ver.: 21 February 2008
Take a look at these letters from people who are asking spiritual questions :
Q: Do you believe that any or all of the current practice of glossolalia in the church today is in actuality a naturally-occurring psycho/linguistic phenomena with cathartic effects (and endued with power by the Holy Spirit, as are other naturally occurring "gifts"), or do you believe that it is all supernatural?
RHL: I don't believe that anything God does among us is "all supernatural". We know the supernatural only because it shows itself in the natural realm by way of what is in nature. Like Yahweh speaking through human prophets, like Jesus Christ - God-the-human, like the presence of Christ in mere bread and wine, like the kingdom of God showing itself through earthly believers. The stuff of Christian faith is not the same as the stuff of Asian religion, nor of sci-fi or paranormal films, nor of Greek 'body/spirit' (or even 'nature/supernature') splits. Even at its most mystical, Christian spirituality is down-to-earth in some key way, or it is not of Christ.
I wrote of my own experiences regarding outward 'manifestations' in my page on manifestations. My experience was of the psycho-kind. I can only guess at the reasons it happens (I think scientists are also only guessing), but my take on it is that the manifestations of spinning, cackling, fainting, bouncing off walls, etc. are the natural effect of a disconnection between mind and body. That which normally controls our body's actions no longer works -- it's unplugged. When unplugged, for whatever reason, the usual reaction of both mind and body is frenzy, faint, or other loss of control. Perhaps each is in shock at the loss of a large part of itself -- for we are one critter, not two, and we don't take well to the loss of our most constant companion (one's self). If it's true that the Spirit is interrupting our way of controlling ourselves, then one would expect frenzy or fainting as a reaction.
This would explain why the frenzy or fainting also happens Satanically, psychologically, and chemically. It also explains why such manifestations by themselves are not a trustworthy sign. Something happened....but what?
The same thing holds true about spontaneous outbreaks of tongues. (The deliberate practice of 'praying in tongues' is a different thing, a discipline not a sign.) Even if the tongues are due to the Spirit, the value of such tongues relative to other things that the Spirit gives us is rather low, according to the tongues-speaking Paul. In private or in a household or a cell or small group, the value may well be specially high. But in a more public setting, such as worship or an event, the key question at hand is whether one can grasp the Gospel and the beliefs that are being communicated. Personal, uninterpreted ecstatic speech does nothing for the Gospel in those settings, so it is of little value to the whole, and must not get in the way of the Gospel. (It still may be very personally valuable, if it marks one's personal turning-point. Then, through the converted person's constantly living out the Gospel thereafter, the Gospel is credible to others. But that's indirect, and has no positive importance for anyone else who's there at the time. To them, it may as well be a lunatic losing grip on him/herself.)
It is my opinion that much of the supposedly intelligible
stuff said in churches, at denominational events, in
seminaries, and on TV shows, amounts to uninterpreted babbling
that gets in the Gospel's way. It's so surreal, so nonsensical
to most folks that they have no way of understanding it. I
think Paul's point about
five true words was meant to apply to a whole lot more than
just spontaneous tongues.
more on tongues
back to top
W : You should be careful not to be so quick to judge it.
RHL : I did not judge it. I simply stated that what we now call 'slain in the Spirit' is not the same thing as what went on in the Bible when similar outward effects took place. I went through the Biblical passages, one by one, in context, and that is where it leads.
W : What you fail to show is what the result of this experience is.
RHL : I also said that non-Biblical happenings have to be evaluated in their own right, based on how they further the Kingdom and how they directly reflect the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I leave it to the believing Body of Christ (which is led by the Spirit) to judge that matter. My task is simply to be helpful to people whatever they believe about it.
No matter what we think of an experience, Scripture must inform, shape, and direct what we do with it. I'm more than a little concerned that you so totally stress the experience itself as the authority. Experiences are tricky things. They are not always what they seem, and even when they are, they can quickly fade into meaninglessness if nothing is done from there onward. An experience is not good for the Gospel just because it is there and it feels good. Over a third of those I know who have 'experienced' such moments were no closer to Christ five years later than they were before it. Another one-fourth or so had sharply lessened their ardor over time. And at least three of them are now into entirely different religions. The real question, as I see it, is not whether 'slain in the Spirit' is important or not. At the moment it happens, to the person it happens to, it is important. But whether it works for the Gospel and the Kingdom, I think, depends largely on the rest of us who follow Christ -- do we teach them the faith and the Scriptures, do we live it out in their presence so that they want to follow, are we friends and mentors for them, do we give them the space to pursue whatever gift the Spirit has given them?
The real question the church has to ask is not about the
newly-slain members or their experience, but about itself and
its own duty. My Web pages are part of my fulfilling that duty.
