with this particular style of worship.
He didn't know what to 'do' with it and so he walked out.
I do know of a Pentecostal church in the East Midlands which had a very positive link with a very High Church community of Anglican monks for a while ... some years ago now. Donald Gee, the great Pentecostal elder-statesman and Assemblies of God pioneer had very cordial links with a number of Roman Catholic clergy.
These things aren't always clear cut.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Also, I'm not positing a binary distinction between mysticism and contemplation and activism and interventionism - if that's the right term.
We need both.
They should complement each other.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I've promised not to interact with EE over Lent so I won't reply to his comment beyond noting that he's missed my point.
Then discuss the issues objectively without obsessing about who wrote the post. It makes no difference. The issues are what matter.
quote:
I was being deliberately provocative.
Why? What is wrong with just having a mature discussion?
quote:
What I was suggesting was that, in practice, the real spiritual gifts that are operating in many charismatic churches are different to the ones that the people there think are operating ... or rather, are aware are operating.
"The people there". That is a gross generalisation, unsupported by any hard evidence.
quote:
Heck, for all we know, God the Holy Spirit might be working through Myers-Briggs ...
But no, that would never do because it's based on occult Jungian theology ...
Indeed it is.
Here is a non-inflammatory, intelligent analysis.
On that basis, I do not believe that "God the Holy Spirit might be working through Myers-Briggs".
quote:
South Coast Kevin has found it useful and helpful - great.
Ken hates it with a passion and if he were posting on this thread he'd be telling us so.
Both are entitled to their opinion on this. As is EE, of course.
Thank you. I am entitled to my opinion, as are other people entitled to theirs. My opinion is that the MBTI is highly destructive to the spiritual life, and I have very strong personal reasons for saying this, which are confirmed by the evidence I have presented.
quote:
The proof of any pudding is in the eating.
Exactly.
quote:
On the guidance thing - yes, I do believe that there can be providences and promptings and so on that might indicate a particular course of action - whether individually and collectively. By and large though, we discern through discussion, consideration and debate.
Well, judging by the type of 'debate' evident in certain quarters, I doubt very much that discernment primarily comes by that means. The insistent opinions of strong-minded people are usually far removed from the voice of God.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
One can be provocative and have a mature discussion. It isn't for me to say but I'd like to think I can do both - when I put my mind to it ...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The insistent opinions of strong-minded people are usually far removed from the voice of God.
That's a good quote. We'd all do well to heed it. You included.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
The insistent opinions of strong-minded people are usually far removed from the voice of God.
That's a good quote. We'd all do well to heed it. You included.
Ah no. As you well know, I preface all my posts with: "this is the ex cathedra utterance of Almighty God".
Or maybe not...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On the Myers-Briggs thing, sure the article is non-inflammatory but like all articles it has a position and a point-of-view.
Someone else could look at the same issues and come up with a different conclusion. South Coast Kevin believes that he has benefitted from it.
I don't see how you, me or anyone else can be in a position to judge or determine whether this had anything to do with God or not. For my own part, and I don't often use Calvinistic language these days, I'd suggest that if SCK has benefitted from it then that's 'common grace' in operation. It doesn't necessarily say anything about the spiritual provenance of Myers-Briggs.
Your experience of Myers-Briggs might be different and you may have good grounds not to entertain it as a model. Fine. Fair enough. That doesn't mean that SCK can't benefit from it, of course.
I can't comment on the alleged neo-Gnostic connections. The concern I might have over Myers-Briggs would be based on different criteria ... it's all a bit 'corporate' and it's all a bit too neat and prescriptive and relatively easy to 'fake' and second guess where the diagnostic questions are leading. Ok, there'll be checks and balances built in but even so ...
But that wouldn't stop me accepting that SCK and others have benefitted.
Equally, I tend not to go in for overly binary and dualistic approaches to issues like this one.
