Thinking about it, 'Faithful but deceived' may be a better title for a thread about 'spiritual deception' - an issue broader than whether we have the 'right' interpretation /translation of scripture to hand or not.
Getting both/and, I find the Bible to be both inspired and problematic. Who doesn’t? I don’t rationalise the problematic.
That's a good policy. Perhaps "deluded" more than deceived. One can suffer from invincible ignorance in good faith. But once one is enlightened, then one must assume responsibility.
And there have been a lot of people in the faith who have been ignorant of this or that, even as they have also passed on a lot of teachings in good faith.
Getting both/and, I find the Bible to be both inspired and problematic. Who doesn’t? I don’t rationalise the problematic.
What are you meaning by "problematic" here?
I have my own meaning for that when it comes to the Bible (eg. Today's Sermon thread in Eccles) but I don't want to import that if we're talking about something completely different.
There are many texts which inspire me. I suppose a precis would be that they elevate and open my heart and mind.
Problematic? How long have you got? A few dot points.
1. Different and contrasting pictures of God.
2. A mixture of clarity and obscurity.
3. Myths and legends presented as history.
4. Confused translations of original texts.
Far from being perspicuous, as the early Protestants claimed, hard work is required to comprehend both meaning and intention.
There are many texts which inspire me. I suppose a precis would be that they elevate and open my heart and mind.
Problematic? How long have you got? A few dot points.
1. Different and contrasting pictures of God.
2. A mixture of clarity and obscurity.
3. Myths and legends presented as history.
4. Confused translations of original texts.
Far from being perspicuous, as the early Protestants claimed, hard work is required to comprehend both meaning and intention.
The last bit doesn't make sense to me. I don't quite get why that hard work has to be done over and again by each reader.
Especially when different readers come up with very different and conflicting conclusions. It leaves me with very little confidence that any of them are right, and even less that anything I come up with, no matter how much work I put into it, will be any better.
I would add that the bits I find problematic are often the most painfully simple, direct and easy to interpret.
I could be simplistic and say that we have the Fathers and Holy Tradition to do the heavy-lifting for us ...
But no, we still have to wield shovel and pick.
It's often said that the Gospel is simple enough that a child can understand it and complex enough to baffle the most learned professors. Hence the well-known story of Karl Barth responding to a question about what he'd learned from all his years of theological study in the words of the children's hymn, 'Jesus loves me, this I know/For the Bible tells me so ...'
In Big T Tradition it's not just about the Bible of course, although it is of primary importance. Not that this makes things any easier. Some Patristic passages and some of the hagiographies of the Saints are just as 'problematic' as anything we might encounter in scripture. Not that I take an 'inerrancy' approach to the Fathers or the various lives of the Saints.
So, sorry @KarlLB I can't help you there ... but I do trust the overall message if you like - as per Karl Barth coming at these things from another tradition and somewhat different direction.
I do wonder if, at least in some cases, that’s our problem rather than the text’s problem. By that, I mean we naturally tend to apply modern categories expectations to those categories, and so we see “myths and legends” “presented” as “history.” But the original audience, I think, was more likely to understand the literary genres being employed.
I think any history becomes mythology eventually. Ours are no exception. And who knows how Abraham Lincoln will be remembered in 1000 years?
I think there is always some play in interpretation, because religion is personal and - within a range of "Love God, Love your Neighbor as Yourself," there must be freedom for people to work the text to their own private use. Maybe it's kind of like how I've understood that many people marry but each particular marriage must follow its own peculiar rules. We all relate to each other but each relationship exists in its own situation in timespace. And that's fine, as long as there's minimal harm to each other. Hence, the Shema.
I'm pretty knowledgeable, but I do think that knowledge is often overrated.
But I’d say even this simple statement appears to assume meanings of “history” and “mythology” that might not be readily recognizable or relatable to the biblical authors or original audiences.
It's almost like "Who knows, eh?" is the only really supportable theology.
There’s a difference between knowing about and knowing. There is an experiential element to faith which by its very nature cannot be contained within a book, however much that book may both illuminate and/or confuse.
It's almost like "Who knows, eh?" is the only really supportable theology.
There’s a difference between knowing about and knowing. There is an experiential element to faith which by its very nature cannot be contained within a book, however much that book may both illuminate and/or confuse.
But I’d say even this simple statement appears to assume meanings of “history” and “mythology” that might not be readily recognizable or relatable to the biblical authors or original audiences.
Sure but as I've mentioned here before, religious experience in and of itself is no guarantor and as eminent an apologist as Ronald Knox claimed never to have had a 'religious experience' in his life.
We are dealing with issues of faith, of course and we can none of us be absolutely certain. That doesn't mean that it all boils down to, 'Who knows, eh?' but neither should it lead to a kind of brittle and unyielding certainty that leaves no room for doubt.
I'm not downplaying the 'affective' or experiential aspect, people do have religious experiences. Yet sometimes the 'heavens are as brass.'
I've met people who've seen some pretty weird things, including an Anglican who saw 'myrrh-streaming icons' in an Orthodox context and who remains at a loss to explain what it was they saw but know that they definitely saw it. That doesn't 'prove' anything of course.
