I've been reflecting on a tweet from someone, showing a piece of Argos Jewellery - a necklace, which merely has the letters "OMG" to hang around someone's neck. The tweet suggested the total pointlessness of either the manufacturer or Argos themselves, and I agree.
Of course "OMG" is the new abbreviated form (seems to have entered our language in this decade) of the old swearing statement "Oh my God", which I find as I listen - seems to come out now from even 4 year olds.
There are several points to make here: First, for the Christian, God's name is precious and the scriptures leave no room for argument that taking God's name and misusing it is not right, and especially so for the Christian.
Secondly, I find myself puzzled, bemused even, as to why there is this fascination with an abbreviation of "Oh my God." I suppose the virus of abbreviations is arguably bound to hit everything eventually, and it was only a matter of time. Perhaps three words are, for some, just too much and saying "OMG" is somehow a lot less hassle? Or is it that the message of not misuing God's name has now got out into people's minds, and someone has suggested that saying "OMG" is somehow less offensive? Well, it isn't!
For me, whenever I hear someone say this I always want to feel that I should turn to them and say "ah, but who is your god then? - as if to make the point. But the long and the short of it is that I find it offensive. And I find the celebrity trend of somehow saying it live on TV, or singing about it, ...or whatever else, is horrible, and I don't like the example that that sets or suggest to such a mass following.
To widen this out - I hear, as we all do, an enormous amount of swearing - and when I get very stressed or angry, I have found myself sadly doing so. But when I hear someone saying "Jesus" or "Oh my God", then that makes me cross. Is that hypocrisy I wonder?
Of course, the anguish behind what makes us (all?) swear is an interesting study: that surge of stress or anger that frustrated us and makes us scream out aloud. Isn't that a little like what the psalms do in the scriptures? But they're not full of bad language - anger sometimes - yes. I've often mused at the story of the old Chistian man banging his head on the same shelf and saying "Praise the Lord!"
Is swearing then just about poor vocabulary? I have in my 46 years heard that said by a good few people - was it my English teacher? Certainly, families that are brought up in an environment where swearing is the norm, then often the children see this as what they should do too.
Then of course, we might argue that there is swearing, and then then swearing - ie, plain rudeness and then those words that dishonour the name of God. Does that make the former acceptable and the latter not then? I know the some have studied the root of each swear word and discovered that actually the truth behind each is quite alarming - eg "Blimey" was apparently originally "Blind-me".
So where does this end? Better education? Better example? Christians standing up and being counted? Probably all - though I also have cringed sometimes when Christians have been so "in someones face" as they have cut into them about their bad langauge and wanted to run a mile from such hypocrisy. How do we win such folk for Jesus when someone has already ploughed in and mucked up the playing field? Certainly Paul reminds us that the peope of the Holy Spirit will want to live by the Spirit.
Moving onto a entirely different subject ...my Android Mobile and O/S upgrade.
Ice cream sandwhich - thought I'd note this for anyone who has to travel this road. My Samsung Galaxy S2 finally brought me to a point where the SD card was malfunctioing and internal memory as a result was crashing out. Vodafone said all these problems I had would be sorted with the ICS update.The word of the street for months has been about this O/S upgrade from gingerbread to ICS, Ice Cream Sandwich!
So for me the phone was becoming a struggle and not an effective tool. A visit to the vodafone shop last week said "Sure, we can do the upgrade, but havr you backed up?" So back home to backup to Samsung Kies. This I managed, eventually.
Back to the shop - "Oh, it says we can't do it afterall, but we can send if off!" No, I didn't want that as I couldn't be without my diary. So then I phoned Vodafone only to be told that they weren't responsible for O/S upgrades, but Samsung are. A classic moment in techy life - finally the open source nature of Google and Android catches up with me. This is its strength and its weakness.
An upgrade I was told would sort my original problems, but the £40 quid paid to vodafone every month doesn't cover that scenario then?! Kind of leaves you "naffed off" (ooh is that ok given my words above?) and running the argument that this would never happen with Apple or HTC!
So, to conclude I finally get through to Samsung who ........wait for it .......tell me I can't upgrade ......yet!
So, this week is the calm before the storm (or is it the other way around as parents look forward to days of peace?), as we try to gather some last few days of rest before schools go back and routine kicks in.
We haven't had much of a holiday this year.One week, and it was stressful! As we spend money on new uniforms and equipment, the economic news is not imporoving for the UK, and the financial pressure continues to target the middle and lower income families of the UK. We are one of them, and there are many. The light at the end of the tunnel is not showing up, and despite the Jubilee and the Olympics, the nation is in general rudderless an lacking any good economic news. Unless something changes, then I see a General Election in the pipe line!
Sam Griffiths Pastor of Wellington Baptist Church, Somerset.
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Monday, 13 August 2012
Sports in Schools - the real problem
Okay, so I'm going to throw my 5 quid into the arena on this, and I think I can do this with some credibility. Here's my argument - the measley 2 lessons (practically its 1) of PE a week in each primary school shows up where our values and priorities have drifted. Numerous governments have played with the national curriculum arguing that their electorate has demanded change for so called failing schools. Such schools if they are deemed to not be reaching the required standard, are set targets, and the entire Ofsted nightmare of every school seemingly being measured by whether it has had a good one or not. This either shames or applauds a local school in a community and presumably provides informed decision making freedom for parents. But here's the problem - all that is based on academic prowess, not on sport. Did they achieve in maths and english - for example.
