The Bible doesn't refer to itself as the 'Word of God' as many Evangelicals are wont to do. Except of course in referring to the Penateuch and when they mean the Bible as the Word of God they don't just mean the first five books!
The New Testament does refer to Jesus as the 'Word of God' and so He is. What we are seeing is a difference between two Greek words: Rhema and Logos. Where rhema refers to the spoken word of God and logos to the written word of God. The wikipedia reference for rhema explains the difference well.
However, seeing a difference doesn't seem to underline enough the dangers of rhema without logos of logos without rhema. Rhema without logos can produce totally off the rails interpretations of what God is saying. The word-faith movement is an example of this. The father of the word-faith movement is usually considered to be Kenneth Hagin, but in reality he plagarized another guy called Kenyon. They have a doctrine which they call 'positive confession' and which they mean that because God spoke and the universe was created it is the power of words that makes things happen.
Of course this is just one aspect of the word-faith movement, but does focus on spoken word, rhema, as if it of itself is powerful rather than the outworking of an all powerful God.
People who are upside down on this, ie focus on the logos not the rhema, see rhema as coming out of logos and where logos is silent then make your own mind up because 'God predestined it anyhow'. Which is Calvinist. And Muslim.
When I look around if I take a phenomenological approach to looking then frequently the church doesn't look much different to a mix of west end musical, political meeting of the 1930s and Islamic theology.
Yet I cannot get over the fact that Jesus came to change all this. He came to announce good news for the poor, freedom for the captive and tell people that the unrelenting power of God to change you was here and available because He himself was going to die for us.
How did he do this? He spoke - rhema. He referred to the Old Testament - logos. He told stories. He shared Himself. He broke the accepted rules of the day. He would probably have been as bored in a church service as I am with pontificating preachers who neither proclaim rhema and turn logos into monotonos utterances.
Hmmm... why if Jesus is so interesting is the church so boring?
Monday, October 30, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Promise Keepers
When I first heard about Promise Keepers I was living in the USA. I instantly felt very uncomfortable about the movement. Firstly it was a 'men only' movement, which immediately rang alarm bells, and secondly the name Promise Keepers sounded more like living under the law than living under grace.
It sounded like a reactionary movement rather than proactive. By that I mean it was reacting to an observable phenomena that there are less men in the church than women, so assumed that something 'manly' should be done to attract men. Secondly it was trying to contextualize the church to American macho.
Is it all bad?
Here are the 7 promises a Promise Keeper is supposed to keep:
Secondly, having a list of promises only creates the same thing that the 10 commandments does - that of showing us that we are sinners in need of God's grace. None of us can keep God's law and none of us can keep the 7 promises. Failing is inevitable. So we are setting ourselves up not to enjoy God's love and grace but to feel inadequate and far away from our Father.
Alongside this is a total misunderstanding of male-ness. I haven't read the book they promote The Masculine Journey: Understanding the Six Stages of Manhood by Robert Hicks and published by NavPress. The book was given away free to the 50,000 men who attended the 1993 conference. Their original endorsement went as follows:
Since then it appears they have somewhat distanced themselves from it without admitting the book is off the rails.
If the quotes from other sites are anything to go by I am surprised and horrified that it was ever endorsed and even more horrified that NavPress published it. But, it no longer shows up on the NavPress website and although Robert Hicks' wife Cynthia shows up as an author on the NavPress site, he doesn't. However, he still has at least one article on the NavPress website still on the subject of men.
Here are some quotes from from the book other sites:
I realise these are out of context and I am wondering whether to get a copy just to see what the author really intended. Reading like that sounds closer to pagan religion than a relationship with our Father through His Son. Of course... maybe now that will be twisted to be phallic, but that would be pure blasphemy.
What about this as a quote:
Oh no... surely not. I remember many years ago in a service the person running it was asking what were our two favourite things. My wife sitting beside me was really worried, she knew my answer 'Chocolate and sex, but not necessarily in that order' and was worried that I would actually say that in church. For both men and women our sexuality in some way defines us. God created us as we are. But to focus on the physical sexual is way off beam.
OK, so there appears to be study guide for leading 'Bible studies' alongside the book available from amazon.com and published by NavPress... but maybe this is the book in question. How about this for a quote:
I think I'll try that on our fellowship group that meets in our home on a Friday evening and see their reaction. Hmmm... second thoughts I don't think I shall. I think I know their reaction already.