It would be lovely to be 100% certain about absolutely everything - or would it? Faith wouldn't be faith if everything was all battened down and done and dusted with absolute certainty.
But I’d say even this simple statement appears to assume meanings of “history” and “mythology” that might not be readily recognizable or relatable to the biblical authors or original audiences.
I would agree. These are modern constructions.
To which we can add that “myth” and “mythology” have a multiple meanings in modern usage, so just referring to “mythology” or “myth” without being clear as to what is meant can add to confusion.
And when it comes to “history,” Christians often lose sight that (I and II) Samuel and (I and II) Kings are categorized in the Tanakh as part of the Prophets, not as Writings, historical or otherwise. Should that affect the degree to which we view those books as reporting “history”?
Including Julian of Norwich, who featured in our evening prayer this evening.
God, of your goodness, give me yourself; you are enough for me, and anything less that I could ask for would not do you full honour. And if I ask anything that is less, I shall always lack something, but in you alone I have everything
(Julian of Norwich
“Revelations of Divine Love”)
Any revelation of Divine Love is by its very nature fragile, personal, not necessarily enduring.
Geoffrey Hill, the poet, IIRC once responded when he was asked if his poems expressed religious experiences, that they expressed not having religious experiences which he believed was the more common condition. George Herbert's poetry also seems to be to be not expressing any specifically religious experience - when Jesus talks to him in his poems I don't believe he's describing events literally.
But I’d say even this simple statement appears to assume meanings of “history” and “mythology” that might not be readily recognizable or relatable to the biblical authors or original audiences.
I would agree. These are modern constructions.
To which we can add that “myth” and “mythology” have a multiple meanings in modern usage, so just referring to “mythology” or “myth” without being clear as to what is meant can add to confusion.
And when it comes to “history,” Christians often lose sight that (I and II) Samuel and (I and II) Kings are categorized in the Tanakh as part of the Prophets, not as Writings, historical or otherwise. Should that affect the degree to which we view those books as reporting “history”?
I think, in the OT, there's a grey zone between historical and prophetic writing, and nothing is pure. Yes, that should.
Geoffrey Hill, the poet, IIRC once responded when he was asked if his poems expressed religious experiences, that they expressed not having religious experiences which he believed was the more common condition. George Herbert's poetry also seems to be to be not expressing any specifically religious experience - when Jesus talks to him in his poems I don't believe he's describing events literally.
The trouble in such cases is... well, what's an event? A literal event, as opposed to an... experience?
There are experiences in my own life (as in so many) where I hesitate to put a category on them. And yet, they carry or convey statements about reality that were later shown to be true in the cold light of ordinary morning.
On the Herbert thing, I'm reminded of a performance of King Lear I once saw in Stratford. Gloster's eyes were very bloodily put out just before the interval.
As the lights went on an old lady in front of me turned to her friend and observed, 'As if he'd be able to say all that with his eyes gouged out!'
To which her friend responded, 'Oh, I don't know, they were a lot tougher in those days ...'
How literal can people get?
Herbert may not have 'literally' heard Christ speak but as Baxter said of his poetry, you can't read it without gaining the impression that Herbert definitely believed in God - there was 'heart-work' and not just 'head-work' there.
On the Herbert thing, I'm reminded of a performance of King Lear I once saw in Stratford. Gloster's eyes were very bloodily put out just before the interval.
As the lights went on an old lady in front of me turned to her friend and observed, 'As if he'd be able to say all that with his eyes gouged out!'
To which her friend responded, 'Oh, I don't know, they were a lot tougher in those days ...'
How literal can people get?
Herbert may not have 'literally' heard Christ speak but as Baxter said of his poetry, you can't read it without gaining the impression that Herbert definitely believed in God - there was 'heart-work' and not just 'head-work' there.
I can get the full quote if anyone wants it.
That exchange sounds exactly like the one I might have tongue in cheek with a companion in such a situation.
I feel like one of my long term spiritual projects has been growing up in one of those "milquetoast mainline churches" and finding my own passionate intensity. Because the church I grew up in did most things right, but they were so quiet about it that nobody noticed. And then the evangelicals were loudly rucking everything up and screaming that they were the "Real Christians" while we were the tepid ones lambasted in Revelation.
I really feel this because on one hand I was tempted to walk out of the second to last sermon I heard at that church when we visited. On the other hand, those people really really help people. They care, they work, they serve, they love, they preach. I sure as shit can't I say do better!
Those seem like awfully "Christian" things to do. Would that more churches were so oriented.
I feel like one of my long term spiritual projects has been growing up in one of those "milquetoast mainline churches" and finding my own passionate intensity. Because the church I grew up in did most things right, but they were so quiet about it that nobody noticed. And then the evangelicals were loudly rucking everything up and screaming that they were the "Real Christians" while we were the tepid ones lambasted in Revelation.
I really feel this because on one hand I was tempted to walk out of the second to last sermon I heard at that church when we visited. On the other hand, those people really really help people. They care, they work, they serve, they love, they preach. I sure as shit can't I say do better!
Those seem like awfully "Christian" things to do. Would that more churches were so oriented.
It's one of the ironies of Christianity that some of the most positively socially active churches have some of the most - erm - offputting theologies, at least over here.