When I was growing up in school, every morning was set for lessons and every afternoon was for compulsory sport. Summer or winter, good weather or bad - we would be either running or playing rugby or hockey in winter, and atheletic and tennis or cricket in the summer. For me, the sport was survival. The academic side was a real struggle, but the Sport kept me alive and gave me value. Goodness knows what would have happened if I hadn't had that. In the mornings we thought and worked better, and in the afternon we burnt off our energy and played sport to high standards.
But now we have a virtually sportless school culture in the state school system. The sport has been tossed into the court of after school clubs.
If the Olympics is to change our sporting future, we have to kill the notion that the value of a person or a school is based on how well they achieve academically, and return to the days where a whole person approach is seen as a good thing, not a disability.
When I was growing up in school, every morning was set for lessons and every afternoon was for compulsory sport. Summer or winter, good weather or bad - we would be either running or playing rugby or hockey in winter, and atheletic and tennis or cricket in the summer. For me, the sport was survival. The academic side was a real struggle, but the Sport kept me alive and gave me value. Goodness knows what would have happened if I hadn't had that. In the mornings we thought and worked better, and in the afternon we burnt off our energy and played sport to high standards.
But now we have a virtually sportless school culture in the state school system. The sport has been tossed into the court of after school clubs.
If the Olympics is to change our sporting future, we have to kill the notion that the value of a person or a school is based on how well they achieve academically, and return to the days where a whole person approach is seen as a good thing, not a disability.
Monday, 9 July 2012
To home school or not to home school
I haven't blogged for ages and ages - excuses being lack of time and too busy and also that they decded to put me on the Baptist Times website which made me feel kinda vulnerable ....anyway, the real truth was I just haven't felt in the right state of mind to "spill my thoughts out!"
Okay, excuses done, here's some thoughts that have been on my mind for a while that I thought would be provocative for blogging on. We don't home school, and to be honest I don't think that Claire and I would feel that its the ever the right thing to do, given our Christian principles! That said, if we were missionaries overseas where there was no english speaking schools then we might, but its certainly not something that we would find easy. Some people home-school because they can - and choose to do so. Parents are trained teachers and maybe they feel they can do a better job than their local school. But some Christian parents choose to do so because they fear their children being infected by other religious traditions, secularism, and multi-culturalism. Taking the Old Testament principles of teaching your own children up in the law of Yahweh and ensuring that the principles of God are held dear to the heart and taught with a clarity and fundamentalism of there being no doubt or room to ponder, alongside teaching maths, english, science and history etc, this is often the style of many (but perhaps not all) home schoolers within the Christian setting. The advantages of this are all too obvious. All of this happens within the Christian Community - often Christian home schoolers will share skills across several families within that community. This is ironic and arguably where home-schooling ceases to be home-schooling and more akin to creating your own Christian school. The settings are safe, and the curriculum set and sealed. Creationism taught and assumed in subject areas. Common to all home-schooling - whether Christian or not is that children with specific gifting and skills areas can be focussed upon in a strong contrast to the more general teaching of a school, and of course, the teacher to student ration is exceptionally and desirably win-win!
The disadvantages however are more than obvious. The lack of connection with other children from all kinds of backgrounds and experiences, religious groupings and cultures, colours and creeds, would almost certaintly lead to an extremely insular life, in fact protected. Because of this, the freedom to think and decide for yourself - and be given licence to do so and not feel that this was wrong or shameful are generally not present in the home school setting. Interestingly enough, this is where my Christian baptistic thinking finds good soil. As Christians of a baptist flavour, we see in the scriptures the principle not to christen, but to baptise in believers baptism. Unpacking this, we choose not to say over a baby "we believe on your behalf", but that, growing up within the love of God and the love of parents, and of the Christian community, that child should decide for him or herself as to whether they should want to follow Jesus and become a Christian. When they do, only then does Believers Baptism take place. And that is not age dependent in any way. That means to say that our children need to be given the freedom to know and experience the love of God in regular Sunday worship and any other mid week setting, but that they also be fully open to the sights, smells and sounds (so to speak) of what is going on around them in a state school where their friends think and act differently. We think that giving them freedom to decide for themselves, is the biblical pattern, rather than it be forced upon them. Which creates the stronger more considered and throught through faith? I'lll leave you to decide that for yourself. But that is in essence why I/we don't home school, apart from the truth that we'd be rubbish at it too.
There is a middle ground to be pondered here though. Why then, does it feel right for some parents to ensure that their children go to a Christian school? Isn't that merely the half way compromise that is there for parents like us who can't home school to save our lives, but want the safety of the Christian culture and setting? Well certainly in the UK the Christian schools that provide that kind of setting are seemingly mostly private fee paying types. And in any case, I wonder sometimes what is so specific about such places? Is it that the staff are all Christians? Clearly not - in many cases merely signed up very distant members of the CofE. But they get to have a daily act of worship! Oh yes .... and mostly sing traditonal hymns from the 1940's....ugh! So probably, the difference is not huge, except that you get to part with your money and feel that you are investing into your children's lives. That may salve your concsience of course.