That doesn't mean that I won't stand up for things I strongly believe in or against things I strongly disagree with.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, you don't preface your posts that way. But then, would you expect the Book of Joshua to be prefaced with, 'Look folks, this mythology, right? We're dealing with mythological treatments of historical events and it isn't to be taken as sober, objective history - whatever that means ...'
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
To say that MBTI is occult is as silly as saying that aliens built the pyramids. But then believing in the occult full stop is pretty silly and fanciful for 21st century people with access to science.
Of course MBTI isn't harmful to one's spiritual life if you use it properly and with common sense. Funnily enough I haven't found it harmful to my spiritual life - does that mean I just don't exist, EE? It's just helpful in terms of knowing your own strengths and weaknesses. People do take it too seriously sometimes and that can be harmful, but that's true of most things. It's certainly not an in-built characteristic of MBTI. Do you also apply the same thing to career guidance for 6th formers and 'what Hogwarts house are you' quizzes?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Gamaliel -
No, but I have given my reasons why I think it is not mythology, as I have just done again on the relevant DH thread.
If I thought it was, then I would give my reasons for that also.
Nothing to do with prefaces or lack thereof.
[ 20. March 2014, 12:21: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
EE has answered your questions already, Jade Constable.
'The insistent opinions of strong-minded people are usually far removed from the voice of God.'
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Dang! I've broken my Lenten resolve ...
I will redouble my efforts for the remainder.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable
But then believing in the occult full stop is pretty silly and fanciful for 21st century people with access to science.
But science does not imply atheism.
I see no reason why Christians should assume or conclude that the works of darkness described in the Bible must be fantasy. If we think that science has disproven the existence of spiritual evil, then why not apply that understanding of science to the existence of God?
What is it about 21st century science that allows God to exist, but not the devil?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
EE has answered your questions already, Jade Constable.
'The insistent opinions of strong-minded people are usually far removed from the voice of God.'
Actually I am trying to have a discussion. Like you said, I am entitled to my opinion.
If Jade wants to disagree with me, then fine.
Or are you suggesting that I am not allowed to express a point of view now, because it would appear as though I am claiming divine authority for it?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, but I am pulling your pisser.
And also suggesting that, like the rest of us, you should pay heed to your wise saying about people with strong opinions.
Strong opinions aren't wrong in and of themselves, but rigid and inflexible attitudes often undermine what might be seen as the work of God. To dogmatically and rigidly condemn MBTI on the grounds that it is supposed to have occult links - that's news to me, by the way - is to effectively attempt to undermine any good that MBTI might achieve.
As SCK has said, he feels he's benefitted from it.
I don't doubt that there are dark forces in operation. People running around with Kalashnikovs and strapping on suicide vests bother me a lot more than people with clip-boards, flip-charts and PowerPoint presentations about personality types ...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
To dogmatically and rigidly condemn MBTI on the grounds that it is supposed to have occult links - that's news to me, by the way - is to effectively attempt to undermine any good that MBTI might achieve.
Did you bother to read the article?
And yes, I do condemn it - not dogmatically, but on the basis of evidence. But why does it bother you? I am just an anonymous voice on the internet. If people want to disregard my point of view, they are free to do so.
But like you said: I am entitled to my opinion.
I think it is dangerous to pigeonhole people in terms of their personality type, because personality is far more subtle and nuanced than that kind of crude test can discern. Furthermore, it is very easy to justify all sorts of wrong attitudes - even evil actions - by appealing to one's personality type. I remember once at work someone justifying failing to fulfil an obligation to another member of staff by saying: "It's because I am 'right brain' and you are 'left brain', therefore stop having a go at me." That wasn't due to the MBTI specifically, but it was the same principle of pigeonholing people.
And in Christian ministry, all sorts of bad practices are justified by saying: "oh well, that is just Dave, or Chris or Sally. They can't help it..."