How can people who believe that stuff possibly behave well?
IME most people understand the bit about loving your neighbour and a lot just get on with that. Which is a good thing.
The Samaritan parable suggests that good neighbour practice is a lot more important than theological proclamations, by individuals or groups.
This is the conundrum. I know some churches around here that are wonderful in their practical outreach but I wouldn't want to spend two hours there on a Sunday hearing how all my deceased non-Christian family are in Hell.
Not that they'd say that explicitly of course. It's simply implicit in their exclusivist soteriology.
George Herbert's poetry also seems to be to be not expressing any specifically religious experience - when Jesus talks to him in his poems I don't believe he's describing events literally.
The trouble in such cases is... well, what's an event? A literal event, as opposed to an... experience?
Yes - I certainly think Herbert was talking about something that happened that he recognised as providential. I just don't think it involved anything that a sceptic would have taken as having evidentiary value or any state of supernatural consciousness of the type that interested William James.
(As opposed to Vaughan and Traherne, who do seem to be describing states of supernatural consciousness in some of their writing.)
Possibly, although I think we have to be careful not to put too much weight on apparent 'transcendent' or 'altered states of consciousness'-type experiences when dealing with poetry and creative writing.
Wordsworth can sound mystical at times but he certainly wasn't some kind of New Age hippy-dippy type.
I'd agree though that there's a kind of very Anglican restraint about Herbert - which I find very attractive to be honest.
No. The problem is that those of us who have rarely if ever had such experiences can feel left out or lacking. (Even though one of the hallmarks in the literature of such genuine experience is that the recipient doesn't regard those who don't receive them as lacking.) That being the case it's encouraging to think about other people, often as moral or holy (*), in the same boat.
I appreciate that there's a risk of it coming over as sour grapes.
(*) I think most readers of Herbert would say that as far as we can tell judging from his work he was a good and holy person.
On the Herbert thing, I'm reminded of a performance of King Lear I once saw in Stratford. Gloster's eyes were very bloodily put out just before the interval.
As the lights went on an old lady in front of me turned to her friend and observed, 'As if he'd be able to say all that with his eyes gouged out!'
To which her friend responded, 'Oh, I don't know, they were a lot tougher in those days ...'
How literal can people get?
Herbert may not have 'literally' heard Christ speak but as Baxter said of his poetry, you can't read it without gaining the impression that Herbert definitely believed in God - there was 'heart-work' and not just 'head-work' there.
I can get the full quote if anyone wants it.
That exchange sounds exactly like the one I might have tongue in cheek with a companion in such a situation.
Yes, but at least you'd be saying it tongue in cheek.
No. The problem is that those of us who have rarely if ever had such experiences can feel left out or lacking. (Even though one of the hallmarks in the literature of such genuine experience is that the recipient doesn't regard those who don't receive them as lacking.) That being the case it's encouraging to think about other people, often as moral or holy (*), in the same boat.
I appreciate that there's a risk of it coming over as sour grapes.
(*) I think most readers of Herbert would say that as far as we can tell judging from his work he was a good and holy person.
Who was it who wrote the book The Varieties of Religious Experience?
I don't think that everyone who testifies to some kind of religious experience would claim that there was some kind of 'altered state' involved.
I've been involved in some highly charismatic stuff and it wasn't as if we all went into a trance or something.
I would suggest that there can be a degree of 'self-hypnosis' in such settings and indeed subconsciously 'learned behaviour' than can appear more spontaneous than it actually is.
That said, I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of people having mystical or transcendental experiences - the 'hesychasts' and so on - and in all strands of Christianity too - and indeed beyond.
Most people who've had such experiences don't go round 'parading' them but accept them nevertheless - which is only right and proper.
The last thing they'd do is go round making other people feel inferior because they hadn't experienced the same thing.
The problems start when we make such experiences 'normative' or mandatory and try to induce them.
I don't see anyone trying to do that here.
As for Herbert, yes and amen! He comes across as the real deal. I've often said that 'holy Mr Herbert' had more to do with my conversion than the earnest young evangelicals I met at university.
But each played their part.
He could be short-tempered and petulant apparently, perhaps as a result of his frequent illnesses. He wasn't a well man.
As for Herbert, yes and amen! He comes across as the real deal.
Thanks, you sent me off on an interesting half hour of reading. We still sing 'Let all the world in every corner sing' and (recently) 'King of glory, king of peace' - I had not made the connection to Herbert, who I know very little about. We have a Nigerian visiting preacher who always picks (good) old hymns (and who, idiosyncratically, always uses Belfast as an example of somewhere really odd to travel or to be sent, where I might idiomatically use (say) Timbuktu. Maybe he had a far-out experience on a ferry). I look forward to his visits.
No. The problem is that those of us who have rarely if ever had such experiences can feel left out or lacking. (Even though one of the hallmarks in the literature of such genuine experience is that the recipient doesn't regard those who don't receive them as lacking.) That being the case it's encouraging to think about other people, often as moral or holy (*), in the same boat.
I appreciate that there's a risk of it coming over as sour grapes.
(*) I think most readers of Herbert would say that as far as we can tell judging from his work he was a good and holy person.