So, to home school or not? Isn't this me just finding a set of doctrines to match what we want to do? Perhaps - as I said, we couldn't home school to save our lives.But we both have some very free thinking discussions with all our children along the lines of "it's not quite as black and white as that actually ..." We do so because we want our kids to think and decide for themselves, within the love of God. I think ...no I hope that they will one day thank us for that. Or is that just a hoped for dream!!
Okay, excuses done, here's some thoughts that have been on my mind for a while that I thought would be provocative for blogging on. We don't home school, and to be honest I don't think that Claire and I would feel that its the ever the right thing to do, given our Christian principles! That said, if we were missionaries overseas where there was no english speaking schools then we might, but its certainly not something that we would find easy. Some people home-school because they can - and choose to do so. Parents are trained teachers and maybe they feel they can do a better job than their local school. But some Christian parents choose to do so because they fear their children being infected by other religious traditions, secularism, and multi-culturalism. Taking the Old Testament principles of teaching your own children up in the law of Yahweh and ensuring that the principles of God are held dear to the heart and taught with a clarity and fundamentalism of there being no doubt or room to ponder, alongside teaching maths, english, science and history etc, this is often the style of many (but perhaps not all) home schoolers within the Christian setting. The advantages of this are all too obvious. All of this happens within the Christian Community - often Christian home schoolers will share skills across several families within that community. This is ironic and arguably where home-schooling ceases to be home-schooling and more akin to creating your own Christian school. The settings are safe, and the curriculum set and sealed. Creationism taught and assumed in subject areas. Common to all home-schooling - whether Christian or not is that children with specific gifting and skills areas can be focussed upon in a strong contrast to the more general teaching of a school, and of course, the teacher to student ration is exceptionally and desirably win-win!
The disadvantages however are more than obvious. The lack of connection with other children from all kinds of backgrounds and experiences, religious groupings and cultures, colours and creeds, would almost certaintly lead to an extremely insular life, in fact protected. Because of this, the freedom to think and decide for yourself - and be given licence to do so and not feel that this was wrong or shameful are generally not present in the home school setting. Interestingly enough, this is where my Christian baptistic thinking finds good soil. As Christians of a baptist flavour, we see in the scriptures the principle not to christen, but to baptise in believers baptism. Unpacking this, we choose not to say over a baby "we believe on your behalf", but that, growing up within the love of God and the love of parents, and of the Christian community, that child should decide for him or herself as to whether they should want to follow Jesus and become a Christian. When they do, only then does Believers Baptism take place. And that is not age dependent in any way. That means to say that our children need to be given the freedom to know and experience the love of God in regular Sunday worship and any other mid week setting, but that they also be fully open to the sights, smells and sounds (so to speak) of what is going on around them in a state school where their friends think and act differently. We think that giving them freedom to decide for themselves, is the biblical pattern, rather than it be forced upon them. Which creates the stronger more considered and throught through faith? I'lll leave you to decide that for yourself. But that is in essence why I/we don't home school, apart from the truth that we'd be rubbish at it too.
There is a middle ground to be pondered here though. Why then, does it feel right for some parents to ensure that their children go to a Christian school? Isn't that merely the half way compromise that is there for parents like us who can't home school to save our lives, but want the safety of the Christian culture and setting? Well certainly in the UK the Christian schools that provide that kind of setting are seemingly mostly private fee paying types. And in any case, I wonder sometimes what is so specific about such places? Is it that the staff are all Christians? Clearly not - in many cases merely signed up very distant members of the CofE. But they get to have a daily act of worship! Oh yes .... and mostly sing traditonal hymns from the 1940's....ugh! So probably, the difference is not huge, except that you get to part with your money and feel that you are investing into your children's lives. That may salve your concsience of course.
So, to home school or not? Isn't this me just finding a set of doctrines to match what we want to do? Perhaps - as I said, we couldn't home school to save our lives.But we both have some very free thinking discussions with all our children along the lines of "it's not quite as black and white as that actually ..." We do so because we want our kids to think and decide for themselves, within the love of God. I think ...no I hope that they will one day thank us for that. Or is that just a hoped for dream!!
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Flooding
"A weathered boat
once with sail and go-fast stripe,
at one time considered the latest
must-have model, now
cast adrift,
left to float with every tidal
ebb and flow.
Cut free by intentional sharp blade:
misunderstood; manipulated; misinterpreted,
allowed to twist and turn, to twist in the tidal
stream,
away from it's intended purpose of
holding, transporting, carrying.
Originally shaped for significance,
moulded and manufactured for a higher calling,
of service and serving,
now discarded, unwanted, bruised;
alive but dead,
rotted in places, scratched and
chaffed.
Floating until captured, retained, rescued or
sunk,
never to be remembered or held, or fulfilled
again."
once with sail and go-fast stripe,
at one time considered the latest
must-have model, now
cast adrift,
left to float with every tidal
ebb and flow.
Cut free by intentional sharp blade:
misunderstood; manipulated; misinterpreted,
allowed to twist and turn, to twist in the tidal
stream,
away from it's intended purpose of
holding, transporting, carrying.
Originally shaped for significance,
moulded and manufactured for a higher calling,
of service and serving,
now discarded, unwanted, bruised;
alive but dead,
rotted in places, scratched and
chaffed.