I admit it, I hate men only meetings. Inevitably they get onto the most boring subject of all... sport. And Promise Keepers came out of a bunch of guys who were sports fanatics [professional American Football coaches]. So I am just biased because it didn't come out of a bunch of sailing fanatics? [Yes, you guessed what I do like.] No, I think there is enough substantive evidence to show the movement is off the rails and actively misleading men and women away from a real realtionship with Jesus.
Men and women are different: In our marriage it is me that enjoys shopping [I love time to go around a mall just browsing and will try to so so when I travel] and my wife hates it. Each man and woman are unique. We were created for mutual support. Taking women out of the picture creates something that God never intended. We don't need 'brothers to help us keep our promises' - that is empty religion. We need Eve not Steve as our helpmate. That's God's way.
One of the struggles I have is that most of the negative commentary on Promise Keepers comes from groups that I could not endorse either.
It sounded like a reactionary movement rather than proactive. By that I mean it was reacting to an observable phenomena that there are less men in the church than women, so assumed that something 'manly' should be done to attract men. Secondly it was trying to contextualize the church to American macho.
Is it all bad?
Here are the 7 promises a Promise Keeper is supposed to keep:
When you first look at these promises your first reaction is they are all admirable attributes. However, these rules have exactly the same sort of problem that Purpose Driven has - that of rules. Keeping these promises guarantees nothing except a pharisee type attitude. Yes, our Father wants us to be pure, but not because we are gritting our teeth and keeping a promise but because we love Him and want Him to enjoy a relationship with us. Jesus came to do away with rule bound religion. For example, Colossians 2:20-23
A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's Word in the power of the Holy Spirit.
A Promise Keeper is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises.
A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.
A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.
A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by actively giving his time and resources.
A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.
A Promise Keeper is committed to influencing his world, being obedient to the Great Commandment (see Mark 12:30-31) and the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:19-20).
20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.and Galatians 3:2,3
2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?Seems to be clear to me that man-made rules or promises have an appearance of godliness, but cannot produce godliness.
Secondly, having a list of promises only creates the same thing that the 10 commandments does - that of showing us that we are sinners in need of God's grace. None of us can keep God's law and none of us can keep the 7 promises. Failing is inevitable. So we are setting ourselves up not to enjoy God's love and grace but to feel inadequate and far away from our Father.
Alongside this is a total misunderstanding of male-ness. I haven't read the book they promote The Masculine Journey: Understanding the Six Stages of Manhood by Robert Hicks and published by NavPress. The book was given away free to the 50,000 men who attended the 1993 conference. Their original endorsement went as follows:
"Promise Keepers desires to lead men into God's Word and to lift Jesus Christ up as our model through the resources that we develop or sponsor. In 1992, Dr. Hick's manuscript for `The Masculine Journey' was presented to NavPress and Promise Keepers as a candidate for inclusion in our line of books. What we discovered was a biblically-centered, frank and honest account of a man's journey with God. We were convinced that it would help men pursue Jesus Christ amidst the challenges of the twentieth century."
Since then it appears they have somewhat distanced themselves from it without admitting the book is off the rails.
If the quotes from other sites are anything to go by I am surprised and horrified that it was ever endorsed and even more horrified that NavPress published it. But, it no longer shows up on the NavPress website and although Robert Hicks' wife Cynthia shows up as an author on the NavPress site, he doesn't. However, he still has at least one article on the NavPress website still on the subject of men.
Here are some quotes from from the book other sites:
"We are called and addressed by God in terminology that describes who and what we are -- zakar, phallic males. Possessing a penis places unique requirements upon men before God in how they are to worship Him. We are called to worship God as phallic kinds of guys, not as some sort of androgynous, neutered non-males, or the feminized males so popular in many feminist-enlightened churches. We are told by God to worship Him in accordance with what we are, phallic men" (p. 49)
"Possessing a _____ places unique requirements upon men before God in how they are to worship Him." (p. 51)
"The phallus has always been the symbol of religious devotion and dedication." (p. 51)
I realise these are out of context and I am wondering whether to get a copy just to see what the author really intended. Reading like that sounds closer to pagan religion than a relationship with our Father through His Son. Of course... maybe now that will be twisted to be phallic, but that would be pure blasphemy.