This is a really helpful and honest response! I hadn't come across the bit about the hallmark--but then, I haven't come across the literature you mention, either. What do you recommend as useful?
That said, I agree with the idea. I would totally expect that, if anyone got arrogant about such experiences, God would take them away so fast their heads would spin.
Personally, I suspect such experiences are related to the gifts of the Spirit*--in which case, I'd not expect them to be super widespread in the Church at large. I mean, as Paul says,
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Cor. 12)
He clearly expects us to answer "No" to all those questions, and I think the same would be true of visions, dreams and similar gifts. Which means that those who do not have such experiences would be the majority of Christians, and that "no experiences" would be the norm.
If I'm right about them being gifts of the Spirit, that also implies that anyone who has them is not particularly virtuous, holy or otherwise extraordinary--because the Spirit gives his gifts strategically, for the good of the church at large, and not because someone has "merited" it. So personal morality and holiness are basically un-coupled from the question of whether one has experiences like this (except for the extremely low bar of "If anyone experiencing such a gift falls into major sin (such as looking down on fellow Christians), he/she can expect the Spirit to withdraw said gift." Because God has an interest in keeping us from destroying ourselves.
* Re the gifts of the Spirit--I'm a Lutheran of the old style, ordinary type. We believe in the Spirit and we acknowledge his gifts, but we don't talk much about them or make a public show of them. We're not charismatic or pentecostal, we're mostly boring.
* Re the gifts of the Spirit--I'm a Lutheran of the old style, ordinary type. We believe in the Spirit and we acknowledge his gifts, but we don't talk much about them or make a public show of them. We're not charismatic or pentecostal, we're mostly boring.
I've met plenty of dull and boring charismatics and penties!! (Some trainspotters pray in tongues 😉)
On the experience point the NT speaks often in quite lavish terms of things like "the love of God being shed abroad in out hearts" etc that some level of experience was presumably commonplace.
Is the 'love of God being spread abroad in our hearts,' necessarily accompanied by experiential vibes of some kind?
We can love one another and serve one another - and our fellow human brings beyond the community of faith - without necessarily having goose-bumpy feelings about it.
But yes, I agree there's definitely an 'experiential' element in the scriptures but the extent to how that equates with modern claims and expressions is an open question I think.
I think I'd respectfully disagree to some extent with @Lamb Chopped about God quickly dealing with anyone who acts arrogantly in such matters.
That's not been my experience. I've known a few arrogant Christian leaders and evangelists in my time and they've tended to continue unabated for some time.
I'm not saying that the Lord would never intervene directly but for whatever reason he seems to leave it up to us to deal with these things. I don't ever remember hearing about God 'smiting' an overbearing leader or arrogant pulpiteer mid-flow. His ways are not our ways.
If it were up to me they'd all be zapped or smitten with boils to teach them a lesson. So it's just as well it's not up to me.
God is personal and can be 'apprehended' through his divine 'energies' as we Orthodox put it, so that must mean that it's possible for people to have experiences of some form or other.
The issue then is how we interpret these experiences and how much weight we put on them.
I'm with @Lamb Chopped though on the issue of spiritual gifts not being 'merited' or an indication of particularly high levels of personal holiness.
That said, in the Ortho-sphere these things do tend to be associated with 'ascetics' - which doesn't mean that everything said by a bearded monk living in a cave on a Greek island necessarily carries weight.
I was referring specifically to the supernatural gift being withdrawn or curtailed. I was not speaking of the office which such a person might have gained.
Ok. But in the instances I'm thinking of these dudes continued to exercise apparent 'spiritual gifts.'
Samson carried off the gates of Gaza and then lay with a prostitute.
I know of an extreme instance where a deputy leader in a charismatic fellowship used to 'prophesy' and speak in tongues in their Sunday morning meetings before heading into his city's red-light district for kinky sex.
He was later found to have been abusing his own children.
Alright, the question might legimately be posed as to whether these 'spiritual gifts' were genuine in the first place. It's relatively easy to 'fake' prophesying and speaking in tongues.
I'm very sceptical of much that purports to be spiritual gifts on the contemporary charismatic scene, so much of the content appears jejune and clichéd. Heck, I know first hand how easy it is to induce an atmosphere where these 'gifts' apparently operate.
That doesn't mean I'd dismiss every instance or claim, and I'm not doubting the Lord's ability to protect his flock from harm. But it strikes me that he expects us to be vigilant, to use common sense and to introduce checks and balances.
For all I know he may regularly withdraw such things from those who use them irresponsibly, but I'd have no way of checking that out. What we can do, what any of us can do, is safeguard myself against spiritual deception and misleading influences by using whatever safeguards, checks and balances there are in place within our own Christian traditions.
That's harder to do in traditions which have dismantled or ignored checks and balances developed over previous generations.
Of course, no Christian tradition or Tradition is entirely immune to wishful thinking, super-spirituality and spiritual abuse, but we can take steps to minimise these things.
Who was it who wrote the book The Varieties of Religious Experience?
It was William James. A good read.
I don’t knock anyone’s subjective experiences. However, it’s entirely justified to be sceptical about those who claim a hot line to God.
I encourage folks to practise contemplative prayer. The biggest obstacle to awareness of the Divine is the normal level of activity in our minds, stimulated by our senses and reflection. Contemplative prayer is an old and helpful discipline.