Floating until captured, retained, rescued or
sunk,
never to be remembered or held, or fulfilled
again."
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
April showers
Well, this week it's my vowed aim to get away from being too serious - probably. At least away from anything too controversial - probably.
I was with my wife and one of our kids at some NHS clinic thingy this week, and a test was given to our offspring and the person said to them "Don't worry, there are no right or wrong answers, everyone's different!" And it was one of those moments where I knew what she was saying re the particular task, but what she had said I just had to note down there and then. It was one of those sentences that seem to be the strap line of th3e age in which we are living - there are no right or wrong answers about life, and the answer you do give is still right, because hey, we're all different! It got me thinking - thats the problem isn't it: the post modern shift away from saying that there is no right or wrong, and its okay to be different. These are the values which now major in our culture in regard to faith and belief, philosophy, expression of self, behaviour, and yes in bringing up children. In fact in virtually everything. There are no longer absolutes being taught or stated. Not so of course within the Christian world!
This last week I came to the realisation that in the town in which I live, there are seemingly no longer any Police. Even the local police station is closed on various days, due to cuts. You never see any Police on the streets anymore, and even those funny peculiar PSO's (the gift of New Labour) have now been been cut back, due to financial realities. Now, minor crime and street dis-order is returning to our towns. We have been given a new "low priority number" 101, which we can now phone if we're concerned. Whereas last year local Police were telling me to dial 999 regardless "to just log it" ....."for statistical purposes", now the new number puts me through to a switchboard in Portishead, I think. Actually, its bit amusing. If I dial 999 from my mobile in Somerset, i get put through to a police operator in Hampshire, who then expreses complete amazement about why this has happened, and "where is that then Sir?". So instead I dial 101 and get a nice recorded voice, which then goes into a waiting stack (I think it plays music) [what should they play?] (Gilbert and Sullivan - "A policeman's lot is not a nappy one [nappy one]). So I'm trying to report some street violence from some drunk young people who are jumping in front of cars, banging on local shops fronts, jumping on and off waiting buses and being fairly crude to everyone, and get told that my call has been given the highest priority possible. But as I explain to my daughter, there's unlikely to anyone on duty except one office has to cover a 50 to 70 mile radius. So, what's the point? And, why are we paying our taxes for local Police funding when there are none to be seen for miles. Ah, but there's CTV - don't get me started!
Finally, as a local school governor who takes his kids to school, I'm desperate to do anything to help. If I seen drains that need clearing of leaves, or leaves that need sweeping up, then surely I should do what any right minded person should do? Get a broom and sweep them up? But oh no! I have to have a risk assessment done! My local head teacher patiently explains to me, that the government hasn't actually done away with the all this litigation rubbish, and in fact I still need to be trained in how to clear up leaves, just in case!
I was with my wife and one of our kids at some NHS clinic thingy this week, and a test was given to our offspring and the person said to them "Don't worry, there are no right or wrong answers, everyone's different!" And it was one of those moments where I knew what she was saying re the particular task, but what she had said I just had to note down there and then. It was one of those sentences that seem to be the strap line of th3e age in which we are living - there are no right or wrong answers about life, and the answer you do give is still right, because hey, we're all different! It got me thinking - thats the problem isn't it: the post modern shift away from saying that there is no right or wrong, and its okay to be different. These are the values which now major in our culture in regard to faith and belief, philosophy, expression of self, behaviour, and yes in bringing up children. In fact in virtually everything. There are no longer absolutes being taught or stated. Not so of course within the Christian world!
This last week I came to the realisation that in the town in which I live, there are seemingly no longer any Police. Even the local police station is closed on various days, due to cuts. You never see any Police on the streets anymore, and even those funny peculiar PSO's (the gift of New Labour) have now been been cut back, due to financial realities. Now, minor crime and street dis-order is returning to our towns. We have been given a new "low priority number" 101, which we can now phone if we're concerned. Whereas last year local Police were telling me to dial 999 regardless "to just log it" ....."for statistical purposes", now the new number puts me through to a switchboard in Portishead, I think. Actually, its bit amusing. If I dial 999 from my mobile in Somerset, i get put through to a police operator in Hampshire, who then expreses complete amazement about why this has happened, and "where is that then Sir?". So instead I dial 101 and get a nice recorded voice, which then goes into a waiting stack (I think it plays music) [what should they play?] (Gilbert and Sullivan - "A policeman's lot is not a nappy one [nappy one]). So I'm trying to report some street violence from some drunk young people who are jumping in front of cars, banging on local shops fronts, jumping on and off waiting buses and being fairly crude to everyone, and get told that my call has been given the highest priority possible. But as I explain to my daughter, there's unlikely to anyone on duty except one office has to cover a 50 to 70 mile radius. So, what's the point? And, why are we paying our taxes for local Police funding when there are none to be seen for miles. Ah, but there's CTV - don't get me started!
Finally, as a local school governor who takes his kids to school, I'm desperate to do anything to help. If I seen drains that need clearing of leaves, or leaves that need sweeping up, then surely I should do what any right minded person should do? Get a broom and sweep them up? But oh no! I have to have a risk assessment done! My local head teacher patiently explains to me, that the government hasn't actually done away with the all this litigation rubbish, and in fact I still need to be trained in how to clear up leaves, just in case!