What about this as a quote:
"Current Christianity cannot openly deal with or talk about the male phallus in its full sexual activity or fantasy." (p. 54) "As men, the phallus defines our identity." (p. 68) "I believe Jesus was phallic with all the inherent phallic passions we experience as men. But it was never recorded that Jesus had sexual relations with a woman. He may have thought about it as the movie The Last Temptation of Christ portrays, but even in the movie He did not give in to the temptation and remained true to His messianic course. If temptation means anything, it means Christ was tempted in every way as we are. That would mean not only heterosexual temptation but also homosexual temptation! I have found this insight to be very helpful for gay men struggling with their sexuality." (p. 181)
Oh no... surely not. I remember many years ago in a service the person running it was asking what were our two favourite things. My wife sitting beside me was really worried, she knew my answer 'Chocolate and sex, but not necessarily in that order' and was worried that I would actually say that in church. For both men and women our sexuality in some way defines us. God created us as we are. But to focus on the physical sexual is way off beam.
OK, so there appears to be study guide for leading 'Bible studies' alongside the book available from amazon.com and published by NavPress... but maybe this is the book in question. How about this for a quote:
"Our culture has presented many initiation rites, or passages to manhood, that are associated with the phallus. Which ones have you experienced? Do you have a story to share with the other men about one such event? Some examples are: When were you potty trained and when did you stop wetting the bed? Pubic hair and growth. An unfortunate experience with pornography. My first dating experience. My first really embarrassing moment with a girl. The wedding night. Conceiving my first child."
I think I'll try that on our fellowship group that meets in our home on a Friday evening and see their reaction. Hmmm... second thoughts I don't think I shall. I think I know their reaction already.
I admit it, I hate men only meetings. Inevitably they get onto the most boring subject of all... sport. And Promise Keepers came out of a bunch of guys who were sports fanatics [professional American Football coaches]. So I am just biased because it didn't come out of a bunch of sailing fanatics? [Yes, you guessed what I do like.] No, I think there is enough substantive evidence to show the movement is off the rails and actively misleading men and women away from a real realtionship with Jesus.
Men and women are different: In our marriage it is me that enjoys shopping [I love time to go around a mall just browsing and will try to so so when I travel] and my wife hates it. Each man and woman are unique. We were created for mutual support. Taking women out of the picture creates something that God never intended. We don't need 'brothers to help us keep our promises' - that is empty religion. We need Eve not Steve as our helpmate. That's God's way.
One of the struggles I have is that most of the negative commentary on Promise Keepers comes from groups that I could not endorse either.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Evangelicals?
What's an Evangelical? Am I one? Do I want to be one?
Soon after I decided to follow Jesus I became embroiled in both the [evangelical] Christian Union at my school and an Evagelical Anglican church near us. I went on houseparties [Americans call these retreats for some reason, but they were noisy, not quiet like a retreat] where Evangelical teaching was the order of the day. Since then I have attended various Evangelical churches around the place.
I find that the word is now confusing. Different people mean different things by it. When I became a follower of Jesus I understood it to mean taking the Bible seriously, so that we believed the Bible more important that the church and that you could experientially know you were 'saved'. I now see that Evangelicals around the world see things differently. For example take the UK Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith and contrast it with the National Evangelical Association of the USA Statement of Faith or the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Statement of Faith or the World Evangelical Association Statment of Faith - there are notable differences.
Soon after I decided to follow Jesus I became embroiled in both the [evangelical] Christian Union at my school and an Evagelical Anglican church near us. I went on houseparties [Americans call these retreats for some reason, but they were noisy, not quiet like a retreat] where Evangelical teaching was the order of the day. Since then I have attended various Evangelical churches around the place.
I find that the word is now confusing. Different people mean different things by it. When I became a follower of Jesus I understood it to mean taking the Bible seriously, so that we believed the Bible more important that the church and that you could experientially know you were 'saved'. I now see that Evangelicals around the world see things differently. For example take the UK Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith and contrast it with the National Evangelical Association of the USA Statement of Faith or the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Statement of Faith or the World Evangelical Association Statment of Faith - there are notable differences.
- The UK starts off with God as trinity whereas the USA, Canada and the WEA start off with the Bible as the only infallible Word of God, above and before having anything about God!
- The UK when it deals with the Bible says its the 'divine inspiration and supreme authority', the written Word of God, not the only infallible Word of God that the USA says it is. Canada says 'Holy Scriptures as originally given by God' are infallible... which allows for man to have screwed up in the middle!
- The USA seems to limit the Holy Spirit 'We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life' compared to the more effusive words from the UK 'The ministry of God the Holy Spirit, who leads us to repentance, unites us with Christ through new birth, empowers our discipleship and enables our witness' and 'The Church, the body of Christ both local and universal, the priesthood of all believers—given life by the Spirit and endowed with the Spirit's gifts to worship God and proclaim the gospel, promoting justice and love.' All seem to have missed the description of 'comforter' that Jesus.