Are you and your church seeing to it that this duty is
fulfilled with those the Spirit brings to you? I leave you with
that challenge.
more on falling in the Spirit
back to top
Q: Isn't the claim that miraculous signs happen also a claim of divine inspiration, along the lines of the Bible's inspiration? Isn't that an attempt to add to the Word? I'd think it certainly is the case with prophecy.
RHL : One of the most common cessationist lines of thinking goes like this :
In any such situation, people will be tempted (openly or implied) to claim such authority. And some have done so.
But take another look, at the rest of the picture . . . .
While it is true that revelation has come when God is doing big things, (a) it isn't always the case; (b) it never has to be the case.
God is sovereign. If God finds a need to do something out of the ordinary, God will do it, whether new revelation is attached or not. Nothing binds God to such a pattern. Healing someone doesn't *have to* be followed by an apocalypse; unusual dreams and ecstasies do not *have to* be followed by the arrival of a true prophet. They *can*, and sometimes *did*, but then again, sometimes didn't. The record of the Bible is that God is regularly doing such things, recorded and unrecorded, on behalf of the covenant folk. When those people recounted such events, new Scripture was often created that was not made at the time it happened (for instance, Samuel, Kings, Genesis, or the Gospels). The Spirit's revealing work made things clear over time, sometimes hundreds of years later.
Nor do miracles mean Scripture is being bypassed. To be that, it would have to be claimed that the
miracle or prophecy makes for *doctrine*, or is
*definitive* for the way Christians as a whole are to
live. Some are making that claim,
whether overtly like in the *Course on Miracles*, or
implicitly like a leading pastor of one of the current
'outbreaks' has done by mass-marketing a book of collected
'prophecies'. But, most people who go through such
manifestations totally refuse such a claim. To them, what
happened to them was important for themselves and the others
directly involved, not for everyone. For them, the Scriptures
still very much define the shape of their faith and how they
follow through on their signs and wonders. But just as culture,
history, tradition, relationships, hard thinking, and the
course of current events help shape how we all live out what
Scripture says, in like manner the charismatic/pentecostal
spiritual experiences and gifts help them live out what
Scripture says.
more on signs and
wonders
more on the Bible as
Scripture
back to top
> Only once have I actually fallen under
the
> spirit's power. The same with laughter. That draws
me to the conclusive question:
> Do you think it is a wrong practice?
First, falling or fainting is not rightly a 'practice'; it's something that just happens or doesn't happen, as the Spirit sees fit. The Spirit isn't there to create a new, weird habit but a new life. Once someone works themselves up to do it, it becomes a practice, and thus is a work of one's self. That doesn't make it evil, it just makes it pointless.
Second, even the weirdest of experiences can be holy for the Lord. But for it to be that way, something has to come from it : the fruit have to grow from there on. And the fruit aren't 'glowing faces' or repeatedly 'drowning in the River' (falling in the Spirit) or learning pentecostal catchwords or seeing an angel behind every tree or a tear on every portrait of Mary. The fruit are matters of character that turn into actions -- a way of life, a life of following Christ. And character is developed by learning and doing. Too many people 'fall' and never learn what to do from there; when that is so, the falling becomes (again) pointless.
As for 'holy laughter', that can actually be an experience
of inner healing. That's the part that makes the most sense to
me, because laughter in other situations from other sources can
also be a healing thing; how much more so from the God of Joy?
I should say that when I'm watching certain well-known
'laughter' preachers on tape they seem so silly that I can't
stop laughing for a very different reason. But that's over them
and the spectacle they're making, not at holy laughter
itself, especially as found in small group situations. Again,
it's a take-off point, not by itself a life-maker; what counts
is where you go from there. Otherwise, it's no more valuable
(and maybe less valuable) than a good night at the local comedy
club.
more on spiritual experiences
back to top
Subject: Temperance Sermon
A preacher was winding up his temperance sermon with great fervor, "If I had all the beer in the world, I'd take it and throw it into the river." And the congregation said, "Amen!" "And if I had all the wine in the world, I'd take it and throw it in the river." And the congregation shouted, "Amen! Amen!" "And if I had all the whiskey and demon rum in the world, I'd take it all and throw it in the river." And the congregation stomped and cried loudly, "Hallelujah!" The preacher sat down.
As the place quieted down, the song leader stood up very tentatively and announced, "For our closing song, let us sing hymn #491, 'Shall We Gather At the River.'"
> I am looking for information
on Montanism and how, if at all, it has bearing on understanding
> and evaluating the 20th century Pentecostal movement.
The Montanists are relevant in two ways :
(1) Through the theological works of Tertullian, who had an impact on the Christian tradition concerning the Holy Spirit, both before and (despite what the Catholics officially say) after he started following the Montanists.