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
So what has the Charismatic movement ever done for us?
Or ....as Monty Python put "...What have the Romans ever done for us?" And in fact, if you've ever watched that side splitting piece of film sequence from Python, it goes on in this very funny away of "...ok, ok, apart from the plumbing and the roads, and the heating, and the medicine ....what have they done for us? Answer Nothing!. Oh, okay then!"
Sorry, but that had to be done. More importantly, lest we "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (I've never actually been sure if this is technically possible), it would be far too easy to be dismissive then of the charismatic movement (if it is indeed a movement) and suggest that "they" have given us nothing, which would be simply wrong.
By the way, thanks for all the feedback. I hope that what I blogged on last week doesn't make this blog too serious!!
Anyway, I think the charismatic movement has given us a few things worthy of mention:
1. It has reminded us that we live and minister now in "the age of the Spirit." And in my book that means that previously the church had up until the beginings of the charismatic movement in the 1970's largely forgotten the 3rd person of the Trinity. And if theologically we affirm and hold to a Trinitarian foundation then he is there for all to tap into and use. For as any decent theological education will remind us, "one in three persons and yet distinctive." Yes, the Spirit - "he" is readily available for us to minister - him through us, and us to minister him to others.
We can pray to and in/through the Spirit as much as we do with the Father and the Son. We can invite the Spirit to move, or to put it in another way, we can welcome him. What Wimber, Pytches, Subritzky and others have shown us is that we should be quite at home with inviting the Spirit to come and to move amongst us. They seem to have reminded us too that he often comes in waves. As such, we should be aware that it is possible to block or quench (sin against?) the Spirit's work.
Fascinatingly, it was the Quakers with their famous quiet "waiting on the Spirit" to say something that models this for us. They became well known for their "quaking" or shaking in the Spirit as this did this.
Hopefully these days, we are able to hold to a Trinitarian balance in ministry - ie, it's all of them: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But I just want to throw up a tiny question: have charismatics now over emphasised The Spirit at the expense of the Father and the Son? I ask that, because the freedom of the Spirit that the Corinthian church were criticised for by their Apostle, and which they argued gave them license to be free of him and in many cases do what they want, in some cases allowed them (the Gnostics) to argue that they were now superior to him and even to the Gospel. And I what I see in some places today is Charismatics doing exactly that, which is creating a kind of a new gospel (small g) that is not the gospel of grace and mercy. And the worst of it that in some cases that gospel seems to be turning into a gospel of works, not grace.
I heard it used the other day in terms of prayer, that God now expected more out of us in prayer, and unless we did he somehow wouldn't hear us. Huh! where did that come from in scripture?
2. It has reminded us to expect God - in the Spirit, to do something when ever we gather. And that on the whole has got to be a good thing. That when we gather in worship that it's not simply to go through a series of points on an agenda and be finished by the time the number 11 bus comes by. Rather to expect God to speak to us or move in a tangible way.
This applies for those who set out for church, as they leave their homes to expect the living God to be present, as well as for those who prepare and lead such occasions.
And that's good for us. Lets expect this where perhaps once we didn't.
But, lets not panic or have a downer if we don't seemingly feel that "God was in the house" that morning. Do our feelings suggest he wasn't? And nor should we as a result of any panic somehow feel that we then need to hastily manufacture the experience of the Spirit (can you anyway? No!) which always, always come us somehow feels fraudulent in feel and nature anyway.
And that's where we need to hold breadth in our worship. As much at home with the deep words of liturgy that bring wonder and awe and take our spirits when they are wounded and down on new journeys of the Spirit to places of grace, as with the upbeat, jubilant praise of the prophetic. I cringe ....no i get angry when so new churches roll into town and label such worship experiences as "traditional". As if somehow now they are past the traditional and have gone on to the super advanced mode!
And expecting the Spirit to move does not mean we thefore have no order of service, nor does it mean that we have to have a stringently tied down order of service, but there is balance in there somewhere! And, the Spirit of God is not about dis-order, chaos and lack of preparation.
3. It has reminded us, quite necessarily actually, that worship must have a joyful, and upbeat reality to it. That worship is about God; about his faithfullness and mercy, and power to heal and restore. That worship is as the book of Corinthians make clear a kind of body experience, not an isolated subjective set of choices of the visiting speaker for the day. That the organ is not God's annointed or chosen expression of music, and that he is an author of inifinte colours in the rainbow of worship. And the charismatic movement has given permission to a culture (the English Saxon one) that has been bound up in a "face one direction, behave, wear a suit and don't smile" kind of church behaviour.
4. It has reminded us of the New Testament basis of church function and operation, and God's giving of the gifts for that purpose. It has reminded us that a church goes forward together with those gifts in operation, as a body, not as a bunch of followers of a single human in which it traditonally deemed that everything must be done by or through.
5. It has genuinely brought the new wine of the Spirit into churches that essentially were dead, and or dying. It has started new churches, and new expressions of church, and new ministries that are not typically embedded within local church settings. It has released new people into ministry both here and overseas, who in all probability would never ever have considered themselves likely candidates.