So what is an Evangelical? The UK Evangelical Alliance answers it this way:
Evangelicalism: A Brief Definition Evangelicals often appeal to the derivation of their name from the Greek New Testament word for the ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’ of Jesus Christ. On their own account, they are ‘gospel people’, committed to simple New Testament Christianity and the central tenets of apostolic faith, rather than to later ecclesiastical accretions. As such, they seek to maintain and present the authentic teaching ‘once for all entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3). As the leading Anglican Evangelical John Stott points out, this means that Evangelicalism is neither ‘a recent innovation’ nor ‘a deviation from Christian orthodoxy’.Interesting definition. It seems to me that many 'later ecclesiastical accretions' actually come from the so called Evangelical church!
As I understand it the 'good news' that Jesus came to bring was that God was interested in a relationship with us and that in order for that to be possible He was going pay the penalty for all our screwups and to die in our place. Furthermore, He is more interested in the reality of that relationship than in the observance of loads and loads of rules and regulations, however good they might be. Not only that, but because we cannot continue in that relationship without screwing up He was going to send the Holy Spirit who will dwell within us and will give us gifts to help us and comfort us. Wow, now that does sound like good news!
If that's what an Evangelicals really believe then count me in... but I cannot really see that written in any of the statements of faith published by the organizations that represent them. They all sound more like stern headmaster type definitions that don't attract me.
[See followup article by Steve Hayes, with discussion comments: http://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/godwordthink-evangelicals/]
Worldview - God in a box?
The vicar of the local church lent my son a copy of Answers, a magazine published by an organization called Answers in Genesis which promotes a belief that the earth was created somewhere around 4000BC in seven literal days.
There is an article in the magazine taken from John MacArthur's book Think Biblically! entitled What's your Worldview?. The article starts by defining worldviews and offers this as a working model for a Christian worldview:
He then goes on to suggest a purpose for all this of following a works orientation to relationship with God by 'behaving in accord with God's will'. Of course, MacArthur appears to be from the sola scriptura school:
For this he references 2 Peter 1:2-4, which actually says:
What he really seems to miss is the the spoken word of God of which the written word of God is a record. Yes, the God speaks through the Bible today but He continues to speak directly to human beings. It's called 'having a relationship' and is what God wanted in the first place!
It was the Pharisees who changed it into a set of written rules. What I see around the church today is that many are reverting to a Pharisee like approach to the Bible. I think Jesus is upset with them today as he was with the Pharisees 2000 years ago.
There is an article in the magazine taken from John MacArthur's book Think Biblically! entitled What's your Worldview?. The article starts by defining worldviews and offers this as a working model for a Christian worldview:
The Christian worldview sees and understands God the Creator and His creation - i.e., man and the world - primarily through the lens of God's special revelation, the Holy Scriptures, and secondarily through God's natural revalation in creation as interpreted by human reason and reconciled by and with Scripture, for the purpose of believing and behaving in accord with God's will and, thereby, glorifying God with one's mind and life, both now and in eternity.The definition of the Christian worldview comes from MacArthur's worldview and many Christians would hold a radically different perception. I was kind of horrified as it puts God in a box and I believe He is bigger than that. The constrain God to His written word gives all sorts of logical problems, like what happened before it was a written word, did followers of Jesus have some kind of stunted relationship with God? Then followwers a modernist definition of 'creation interpreted by human reason'.
He then goes on to suggest a purpose for all this of following a works orientation to relationship with God by 'behaving in accord with God's will'. Of course, MacArthur appears to be from the sola scriptura school:
... its is true that the Bible alone contains all that Christians need to know about their spiritual life and glodliness through a knowledge of the one true God, which is the highest and most important level of knowledge
For this he references 2 Peter 1:2-4, which actually says:
(2) Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. (3) His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (4) Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.So in reality MacArthur in interpets Scripture through his worldview to make his statement. Hmmm... doesn't this mean that he really from the prima scriptura school? He does admit:
Also while it does not exhaustively address every field, when Scripture speaks in any subject area, it speaks authoritativelyYes, agreed, but... how you interpret Scripture speaking authoritatively is the question isn't it!
What he really seems to miss is the the spoken word of God of which the written word of God is a record. Yes, the God speaks through the Bible today but He continues to speak directly to human beings. It's called 'having a relationship' and is what God wanted in the first place!
It was the Pharisees who changed it into a set of written rules. What I see around the church today is that many are reverting to a Pharisee like approach to the Bible. I think Jesus is upset with them today as he was with the Pharisees 2000 years ago.