The only good I can see from these kind of tests is that perhaps in a very limited way, they may help us to appreciate that people are different and can respond in different ways to situations. But the point is that you only need to be about ten years old to work that simple fact out! It's so painfully obvious from the nature of reality, that you really do not need a heavy, intrusive personality test to tell you this. People are different? You don't say!
Furthermore, a vulnerable person can work through all the intrusive and often hypothetical questions of a personality test ("what would you do if you saw Granny running naked down the street?" Etc etc...) and then those who have set themselves up as the administrators of the test ask certain personal - and leading - questions on the basis of the person's responses to the earlier questions. The vulnerable person has already had his mind moved in a certain direction in terms of his perception of himself, and then others are able to subtly drop ideas in his mind that reinforce what could be a totally false view of himself and his place within reality. I've seen it happen! In fact, without wanting to divulge too much about myself, I will say that I am living with the destructive consequences of this practice. I've seen people's personalities change for the worse, as a result of this psychological manipulation. So yes, I condemn it.
And if you think that it's simply a matter of clipboards and flip-charts, then you don't understand the power of psychology. How many people have been slung in prison due to false accusations resulting from clever counsellors asking vulnerable people leading questions? How many relationships have been destroyed by clipboards and questionnaires etc? Perhaps you don't recognise the power of words and thoughts? In fact, all wars begin somewhere in someone's warped mind. So your "sticks and stones" approach to this subject is rather naive, to put it mildly!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, of course these personality profile things can be abused. So can anything else.
Your experience of these things has been negative. SCK's has been positive. Horses for courses.
I'm not being naive, simply stating my 'take' on these things as you have stated your views on them.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I don't doubt that there are dark forces in operation. People running around with Kalashnikovs and strapping on suicide vests bother me a lot more than people with clip-boards, flip-charts and PowerPoint presentations about personality types ...
Talking about "suicide vests"... why do people become suicide bombers? It is because they have been radicalised, and this is a psychological programme of manipulation based on guilt, fear and accusation, in which the person is led to believe that he is falling short of obedience to God, and must rectify that by proving himself sufficiently sacrificial. It is brainwashing.
If psychology can have no or minimal harmful effect on people, as your "clipboard and flip-chart" quip seems to suggest, then we will not need to worry about "suicide vests".
Destroy the root and the branches will take care of themselves.
[ 20. March 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure the Taliban use MBTI to determine which of them is most likely to don a suicide vest ...
Sure, psychology can be abused. We all know that. MBTI can be abused, we all know that.
The scriptures can be abused and taken out of context. We all know that too.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Dang! I've broken my Lenten resolve ...
I will redouble my efforts for the remainder.
Shame you didn't break your Lenten resolve yesterday. The Feast of St. Joseph would have given you some wiggle room if you aren't a purist. You aren't. Now, Tuesday is the Feast of the Annunciation. However, because you've already broken your Lenten resolve on a weekday in Lent, you may not interact with EE until Easter. To do so now will harm you spiritually just as sure as taking the MBTI.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Perhaps if I interact with EE between now and Easter AND undertake some MBTI analysis at the same time ...
I am doomed to eternal perdition ...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
There's more chance of the former rather than the latter, although I have done the MBTI thing in the past. Perhaps I've picked up some spiritual lurgy from it which can only be purged by constant agreement with everything EE writes ...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, of course these personality profile things can be abused. So can anything else.
Your experience of these things has been negative. SCK's has been positive. Horses for courses.
I've refused to take part in MBTI tests on a couple of occasions: such action has come as somewhat of a surprise to those running the tests. It's not so much the Jungian basis for it as my reluctance to be pigeonholed as a "personality type" as opposed to a person.
Mind you, the people running both events didn't help. They seemed to play the amateur psychologist role far too quickly - I don't respond at all to people who angle their head to one side and ask me to describe my feelings ..... despite assurances to the contrary they're assuming a role and tbh one which they are really unqualified for.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, psychology can be abused. We all know that. MBTI can be abused, we all know that.