So when all is said and done I thank the Holy Spirit for being gracious enought to visit us again, certainly in my life time. He continues to do so in every land, and in the most suprising of places. Some evern argue that he is more at work at times outside of the church than within!
If it is true - as most do agree, that we are essentially now in "post charismatic days" - whatever that means, then we should no less hunger and thirst for fresh waves of the Spirit of God.
But we do so with wisdom and growth in our hearts, seeking not to make mistakes from the past, and wanting most of all (and I passionately believe this) to be a missioning people that meet people in their struggles truthfully and honourably, and not presenting a Gospel and a God that makes you cringe, but gives you a overriding sense of reality in a broken and needy world!
Come Holy Spirit!
Sorry, but that had to be done. More importantly, lest we "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (I've never actually been sure if this is technically possible), it would be far too easy to be dismissive then of the charismatic movement (if it is indeed a movement) and suggest that "they" have given us nothing, which would be simply wrong.
By the way, thanks for all the feedback. I hope that what I blogged on last week doesn't make this blog too serious!!
Anyway, I think the charismatic movement has given us a few things worthy of mention:
1. It has reminded us that we live and minister now in "the age of the Spirit." And in my book that means that previously the church had up until the beginings of the charismatic movement in the 1970's largely forgotten the 3rd person of the Trinity. And if theologically we affirm and hold to a Trinitarian foundation then he is there for all to tap into and use. For as any decent theological education will remind us, "one in three persons and yet distinctive." Yes, the Spirit - "he" is readily available for us to minister - him through us, and us to minister him to others.
We can pray to and in/through the Spirit as much as we do with the Father and the Son. We can invite the Spirit to move, or to put it in another way, we can welcome him. What Wimber, Pytches, Subritzky and others have shown us is that we should be quite at home with inviting the Spirit to come and to move amongst us. They seem to have reminded us too that he often comes in waves. As such, we should be aware that it is possible to block or quench (sin against?) the Spirit's work.
Fascinatingly, it was the Quakers with their famous quiet "waiting on the Spirit" to say something that models this for us. They became well known for their "quaking" or shaking in the Spirit as this did this.
Hopefully these days, we are able to hold to a Trinitarian balance in ministry - ie, it's all of them: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But I just want to throw up a tiny question: have charismatics now over emphasised The Spirit at the expense of the Father and the Son? I ask that, because the freedom of the Spirit that the Corinthian church were criticised for by their Apostle, and which they argued gave them license to be free of him and in many cases do what they want, in some cases allowed them (the Gnostics) to argue that they were now superior to him and even to the Gospel. And I what I see in some places today is Charismatics doing exactly that, which is creating a kind of a new gospel (small g) that is not the gospel of grace and mercy. And the worst of it that in some cases that gospel seems to be turning into a gospel of works, not grace.
I heard it used the other day in terms of prayer, that God now expected more out of us in prayer, and unless we did he somehow wouldn't hear us. Huh! where did that come from in scripture?
2. It has reminded us to expect God - in the Spirit, to do something when ever we gather. And that on the whole has got to be a good thing. That when we gather in worship that it's not simply to go through a series of points on an agenda and be finished by the time the number 11 bus comes by. Rather to expect God to speak to us or move in a tangible way.
This applies for those who set out for church, as they leave their homes to expect the living God to be present, as well as for those who prepare and lead such occasions.
And that's good for us. Lets expect this where perhaps once we didn't.
But, lets not panic or have a downer if we don't seemingly feel that "God was in the house" that morning. Do our feelings suggest he wasn't? And nor should we as a result of any panic somehow feel that we then need to hastily manufacture the experience of the Spirit (can you anyway? No!) which always, always come us somehow feels fraudulent in feel and nature anyway.
And that's where we need to hold breadth in our worship. As much at home with the deep words of liturgy that bring wonder and awe and take our spirits when they are wounded and down on new journeys of the Spirit to places of grace, as with the upbeat, jubilant praise of the prophetic. I cringe ....no i get angry when so new churches roll into town and label such worship experiences as "traditional". As if somehow now they are past the traditional and have gone on to the super advanced mode!
And expecting the Spirit to move does not mean we thefore have no order of service, nor does it mean that we have to have a stringently tied down order of service, but there is balance in there somewhere! And, the Spirit of God is not about dis-order, chaos and lack of preparation.
3. It has reminded us, quite necessarily actually, that worship must have a joyful, and upbeat reality to it. That worship is about God; about his faithfullness and mercy, and power to heal and restore. That worship is as the book of Corinthians make clear a kind of body experience, not an isolated subjective set of choices of the visiting speaker for the day. That the organ is not God's annointed or chosen expression of music, and that he is an author of inifinte colours in the rainbow of worship. And the charismatic movement has given permission to a culture (the English Saxon one) that has been bound up in a "face one direction, behave, wear a suit and don't smile" kind of church behaviour.
4. It has reminded us of the New Testament basis of church function and operation, and God's giving of the gifts for that purpose. It has reminded us that a church goes forward together with those gifts in operation, as a body, not as a bunch of followers of a single human in which it traditonally deemed that everything must be done by or through.
5. It has genuinely brought the new wine of the Spirit into churches that essentially were dead, and or dying. It has started new churches, and new expressions of church, and new ministries that are not typically embedded within local church settings. It has released new people into ministry both here and overseas, who in all probability would never ever have considered themselves likely candidates.