Freedom means what?
A couple of days back I was discussing God with someone who believes He doesn't exist. The guy's problem with most churches is that they take responsibility away from us for our actions.
It works two ways:
I hate the control that so many church leaders, claiming to follow God, in reality become just control freaks. I have just left one church here in this town partly over that. The 'elders' [read geriatrics] are appointed for life. They have hot line to God and woe betide anyone who disagrees. They can do what they like.
And they did. They took the church down a course that was basically another rule book. Good rules. Like reading the Bible, prayer, meeting together, but rules nevertheless. It's called a 'Purpose Driven Life' and has about as much to do with a realtionship with Jesus as sucking a lemon while riding a bicycle up a snowy moutain track. My reading of Scripture is that Jesus came saying 'Guys, you're missing the point, it's not about rules but relationship.' But then at least someone with humour invented the game 'create the church you want the way you want it'.
And that's where the rubber hits the road and why this athiest and I end up agreeing, for God to have a relationship with us we must have freedom to love or reject Him. Love constrained by rules is not love but automatan obedience. None of us would really enjoy a a relationship with a computer we had programmed to say 'I love you' radomly throughout the day. So it is with God, he doesn't want programmed, constrained responses, but a real relationship with us.
Blaming our actions on Satan is part of this lack of resonsibility. Like accountability structures. If you create a structure where you cannot sin, you are not being responsible, you are being a puppet. It's where organizations like 'Promise Keepers' are totally off the rails. God wants us to have a relationship with Him, not follow a set of rules. Even if the rules are great rules.
So, does that mean we can break all the rules? Just taking one verse out of context:
What that indicates to me is that God does give us freedom even when we have decided to follow Him we have freedom. Everything is permitted. But not everything is good. That doesn't mean we need rules and constaints. It means we need a greater relationship with Him. The example I use would be of my relationship with my wife. I don't have sex with other girls because it would damage my relationship with her and upset her. So it should be with Jesus, we should not sin because it will damage our relationship with Him and upset Him. But living without freedom doesn't prove a thing.
Its only when we are free to do something but don't that we prove love. We are responsible for our actions. My athiest friend is right. And he's been put off God by churches and christians who understand lots about rules and little about relationship.
We have a saying 'God created man and then man returned the compliment'. Exactly what this friend expressed to me. He felt man had created the concept of God to allow for all these rules. It's funny really, because he understands God better than many people who go to Church, yet he doesn't have any relationship with Him at all.
It works two ways:
- Churches are so beset with rules that you cannot decide to take sugar in your coffee without consulting the rule book
- Everything evil is blamed on Satan [or someone else but certainly not you]
I hate the control that so many church leaders, claiming to follow God, in reality become just control freaks. I have just left one church here in this town partly over that. The 'elders' [read geriatrics] are appointed for life. They have hot line to God and woe betide anyone who disagrees. They can do what they like.
And they did. They took the church down a course that was basically another rule book. Good rules. Like reading the Bible, prayer, meeting together, but rules nevertheless. It's called a 'Purpose Driven Life' and has about as much to do with a realtionship with Jesus as sucking a lemon while riding a bicycle up a snowy moutain track. My reading of Scripture is that Jesus came saying 'Guys, you're missing the point, it's not about rules but relationship.' But then at least someone with humour invented the game 'create the church you want the way you want it'.
And that's where the rubber hits the road and why this athiest and I end up agreeing, for God to have a relationship with us we must have freedom to love or reject Him. Love constrained by rules is not love but automatan obedience. None of us would really enjoy a a relationship with a computer we had programmed to say 'I love you' radomly throughout the day. So it is with God, he doesn't want programmed, constrained responses, but a real relationship with us.
Blaming our actions on Satan is part of this lack of resonsibility. Like accountability structures. If you create a structure where you cannot sin, you are not being responsible, you are being a puppet. It's where organizations like 'Promise Keepers' are totally off the rails. God wants us to have a relationship with Him, not follow a set of rules. Even if the rules are great rules.
So, does that mean we can break all the rules? Just taking one verse out of context:
'You say, "Everything is permitted." But not everything is good for us. Again you say, "Everything is permitted." But not everything builds us up.'That comes from 1 Corinthians chapter 10 verse 23 and the context around it is about our relationship with Jesus.
What that indicates to me is that God does give us freedom even when we have decided to follow Him we have freedom. Everything is permitted. But not everything is good. That doesn't mean we need rules and constaints. It means we need a greater relationship with Him. The example I use would be of my relationship with my wife. I don't have sex with other girls because it would damage my relationship with her and upset her. So it should be with Jesus, we should not sin because it will damage our relationship with Him and upset Him. But living without freedom doesn't prove a thing.