I might think that people can be both. God blessed David, David's line led to Jesus. King David was also, objectively, a pretty terrible person. Being a King isn't good for the conscience, just ask Constantine.
The fact that someone receives spiritual gifts of one kind or another does not necessarily mean they're a moral or ethical person in other regards, and does not mean they are fit or trustworthy around vulnerable people.
And one might argue that "spiritual gifts" of some kind might be psychological phenomena or other more banal events. Hearing voices that feel divine isn't necessarily in itself a sign of God's presence. It could be demonic. It could be dissociation (I know someone personally who experiences that, it's an experience.) It could be delusional. It could be any number of things. Brains are complicated, messy things. Maybe we are all in God's presence as we're all imago dei to each other. Do we need "supernatural" signs when we have each other?
At any rate, I think you have to test the spirits, tangible and otherwise.
I wonder if it's a Christian notion that we assume that spiritually powerful people are by definition morally virtuous as well, or vice versa. Sometimes a person can have powerful "gifts" with ethical frailties. Someone can also be very morally upright and spiritually be the most boring person you've ever met. Maybe someone could be even change from one to the other over the course of one life.
Sure. The thing about spiritual gifts, of course, is that they are supposed to have a communal purpose, not personal aggrandisement.
Hence the checks and balances should operate on a corporate and collective level. More liturgical churches achieve that to some extent by 'scripting' things so there isn't much opportunity for anyone to show off or sound-off.
Not that there isn't a place for extemporary prayer, nor does a formally liturgical format completely obviate show-off behaviour.
Whatever 'style' of church we're involved with there has to be agreed protocols for dealing with this sort of thing.
I think we can't do that until we actually admit that "this sort of thing" happens, and has some value.
Throwing it out completely is what I usually hear suggested. God knows, people have done harm before now using so-called gifts. Others have become envious of certain gifts (and how in the world is that to be prevented? I don't know). But God took the risk of going ahead and giving gifts anyway. (It's just that nobody seems to covet the gift of administration...)
We don't have conciliar or even synodical authority in our discussion here, which means we can't really do more than yak about it and come up with scenarios for what we wish would happen. My personal wished-for vision is that anyone who came up with such gifts would be assigned a group of minders--discerners, maybe?--who would keep a careful eye on the person's behavior and any ministry they might be involved in, and if there were signs of trouble, they could intervene--and bump it to the council of elders if the problems weren't resolved. And on the list of things to beware of would be attitude problems--things like arrogance, showing off, and over-stepping.
If it were me, I'd gladly submit to such supervision.
I feel like one of my long term spiritual projects has been growing up in one of those "milquetoast mainline churches" and finding my own passionate intensity. Because the church I grew up in did most things right, but they were so quiet about it that nobody noticed. And then the evangelicals were loudly rucking everything up and screaming that they were the "Real Christians" while we were the tepid ones lambasted in Revelation.
I really feel this because on one hand I was tempted to walk out of the second to last sermon I heard at that church when we visited. On the other hand, those people really really help people. They care, they work, they serve, they love, they preach. I sure as shit can't I say do better!
Those seem like awfully "Christian" things to do. Would that more churches were so oriented.
It's one of the ironies of Christianity that some of the most positively socially active churches have some of the most - erm - offputting theologies, at least over here.
I’m curious about both aspects—what positive socially active stuff, and what offputting theologies, are conjoined in the UK? Because I see that here in the US but they may not be the same things.
Agreed on both counts. I'm not averse to the numinous. I've been experiencing it a lot lately, in some weird ways. I think sometimes that's one working definition of the word "weird." But I have a very strong sense that it's something one should handle very carefully.
And of course, the church does not usually have the resources to do these kinds of things appropriately, which means they are often done inappropriately, and harm can ensue.
There was a truly ridiculous example I read about a few days ago involving a professional Catholic exorcist who had proclaimed that UFO's were demonic. Scratch deeper and you find out that they were also aggrandizing themselves on social media and building a career on their reputation. The church demoted them to mere priest after that.
And one might argue that "spiritual gifts" of some kind might be psychological phenomena or other more banal events. Hearing voices that feel divine isn't necessarily in itself a sign of God's presence. It could be demonic. It could be dissociation (I know someone personally who experiences that, it's an experience.) It could be delusional. It could be any number of things. Brains are complicated, messy things. Maybe we are all in God's presence as we're all imago dei to each other. Do we need "supernatural" signs when we have each other?
I’d also add the genuinely paranormal/psychic/supernatural but neither miraculous nor diabolical. Someone might have a genuine sixth sense or glimpses of real things or the like without them being Divine prophecy nor delusion nor the work of evil spirits. One kind of danger might come from taking those paranormal experiences as Divine, and therefore infallible/prophetic, rather than just “something weird that is often but not always 100% accurate, and isn’t always deeply important.” When one’s worldview doesn’t allow for “wiggle room” of that nature, I think it can lead to delusions of grandeur and serious spiritual dangers. I’ve sometimes wondered about famous people who claim to have, and may really have had, unusual experiences, attributed them to God directly, and then become scary megachurch/televangelist people which wound up doing a lot of harm before their inevitable catastrophic fall. And of course one can have a combination of things, too. As well, something unusual can be true, but someone can still take it too far and even become crazy over it.