So when all is said and done I thank the Holy Spirit for being gracious enought to visit us again, certainly in my life time. He continues to do so in every land, and in the most suprising of places. Some evern argue that he is more at work at times outside of the church than within!
If it is true - as most do agree, that we are essentially now in "post charismatic days" - whatever that means, then we should no less hunger and thirst for fresh waves of the Spirit of God.
But we do so with wisdom and growth in our hearts, seeking not to make mistakes from the past, and wanting most of all (and I passionately believe this) to be a missioning people that meet people in their struggles truthfully and honourably, and not presenting a Gospel and a God that makes you cringe, but gives you a overriding sense of reality in a broken and needy world!
Come Holy Spirit!
Friday, 13 April 2012
Why I'm a charismatic and why I'm not!
Before I dive in to this blog I need to say that this blog, along with other baptist folk, is now to be published on the new Baptist Times website. So I suppose I'd better behave myself from now on!? I had mixed emotions about the invitation. this blog has been and remains quite a personal publication. I wondered whether I make this one more middle of the road and then start a different more personal one. Och well!
The title of this week's blog is intentional. For a week now this strap line has been banging around inside my head. Actually, I don't like titles that we use (and abuse) in Christian circles; they seem to box people up or state - "they're one of those then!" Actually whereas once - in my youthful student days, I would have arrogantly used this description, I now prefer to use "Spirit filled Christian." And thats as much because I think it's a more accurate description biblilically, but also because I truly want to distance myself from what I see as the very worst of charismatic Christianity.
Please don't get me wrong. Over the years - and beginning as a teenager, I've been to the conferences and done the rounds. Starting first with John Wimber's visits to the UK, Bill Subritsky's tours, and of course what was initially called "The Toronto Blessing" and which became "The Times of Refreshing." And yes, in contrast to some, I felt benefit from the Toronto wave, going to refreshment meetings at Queen's Road Baptist in Wimbledon. I've been baptised in the Spirit, and firmly believe that the gifts of the Spirit are for today, and benefitted hugely from the Power Evangelism/Healing and Bishop David Pytches phases of teaching that came to the UK church. So that's my pedigree, and it remains my practice today. BUT ...there is something within me that wants to fully distance myself from what I call charismatic abuse or as others have called charismania! You see there are some who call themselves charismatic Christians who practice and declare stuff that I just don't want to be seen dead with!
Here is some of that "stuff":
1) The seeing demons everywhere approach. Got a head ache? Then it must be a demon! Cast it out! Got an attitude problem? Then it must be a demon! Cast it out! And so it goes on. And I know the journey that this mish-mash theology has come on because I know the practitioners and writers of it, but I don't see it in the bible! I remember one of those books "Pigs in the Parlour" that suggested exactly what I've outlined above. And this is dangerous stuff, and it can really screw up Christians and make the situation worse. I think of the Derek Prince books and the Ellel Grange camp as routed in Peter Horrobin's ministries. In the worst cases, some have needed therapy to escape from those who have tried to carry out exorcism because it has just been plainly wrong!
2) The declaring that "God has told me this" brigade, which don't get me wrong, I'm not against people expecting God to speak to them, which he does of course, and we should expect him to do so, but when we get this out of control where before long people are making crazy unaccountable statements of such an individualistic nature that life becomes dangerous and careful counsell and discipleship needs to be rapidly engaged.
3) The turning of the Gospel from being one of grace to one of effort where sometimes this becomes a first and second class Christians issue. This is the Gnostic trap whereby people think that they have reached a higher plane of somehow more advanced or more spirituality because they are closer to him, or more spiritual than others because of more experiences of the Holy Spirit. So it is sometimes said - God has raised the bar of effort required or you have to push more into God to experience this revelation of God. I heard this once where some Christians were trying to divide up types of Christian along the lines of "those of the flesh" and "those of the Spirit." In the end, this all seemingly turns in a new Gospel that humans have created, rather than the Gospel of grace.
4) The placing of God on an equal level to Satan and demons - this is the ancient false teaching of dualism re-invented, and this is worked out whereby some Christians feel a need to go round in fear of the devil and his minions. This is where we start to see the "pigs in the parlour" mentality return and spirits or demons, sometimes terrortorial, hanging around at every corner ready to jump out, or hovering over towns making it dark and difficult. What this does is reduce God down onto an equal level with the devil. We devalue God's sovereignty and power, and end up living in fear of the devil, rather than living life to the full in freedom, in the way that Christ intended. This denies the power of the cross, and suggests that God is not sovereignly in control. It is correctly rooted in an Ephesians 6 setting, but bears more to the story narrative of Frank Perretti's "This present darkness" than a healthy and balanced biblical view of evil. In the end, as Nigel Wright wrote in "The Satan Syndrome" we need to "disbelieve the devil" and treat him for what he is, which is defeated!
So, the life of the Spirit can be enjoyed to the full without the weight of the extras (isn't this what the Pharisees did?) that some Christians seem to want to apply and burden us with. In the end, we don't need to conjure up God with "statements into the heavenlies", or "exorcise ley lines" in fact all this extra stuff can actually detract us from doing the Gospel properly, from sharing it and getting amongst the ordinary people of our community in a credible and effective way, because we're too busy doing wierd things, and behaving like witch doctors on the side of a hill somewhere.