Its only when we are free to do something but don't that we prove love. We are responsible for our actions. My athiest friend is right. And he's been put off God by churches and christians who understand lots about rules and little about relationship.
We have a saying 'God created man and then man returned the compliment'. Exactly what this friend expressed to me. He felt man had created the concept of God to allow for all these rules. It's funny really, because he understands God better than many people who go to Church, yet he doesn't have any relationship with Him at all.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
God's word?
I was brought up in an Anglican church in the UK. Anglican churches come in all varieties, from what is called 'high church' or 'smells and bells' where it would be barely discernably different from many Roman Catholic churches through churches described as 'liberal' or 'the Conservative Party at prayer' through 'evangelical' through 'charismatic' through... through...
About the time I decided that I personally wanted to become a follower of Jesus I embraced the latter two labels 'evangelical' and 'charismatic'. At that time I understood the former to mean that being a 'Christian' or 'saved' was something you could experientially know to be true. The latter being that the Holy Spirit today gives spiritual gifts to followers of Jesus, including the gifts of healing, prophecy, visions, other langauges etc. The term 'evangelical' also included an emphasis on the Bible contrasted with an emphasis on the church. At that time 'charismatics' were generally a subset of 'evangelicals' and most 'evangelicals' in the UK were in some way open to the Holy Spirit.
We lived in the US for a couple of years and were shocked to find charismatics and evangelicals on opposite sides. Most of the evangelicals we met were dispensationalists who appeared to believe the gifts from the Holy Spirit died out in the 'Apostolic era'. They appeared to elevate the Bible to being the sole way that God communicates with us. I felt they almost worshiped a different Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Bible.
In my spiritual walk recently I have come to think more about the Bible and have been thinking about how we see it on two levels: firstly as a historical document and secondly as the written word of God. And it's deliberate that I didn't write the 'written Word of God' as some evangelicals would. The Bible itself refers to Jesus as the Word and not itself! I read in another blog 'The Bible: contains God's word and is how I hear what God wants to tell me' That statement worried me as it implied this was the only way God communicates with people.
A few years back I was sitting in a restaurant on the bank of the Nile in Egypt chatting over a meal with a friend of mine about the possibility of making a series of TV programmes about the parables of Jesus. One of the parables that we discussed was the parable of the wedding feast found in Matthew 22:2-14
This parable is about a king who sends out invitations to a bunch of people to come to the wedding feast of his son. All those who are invited find different reasons why not to come. So the king sends his servants out into the streets to fill up his wedding banquet with everyone they can find.
The parable is normally interpreted as being that the Jews were the people originally invited to the wedding feast but turned away and that the people now invited are the Gentiles [ie non-Jews] who become followers of Jesus. But the parable doesn't end where I finished it above. When everyone is in the feast the king comes through the banqueting hall and finds one person in unacceptable clothes and kicks him out. I always thought this totally unfair, I mean here was someone dragged off the streets and now being complained at for not wearing decent clothes! People then interpret the parable with questions like: How should we dress for Christ's wedding?
Now that brings me on to how we see the Bible as a historical document. The original writers wrote within a context or as I like to put it 'they saw life through a grid'. We as readers of the Bible read within a different context or 'we see life through a grid but a very different grid'. In the example of this parable we don't know one vital part of Middle Eastern custom - something I learnt at that meal on the banks of the Nile - that when an important person throws a wedding banquet they provide new 'wedding clothes' for all the guests to change into when they come into the banquet. So the person thrown out had decided not to accept the gift of clothes from the king! Quite a different slant on the story.
From that one example I often wonder how much of the Bible we miss. I also think how we need to be careful about the principles we draw out from the Bible and how trying to find really strict detail is pretty well impossible.
The Bible is a record of God's dealing with mankind. In that record it shows God speaking and interacting with men and women through the ages. The process of writing changed it from spoken word to written word. In a conversation there is space to ask questions for clarification, space to interact. Interaction with a written document is a one way process.
So coming back to the time I decided to follow Jesus:
That has now become my starting point - not to interpret Jesus through the Bible but to interpret the Bible through my relationship with Jesus. OK, so what if I hear wrong? Well, I still treat the Bible as the 'ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice' which probably still makes me an evangelical but the concept of sola scriptura is something that I would now see as relegating God to being subservient to the Bible. God is alive and well and wants to communicate with us and not that 'that Scripture is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals'.