I hadn't come across the bit about the hallmark--but then, I haven't come across the literature you mention, either. What do you recommend as useful?
It was a long time ago, and I can't remember the titles. It was theologians talking about mystics, as in contemplative prayer, such as Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross. Rowan Williams' book the Wound of Knowledge may have been one of them - he does discuss Teresa and John in it, among others, but I don't think mystical experience was his focus.
Comments
I may start one ...
That's a good policy. Perhaps "deluded" more than deceived. One can suffer from invincible ignorance in good faith. But once one is enlightened, then one must assume responsibility.
And there have been a lot of people in the faith who have been ignorant of this or that, even as they have also passed on a lot of teachings in good faith.
What are you meaning by "problematic" here?
I have my own meaning for that when it comes to the Bible (eg. Today's Sermon thread in Eccles) but I don't want to import that if we're talking about something completely different.
What do you mean, "I find the Bible inspired?"
Problematic? How long have you got? A few dot points.
1. Different and contrasting pictures of God.
2. A mixture of clarity and obscurity.
3. Myths and legends presented as history.
4. Confused translations of original texts.
Far from being perspicuous, as the early Protestants claimed, hard work is required to comprehend both meaning and intention.
The last bit doesn't make sense to me. I don't quite get why that hard work has to be done over and again by each reader.
Especially when different readers come up with very different and conflicting conclusions. It leaves me with very little confidence that any of them are right, and even less that anything I come up with, no matter how much work I put into it, will be any better.
I would add that the bits I find problematic are often the most painfully simple, direct and easy to interpret.
I could be simplistic and say that we have the Fathers and Holy Tradition to do the heavy-lifting for us ...
But no, we still have to wield shovel and pick.
It's often said that the Gospel is simple enough that a child can understand it and complex enough to baffle the most learned professors. Hence the well-known story of Karl Barth responding to a question about what he'd learned from all his years of theological study in the words of the children's hymn, 'Jesus loves me, this I know/For the Bible tells me so ...'
In Big T Tradition it's not just about the Bible of course, although it is of primary importance. Not that this makes things any easier. Some Patristic passages and some of the hagiographies of the Saints are just as 'problematic' as anything we might encounter in scripture. Not that I take an 'inerrancy' approach to the Fathers or the various lives of the Saints.
So, sorry @KarlLB I can't help you there ... but I do trust the overall message if you like - as per Karl Barth coming at these things from another tradition and somewhat different direction.
You illustrate the problematic issue very well!
It's almost like "Who knows, eh?" is the only really supportable theology.
I think there is always some play in interpretation, because religion is personal and - within a range of "Love God, Love your Neighbor as Yourself," there must be freedom for people to work the text to their own private use. Maybe it's kind of like how I've understood that many people marry but each particular marriage must follow its own peculiar rules. We all relate to each other but each relationship exists in its own situation in timespace. And that's fine, as long as there's minimal harm to each other. Hence, the Shema.
I'm pretty knowledgeable, but I do think that knowledge is often overrated.
There’s a difference between knowing about and knowing. There is an experiential element to faith which by its very nature cannot be contained within a book, however much that book may both illuminate and/or confuse.
So they say, so they say.
I would agree. These are modern constructions.
We are dealing with issues of faith, of course and we can none of us be absolutely certain. That doesn't mean that it all boils down to, 'Who knows, eh?' but neither should it lead to a kind of brittle and unyielding certainty that leaves no room for doubt.
I'm not downplaying the 'affective' or experiential aspect, people do have religious experiences. Yet sometimes the 'heavens are as brass.'
I've met people who've seen some pretty weird things, including an Anglican who saw 'myrrh-streaming icons' in an Orthodox context and who remains at a loss to explain what it was they saw but know that they definitely saw it. That doesn't 'prove' anything of course.
It would be lovely to be 100% certain about absolutely everything - or would it? Faith wouldn't be faith if everything was all battened down and done and dusted with absolute certainty.
And when it comes to “history,” Christians often lose sight that (I and II) Samuel and (I and II) Kings are categorized in the Tanakh as part of the Prophets, not as Writings, historical or otherwise. Should that affect the degree to which we view those books as reporting “history”?
Just one of a great cloud of witnesses.
Including Julian of Norwich, who featured in our evening prayer this evening.
(Julian of Norwich
“Revelations of Divine Love”)
Any revelation of Divine Love is by its very nature fragile, personal, not necessarily enduring.
But precious, none the less.
I think, in the OT, there's a grey zone between historical and prophetic writing, and nothing is pure. Yes, that should.
The trouble in such cases is... well, what's an event? A literal event, as opposed to an... experience?
There are experiences in my own life (as in so many) where I hesitate to put a category on them. And yet, they carry or convey statements about reality that were later shown to be true in the cold light of ordinary morning.
I suppose we do the best we can.
As the lights went on an old lady in front of me turned to her friend and observed, 'As if he'd be able to say all that with his eyes gouged out!'
To which her friend responded, 'Oh, I don't know, they were a lot tougher in those days ...'
How literal can people get?