In the end, I want to get excited about God, be moving in the experience, truth, gifts, fruit and power of the Spirit, and to do so knowing that I don't need to conjure up God by an emotional expereince or by whipping myself into a frenzy, because in his grace God in Jesus Christ has promised to always be there! I will clap God when I feel the freedom to do so, and I certainly don't need to be told to.
So in the end, I'm that type of charismatic. In fact, lose that word. I'm a Spirit filled Christian!
The title of this week's blog is intentional. For a week now this strap line has been banging around inside my head. Actually, I don't like titles that we use (and abuse) in Christian circles; they seem to box people up or state - "they're one of those then!" Actually whereas once - in my youthful student days, I would have arrogantly used this description, I now prefer to use "Spirit filled Christian." And thats as much because I think it's a more accurate description biblilically, but also because I truly want to distance myself from what I see as the very worst of charismatic Christianity.
Please don't get me wrong. Over the years - and beginning as a teenager, I've been to the conferences and done the rounds. Starting first with John Wimber's visits to the UK, Bill Subritsky's tours, and of course what was initially called "The Toronto Blessing" and which became "The Times of Refreshing." And yes, in contrast to some, I felt benefit from the Toronto wave, going to refreshment meetings at Queen's Road Baptist in Wimbledon. I've been baptised in the Spirit, and firmly believe that the gifts of the Spirit are for today, and benefitted hugely from the Power Evangelism/Healing and Bishop David Pytches phases of teaching that came to the UK church. So that's my pedigree, and it remains my practice today. BUT ...there is something within me that wants to fully distance myself from what I call charismatic abuse or as others have called charismania! You see there are some who call themselves charismatic Christians who practice and declare stuff that I just don't want to be seen dead with!
Here is some of that "stuff":
1) The seeing demons everywhere approach. Got a head ache? Then it must be a demon! Cast it out! Got an attitude problem? Then it must be a demon! Cast it out! And so it goes on. And I know the journey that this mish-mash theology has come on because I know the practitioners and writers of it, but I don't see it in the bible! I remember one of those books "Pigs in the Parlour" that suggested exactly what I've outlined above. And this is dangerous stuff, and it can really screw up Christians and make the situation worse. I think of the Derek Prince books and the Ellel Grange camp as routed in Peter Horrobin's ministries. In the worst cases, some have needed therapy to escape from those who have tried to carry out exorcism because it has just been plainly wrong!
2) The declaring that "God has told me this" brigade, which don't get me wrong, I'm not against people expecting God to speak to them, which he does of course, and we should expect him to do so, but when we get this out of control where before long people are making crazy unaccountable statements of such an individualistic nature that life becomes dangerous and careful counsell and discipleship needs to be rapidly engaged.
3) The turning of the Gospel from being one of grace to one of effort where sometimes this becomes a first and second class Christians issue. This is the Gnostic trap whereby people think that they have reached a higher plane of somehow more advanced or more spirituality because they are closer to him, or more spiritual than others because of more experiences of the Holy Spirit. So it is sometimes said - God has raised the bar of effort required or you have to push more into God to experience this revelation of God. I heard this once where some Christians were trying to divide up types of Christian along the lines of "those of the flesh" and "those of the Spirit." In the end, this all seemingly turns in a new Gospel that humans have created, rather than the Gospel of grace.
4) The placing of God on an equal level to Satan and demons - this is the ancient false teaching of dualism re-invented, and this is worked out whereby some Christians feel a need to go round in fear of the devil and his minions. This is where we start to see the "pigs in the parlour" mentality return and spirits or demons, sometimes terrortorial, hanging around at every corner ready to jump out, or hovering over towns making it dark and difficult. What this does is reduce God down onto an equal level with the devil. We devalue God's sovereignty and power, and end up living in fear of the devil, rather than living life to the full in freedom, in the way that Christ intended. This denies the power of the cross, and suggests that God is not sovereignly in control. It is correctly rooted in an Ephesians 6 setting, but bears more to the story narrative of Frank Perretti's "This present darkness" than a healthy and balanced biblical view of evil. In the end, as Nigel Wright wrote in "The Satan Syndrome" we need to "disbelieve the devil" and treat him for what he is, which is defeated!
So, the life of the Spirit can be enjoyed to the full without the weight of the extras (isn't this what the Pharisees did?) that some Christians seem to want to apply and burden us with. In the end, we don't need to conjure up God with "statements into the heavenlies", or "exorcise ley lines" in fact all this extra stuff can actually detract us from doing the Gospel properly, from sharing it and getting amongst the ordinary people of our community in a credible and effective way, because we're too busy doing wierd things, and behaving like witch doctors on the side of a hill somewhere.
In the end, I want to get excited about God, be moving in the experience, truth, gifts, fruit and power of the Spirit, and to do so knowing that I don't need to conjure up God by an emotional expereince or by whipping myself into a frenzy, because in his grace God in Jesus Christ has promised to always be there! I will clap God when I feel the freedom to do so, and I certainly don't need to be told to.
So in the end, I'm that type of charismatic. In fact, lose that word. I'm a Spirit filled Christian!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)