(2) By the big problem they pointed up. The Montanists had leaders who spoke prophecies which included words that built up, words that cursed, predictions of future events, and doctrinal pronouncements. But because they valued their leaders above Scripture, and because of the us-vs.-them atmosphere which made them deaf to outside input, **their system of discernment broke down**. What was at first a disagreement between brethren became a war between hateful camps. The Montanist prophets chose to foster this atmosphere so that their followers would become more loyal. The bishops of the mainstream church were reactionary toward them in an attempt to 'protect' the church, as if there is ever a good reason to be reactionary. As time wore on, the Montanist prophecies flowed further and further from the faith, until they eventually lost their Christian identity, and then their following. This took several generations. And that resulted in the discrediting of prophecy for the church from then on.
Some modern-day Pentecostalists have also let their discernment break down. The same place where Scripture says not to quench the Spirit and not to hold prophecy in contempt also says to test all things. Unless tested through means of discernment, how will they know what is really of the Spirit, what is really from God? If it is, who is it really for? And what is the purpose behind it (information, confidence, warning, challenge, etc.)? Paul in 1 Corinthians teaches us to give prophecy the honor of being held to a high standard. But many Pentecostalists run around saying 'this is prophecy' or 'he/she is a prophet' almost willy-nilly, and then treating those who say otherwise as enemies of God. What then?
This is why Spirithome has so much material on discernment. It is probably the second most important failure of the modern church, Pentecostalist or otherwise. (The most important failure is that of commitment, which is less of a Pentecostalist problem than with others.) Many people are 'in the river' that will take them over the waterfall to the rocks below. Others are flowing in the Holy Spirit, and will never thirst again. Even more common, though, are those who are just flowing off into backwater pools which will dry up when the heat comes on. I try not to judge which applies to whom; that's something I am in no position to know. Unless we learn the right lesson from the Montanist controversy, the church will be doomed to repeat what it went through earlier, and will once again go further than it has cause to do.
Note (1) : This Philip is not the disciple found in Matthew, but is one of the seven 'deacons' or servants who were entrusted to carry out the ministry to widows in Acts 6; Stephen, the first martyr, was also one of those seven.
Back
<< What I read of
[Charles] Finney's meetings and experiences appear to be
considerably
different from what is seen today >>
From what I read of Finney's writings, sermons, and speeches, he and his assistants were as concerned about the methods that bring about conversion as they were about the content of what people were being converted to. He sought a specific response, and did whatever it took to get it. In that way, he bore many of the same basic weaknesses that much of the current revivalism bears today. The meetings were designed somewhat differently, but the experiences are very much the same, except there are now tongues, and even that had been foreshadowed by Finney.
<< God is not the author of confusion>>
.... yet we as a species, even the Christians among us, are confused about many things that God does, many other things that God allows to happen, and many things God puts us through in our daily walk. God isn't confused, but we surely are.
What happens in Pentecostal circles is not as confusing as it first seems. They have their own patterns, practices, tendencies, symbols, subculture, and timing. Some of these are held as tightly as the Eastern Orthodox hold the liturgy or the Catholics hold the hierarchy. Thus that line of Scripture about confusion actually does not apply to them, or at least not in the usual way.
<< I find absolutely no scripture to support it.>>
There are lots of things Scripture gives no support for. For instance, the use of e-mail, but you used it to tell me your objections. Scripture simply doesn't deal with e-mail one way or another. It does, however, teach us about how to use any form of communication rightly and in a Christly manner. That's Scripture's kind of thing.
On matters such as 'slain in the Spirit', Scripture really doesn't speak one way or the other. It talks about other things that are like it in some way, but it does not give a command about them, it just records that some such things happened. So the question isn't whether Scripture gives it support, but whether it gives Scripture support in people's day-to-day lives. Which leads me to this ....
<< it doesn't appear to be of God, but rather of man >>
The business of discerning whether or how the Spirit is working in a specific ministry or congregation or 'revival' is not my job. Discernment has to be done up close by people in direct and regular contact -- face to face, between people whose hands are to the plow. And even then, it is to be done in the manner of Christ. It would have to be really far gone to get me to say something strong about it (there are a few scenes that are just too wacky for me to hold my tongue...).
Even if the ministry is bad, don't pass judgement on those
who follow it. Just make sure you always bear the Gospel and
the Gospel life to them. Show them what to say 'yes' to, and
the Spirit will eventually lead them regarding what to say 'no'
to.
to top
<< I just saw someone throwing the Spirit into the crowd like an invisible beach ball, and 'spraying' [the Spirit] on them after shaking an imaginary champagne bottle - "a splash of the bubbly". Great fun, but what's it about? >>
Beats me. The Spirit I know of would be playing with a beach
ball, not being the beach ball (that's a foundational matter of
faith for Christians). And it's a horrible waste of a good
vintage of imagination to go spraying it around like that. (Say
it, don't spray it.) Sounds like revival all right ..... the
revival of vaudeville.
to replies index
|
Email
me ||
my
personal site ||
Spirithome.com site map ||
intro ||
subject index. If you like this site, please bookmark or link to it, and tell others about it. |
| Copyright © 1997-2007 Robert Longman Jr. |