Herbert may not have 'literally' heard Christ speak but as Baxter said of his poetry, you can't read it without gaining the impression that Herbert definitely believed in God - there was 'heart-work' and not just 'head-work' there.
I can get the full quote if anyone wants it.
That exchange sounds exactly like the one I might have tongue in cheek with a companion in such a situation.
Those seem like awfully "Christian" things to do. Would that more churches were so oriented.
It's one of the ironies of Christianity that some of the most positively socially active churches have some of the most - erm - offputting theologies, at least over here.
IME most people understand the bit about loving your neighbour and a lot just get on with that. Which is a good thing.
The Samaritan parable suggests that good neighbour practice is a lot more important than theological proclamations, by individuals or groups.
This is the conundrum. I know some churches around here that are wonderful in their practical outreach but I wouldn't want to spend two hours there on a Sunday hearing how all my deceased non-Christian family are in Hell.
Not that they'd say that explicitly of course. It's simply implicit in their exclusivist soteriology.
(As opposed to Vaughan and Traherne, who do seem to be describing states of supernatural consciousness in some of their writing.)
Wordsworth can sound mystical at times but he certainly wasn't some kind of New Age hippy-dippy type.
I'd agree though that there's a kind of very Anglican restraint about Herbert - which I find very attractive to be honest.
I mean just that--to have them, not to force them on others or to build a theology on them and force that on others.
I appreciate that there's a risk of it coming over as sour grapes.
(*) I think most readers of Herbert would say that as far as we can tell judging from his work he was a good and holy person.
Yes, but at least you'd be saying it tongue in cheek.
Who was it who wrote the book The Varieties of Religious Experience?
I don't think that everyone who testifies to some kind of religious experience would claim that there was some kind of 'altered state' involved.
I've been involved in some highly charismatic stuff and it wasn't as if we all went into a trance or something.
I would suggest that there can be a degree of 'self-hypnosis' in such settings and indeed subconsciously 'learned behaviour' than can appear more spontaneous than it actually is.
That said, I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of people having mystical or transcendental experiences - the 'hesychasts' and so on - and in all strands of Christianity too - and indeed beyond.
Most people who've had such experiences don't go round 'parading' them but accept them nevertheless - which is only right and proper.
The last thing they'd do is go round making other people feel inferior because they hadn't experienced the same thing.
The problems start when we make such experiences 'normative' or mandatory and try to induce them.
I don't see anyone trying to do that here.
As for Herbert, yes and amen! He comes across as the real deal. I've often said that 'holy Mr Herbert' had more to do with my conversion than the earnest young evangelicals I met at university.
But each played their part.
He could be short-tempered and petulant apparently, perhaps as a result of his frequent illnesses. He wasn't a well man.
But we can forgive him that I think.
Thanks, you sent me off on an interesting half hour of reading. We still sing 'Let all the world in every corner sing' and (recently) 'King of glory, king of peace' - I had not made the connection to Herbert, who I know very little about. We have a Nigerian visiting preacher who always picks (good) old hymns (and who, idiosyncratically, always uses Belfast as an example of somewhere really odd to travel or to be sent, where I might idiomatically use (say) Timbuktu. Maybe he had a far-out experience on a ferry). I look forward to his visits.
This is a really helpful and honest response! I hadn't come across the bit about the hallmark--but then, I haven't come across the literature you mention, either. What do you recommend as useful?
That said, I agree with the idea. I would totally expect that, if anyone got arrogant about such experiences, God would take them away so fast their heads would spin.
Personally, I suspect such experiences are related to the gifts of the Spirit*--in which case, I'd not expect them to be super widespread in the Church at large. I mean, as Paul says,
He clearly expects us to answer "No" to all those questions, and I think the same would be true of visions, dreams and similar gifts. Which means that those who do not have such experiences would be the majority of Christians, and that "no experiences" would be the norm.
If I'm right about them being gifts of the Spirit, that also implies that anyone who has them is not particularly virtuous, holy or otherwise extraordinary--because the Spirit gives his gifts strategically, for the good of the church at large, and not because someone has "merited" it. So personal morality and holiness are basically un-coupled from the question of whether one has experiences like this (except for the extremely low bar of "If anyone experiencing such a gift falls into major sin (such as looking down on fellow Christians), he/she can expect the Spirit to withdraw said gift." Because God has an interest in keeping us from destroying ourselves.
* Re the gifts of the Spirit--I'm a Lutheran of the old style, ordinary type. We believe in the Spirit and we acknowledge his gifts, but we don't talk much about them or make a public show of them. We're not charismatic or pentecostal, we're mostly boring.
I've met plenty of dull and boring charismatics and penties!! (Some trainspotters pray in tongues 😉)
On the experience point the NT speaks often in quite lavish terms of things like "the love of God being shed abroad in out hearts" etc that some level of experience was presumably commonplace.
We can love one another and serve one another - and our fellow human brings beyond the community of faith - without necessarily having goose-bumpy feelings about it.
But yes, I agree there's definitely an 'experiential' element in the scriptures but the extent to how that equates with modern claims and expressions is an open question I think.
I think I'd respectfully disagree to some extent with @Lamb Chopped about God quickly dealing with anyone who acts arrogantly in such matters.