About the time I decided that I personally wanted to become a follower of Jesus I embraced the latter two labels 'evangelical' and 'charismatic'. At that time I understood the former to mean that being a 'Christian' or 'saved' was something you could experientially know to be true. The latter being that the Holy Spirit today gives spiritual gifts to followers of Jesus, including the gifts of healing, prophecy, visions, other langauges etc. The term 'evangelical' also included an emphasis on the Bible contrasted with an emphasis on the church. At that time 'charismatics' were generally a subset of 'evangelicals' and most 'evangelicals' in the UK were in some way open to the Holy Spirit.
We lived in the US for a couple of years and were shocked to find charismatics and evangelicals on opposite sides. Most of the evangelicals we met were dispensationalists who appeared to believe the gifts from the Holy Spirit died out in the 'Apostolic era'. They appeared to elevate the Bible to being the sole way that God communicates with us. I felt they almost worshiped a different Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Bible.
In my spiritual walk recently I have come to think more about the Bible and have been thinking about how we see it on two levels: firstly as a historical document and secondly as the written word of God. And it's deliberate that I didn't write the 'written Word of God' as some evangelicals would. The Bible itself refers to Jesus as the Word and not itself! I read in another blog 'The Bible: contains God's word and is how I hear what God wants to tell me' That statement worried me as it implied this was the only way God communicates with people.
A few years back I was sitting in a restaurant on the bank of the Nile in Egypt chatting over a meal with a friend of mine about the possibility of making a series of TV programmes about the parables of Jesus. One of the parables that we discussed was the parable of the wedding feast found in Matthew 22:2-14
This parable is about a king who sends out invitations to a bunch of people to come to the wedding feast of his son. All those who are invited find different reasons why not to come. So the king sends his servants out into the streets to fill up his wedding banquet with everyone they can find.
The parable is normally interpreted as being that the Jews were the people originally invited to the wedding feast but turned away and that the people now invited are the Gentiles [ie non-Jews] who become followers of Jesus. But the parable doesn't end where I finished it above. When everyone is in the feast the king comes through the banqueting hall and finds one person in unacceptable clothes and kicks him out. I always thought this totally unfair, I mean here was someone dragged off the streets and now being complained at for not wearing decent clothes! People then interpret the parable with questions like: How should we dress for Christ's wedding?
Now that brings me on to how we see the Bible as a historical document. The original writers wrote within a context or as I like to put it 'they saw life through a grid'. We as readers of the Bible read within a different context or 'we see life through a grid but a very different grid'. In the example of this parable we don't know one vital part of Middle Eastern custom - something I learnt at that meal on the banks of the Nile - that when an important person throws a wedding banquet they provide new 'wedding clothes' for all the guests to change into when they come into the banquet. So the person thrown out had decided not to accept the gift of clothes from the king! Quite a different slant on the story.
From that one example I often wonder how much of the Bible we miss. I also think how we need to be careful about the principles we draw out from the Bible and how trying to find really strict detail is pretty well impossible.
The Bible is a record of God's dealing with mankind. In that record it shows God speaking and interacting with men and women through the ages. The process of writing changed it from spoken word to written word. In a conversation there is space to ask questions for clarification, space to interact. Interaction with a written document is a one way process.
So coming back to the time I decided to follow Jesus:
'At that time I understood the former to mean that being a 'Christian' or 'saved' was something you could experientially know to be true. The latter being that the Holy Spirit today gives spiritual gifts to followers of Jesus, including the gifts of healing, prophecy, visions, other langauges etc.'You can see that what I was doing was deciding to follow someone who is very much alive and who very much wants to communicate and interact with me. Not a legalistic set of rules but a relationship.
That has now become my starting point - not to interpret Jesus through the Bible but to interpret the Bible through my relationship with Jesus. OK, so what if I hear wrong? Well, I still treat the Bible as the 'ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice' which probably still makes me an evangelical but the concept of sola scriptura is something that I would now see as relegating God to being subservient to the Bible. God is alive and well and wants to communicate with us and not that 'that Scripture is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals'.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Revelation today
We all want to know the future, it's why people study the stars or tea leaves or whatever to try to know what will happen. 'Will I meet a tall dark stranger?' as the BBC news put it recently, and then commented 'it would probably be a tax man'.
Events in Lebanon this summer have got me wondering about the so called 'end times', the time running up to Jesus return. So I re-read the last book in the Bible a couple of times, trying to see if I could match what I was seeing in the world with what I had read in the Bible.