But MBTI is not based on worthwhile psychology. Its fundamentaly flawed, cobbled together out of bits of real science, fake science, and anecdote. Also most people who use it don;t understand the theory behind it - and that theory is self-contradictory anyway. Snake oil. Or at least contaminated with snake oil.
Its not utter total baseless bollocks like enneagrams, or biodynamics, or homeopathy - anyone who claims to believe in them is either ignorant or lying - but it has huge gaps in it. It can be fun, but its on the level of a parlour game, not psychology.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Also, I'm not positing a binary distinction between mysticism and contemplation and activism and interventionism - if that's the right term.
We need both.
They should complement each other.
As you've implied, I suppose they already do. Some people lean one way, and some another. Some mix up a little speaking in tongues with a penchant for Gregorian chant, etc.
Yet you often seem to be rather concerned about what other Christians do. If we all complement each other so well then what is there to be concerned about? Maybe you think the overall balance is somehow wrong - too many Christians looking for signs and wonders, and not enough happy just to pray and muddle along? I don't know what counts as 'too many' and 'not enough', though.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, psychology can be abused. We all know that. MBTI can be abused, we all know that.
But MBTI is not based on worthwhile psychology. Its fundamentaly flawed, cobbled together out of bits of real science, fake science, and anecdote. Also most people who use it don;t understand the theory behind it - and that theory is self-contradictory anyway. Snake oil. Or at least contaminated with snake oil.
Its not utter total baseless bollocks like enneagrams, or biodynamics, or homeopathy - anyone who claims to believe in them is either ignorant or lying - but it has huge gaps in it. It can be fun, but its on the level of a parlour game, not psychology.
Aren't enneagrams just another personality test like MBTI? I've done enneagrams before and it was just like MBTI with fewer personality types. Not seeing the connection between them and things like homeopathy.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Re MBTI - I have only done the online tests. I can see that being led through it by people might be odd and I don't think I would particularly enjoy that. Being a particular MBTI type doesn't stop you from being an individual either. I know a few people with my type but we are still different people, we just have particular personality traits in common. It doesn't take a lot of time to see, as Miss Marple would say, that human nature is the same everywhere and that certain personality types and behaviours are repeated.
It seems quite natural to me to differentiate between extroverts and introverts, between analytical types and creative types, etc etc. To base a personality test on that also seems perfectly reasonable. I certainly haven't known anyone who uses their type to say 'you can't blame me for XYZ, because I'm this type'. Maybe you just know some very immature people, EE ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Re the occult, I do find it rather difficult to believe in any kind of powerful devil or demon and also believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God. Even if some kind of devil exists in the spiritual realm, I don't believe that humans have any power to summon them or use Satanic power. Such things belong in silly melodramatic horror films and are not real. Attributing occult 'power' is as silly as attributing occult 'power' to yoga.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@SvitlanaV2, perhaps I am concerned about what other Christians do ... I dunno. I'm not the only one here who does that, though, Steve Langton and I have been having an exchange on that very issue on another thread ... where he seems concerned that Christians are apparently happy to remain in what he sees as 'Christendom' style churches ...
But I take your point. I'm not overly concerned in real life, though, about what people may or may not get up to in church services.
I am wary, though, of overly pietistic and super-spiritual reactions when it comes to issues like divine guidance and so on. I s'pose I've seen a fair bit of nonsense in my time.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The insistent opinions of strong-minded people are usually far removed from the voice of God.
That's a good quote. We'd all do well to heed it. You included.
I agree, and see it as a very important point here. There's a huge difference between a group humbly seeking the will of God and working together in Christian love and co-operation, incorporating all personality types along the way, which seems to be the way we're pointed by our religion, and a group of individuals diving into the mud wrestling ring of politics and status, vying for position and influence, using methods of management which the secular world embraces, including that of pigeon-holing people according to assessed 'personality types', which might pay little more than lip service to God's will. Prayers are not always included.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0