The more I read Revelation the more it didn't look like a blow by blow schedule of events to come, but a visionary description what will happen on a spiritual level. A friend of mine had been reading Eugene Peterson's book 'Reversed Thunder' which looks it Revelation as a book written by a pastor, poet and theologian. As such Peterson sees John's 'subject is God (not crytographic esoterica) and that his context is is pastoral (not alarmist entertainment)'.
So why do so many people see Revelation is a literal day by day, blow by blow prediction of events to come? Those of us who come from the charismatic or pentecostal sides of the church have a current experience of visions today. In prayer we might see pictures or visions, which reveal something God is trying to communicate with us.
Today I was discussing this with someone who cited an example of a vision that came to someone he knew of the palm trees along the sea front all bending down. People who heard this vision interpreted it spiritually, not literally. Yet many in the charismatic and pentecostal sides of the church read Revelation and try to interpret it literally.
Dispensationalists are people who believe that time is broken up into distrinct chunks and one of those chuncks was the time for God to give spiritual gifts to people, but that He stopped doing that nearly 2000 years ago. Because of their belief that God no longer gives spiritual gifts today they don't believe that He gives pictures or visions to people today. They are therefore ill-equipped to interpret visions as they are alien to their daily life.
It appears to me that dispensationalists are basically cultural modernists, wanting everything to be in neat packages that can mechanistically be understood. As such they are a relatively recent group who reject the conservative understanding of scripture thus interpreting it liberally. Ah, now there's an anomaly, because most dispensationalists would be self-professessed conservatives accusing others of liberal interpretations of scripture.
So why (and I have no answer here) do charistmatics and pentecostals, who reject the basic tenets of dispensationalists then use their technique of systematic theology to analyse a book that is a poetic treatise?
People who analyse Shakespeare often miss the enjoyment of the play. The Daily Star quotes and old joke about William Shakespeare being an Arab - how else, it explains, can you account for the name, Sheikh Zubair. Certainly the playwright's preoccupation with despotic leaders, times of civil unrest and bloodshed fit in perfectly with the tempestuous nature of contemporary Arab politics. Maybe there will be some people who see Othello as prophecy of current events in Cyprus!
Events in Lebanon this summer have got me wondering about the so called 'end times', the time running up to Jesus return. So I re-read the last book in the Bible a couple of times, trying to see if I could match what I was seeing in the world with what I had read in the Bible.
The more I read Revelation the more it didn't look like a blow by blow schedule of events to come, but a visionary description what will happen on a spiritual level. A friend of mine had been reading Eugene Peterson's book 'Reversed Thunder' which looks it Revelation as a book written by a pastor, poet and theologian. As such Peterson sees John's 'subject is God (not crytographic esoterica) and that his context is is pastoral (not alarmist entertainment)'.
So why do so many people see Revelation is a literal day by day, blow by blow prediction of events to come? Those of us who come from the charismatic or pentecostal sides of the church have a current experience of visions today. In prayer we might see pictures or visions, which reveal something God is trying to communicate with us.
Today I was discussing this with someone who cited an example of a vision that came to someone he knew of the palm trees along the sea front all bending down. People who heard this vision interpreted it spiritually, not literally. Yet many in the charismatic and pentecostal sides of the church read Revelation and try to interpret it literally.
Dispensationalists are people who believe that time is broken up into distrinct chunks and one of those chuncks was the time for God to give spiritual gifts to people, but that He stopped doing that nearly 2000 years ago. Because of their belief that God no longer gives spiritual gifts today they don't believe that He gives pictures or visions to people today. They are therefore ill-equipped to interpret visions as they are alien to their daily life.
It appears to me that dispensationalists are basically cultural modernists, wanting everything to be in neat packages that can mechanistically be understood. As such they are a relatively recent group who reject the conservative understanding of scripture thus interpreting it liberally. Ah, now there's an anomaly, because most dispensationalists would be self-professessed conservatives accusing others of liberal interpretations of scripture.
So why (and I have no answer here) do charistmatics and pentecostals, who reject the basic tenets of dispensationalists then use their technique of systematic theology to analyse a book that is a poetic treatise?
People who analyse Shakespeare often miss the enjoyment of the play. The Daily Star quotes and old joke about William Shakespeare being an Arab - how else, it explains, can you account for the name, Sheikh Zubair. Certainly the playwright's preoccupation with despotic leaders, times of civil unrest and bloodshed fit in perfectly with the tempestuous nature of contemporary Arab politics. Maybe there will be some people who see Othello as prophecy of current events in Cyprus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)