That's not been my experience. I've known a few arrogant Christian leaders and evangelists in my time and they've tended to continue unabated for some time.
I'm not saying that the Lord would never intervene directly but for whatever reason he seems to leave it up to us to deal with these things. I don't ever remember hearing about God 'smiting' an overbearing leader or arrogant pulpiteer mid-flow. His ways are not our ways.
If it were up to me they'd all be zapped or smitten with boils to teach them a lesson. So it's just as well it's not up to me.
God is personal and can be 'apprehended' through his divine 'energies' as we Orthodox put it, so that must mean that it's possible for people to have experiences of some form or other.
The issue then is how we interpret these experiences and how much weight we put on them.
I'm with @Lamb Chopped though on the issue of spiritual gifts not being 'merited' or an indication of particularly high levels of personal holiness.
That said, in the Ortho-sphere these things do tend to be associated with 'ascetics' - which doesn't mean that everything said by a bearded monk living in a cave on a Greek island necessarily carries weight.
Samson carried off the gates of Gaza and then lay with a prostitute.
I know of an extreme instance where a deputy leader in a charismatic fellowship used to 'prophesy' and speak in tongues in their Sunday morning meetings before heading into his city's red-light district for kinky sex.
He was later found to have been abusing his own children.
Alright, the question might legimately be posed as to whether these 'spiritual gifts' were genuine in the first place. It's relatively easy to 'fake' prophesying and speaking in tongues.
I'm very sceptical of much that purports to be spiritual gifts on the contemporary charismatic scene, so much of the content appears jejune and clichéd. Heck, I know first hand how easy it is to induce an atmosphere where these 'gifts' apparently operate.
That doesn't mean I'd dismiss every instance or claim, and I'm not doubting the Lord's ability to protect his flock from harm. But it strikes me that he expects us to be vigilant, to use common sense and to introduce checks and balances.
For all I know he may regularly withdraw such things from those who use them irresponsibly, but I'd have no way of checking that out. What we can do, what any of us can do, is safeguard myself against spiritual deception and misleading influences by using whatever safeguards, checks and balances there are in place within our own Christian traditions.
That's harder to do in traditions which have dismantled or ignored checks and balances developed over previous generations.
Of course, no Christian tradition or Tradition is entirely immune to wishful thinking, super-spirituality and spiritual abuse, but we can take steps to minimise these things.
It was William James. A good read.
I don’t knock anyone’s subjective experiences. However, it’s entirely justified to be sceptical about those who claim a hot line to God.
I encourage folks to practise contemplative prayer. The biggest obstacle to awareness of the Divine is the normal level of activity in our minds, stimulated by our senses and reflection. Contemplative prayer is an old and helpful discipline.
I like the phrase “glimpses of glory”.
The fact that someone receives spiritual gifts of one kind or another does not necessarily mean they're a moral or ethical person in other regards, and does not mean they are fit or trustworthy around vulnerable people.
And one might argue that "spiritual gifts" of some kind might be psychological phenomena or other more banal events. Hearing voices that feel divine isn't necessarily in itself a sign of God's presence. It could be demonic. It could be dissociation (I know someone personally who experiences that, it's an experience.) It could be delusional. It could be any number of things. Brains are complicated, messy things. Maybe we are all in God's presence as we're all imago dei to each other. Do we need "supernatural" signs when we have each other?
At any rate, I think you have to test the spirits, tangible and otherwise.
I wonder if it's a Christian notion that we assume that spiritually powerful people are by definition morally virtuous as well, or vice versa. Sometimes a person can have powerful "gifts" with ethical frailties. Someone can also be very morally upright and spiritually be the most boring person you've ever met. Maybe someone could be even change from one to the other over the course of one life.
Hence the checks and balances should operate on a corporate and collective level. More liturgical churches achieve that to some extent by 'scripting' things so there isn't much opportunity for anyone to show off or sound-off.
Not that there isn't a place for extemporary prayer, nor does a formally liturgical format completely obviate show-off behaviour.
Whatever 'style' of church we're involved with there has to be agreed protocols for dealing with this sort of thing.
Throwing it out completely is what I usually hear suggested. God knows, people have done harm before now using so-called gifts. Others have become envious of certain gifts (and how in the world is that to be prevented? I don't know). But God took the risk of going ahead and giving gifts anyway. (It's just that nobody seems to covet the gift of administration...)
We don't have conciliar or even synodical authority in our discussion here, which means we can't really do more than yak about it and come up with scenarios for what we wish would happen. My personal wished-for vision is that anyone who came up with such gifts would be assigned a group of minders--discerners, maybe?--who would keep a careful eye on the person's behavior and any ministry they might be involved in, and if there were signs of trouble, they could intervene--and bump it to the council of elders if the problems weren't resolved. And on the list of things to beware of would be attitude problems--things like arrogance, showing off, and over-stepping.
If it were me, I'd gladly submit to such supervision.
I’m curious about both aspects—what positive socially active stuff, and what offputting theologies, are conjoined in the UK? Because I see that here in the US but they may not be the same things.
Agreed on both counts. I'm not averse to the numinous. I've been experiencing it a lot lately, in some weird ways. I think sometimes that's one working definition of the word "weird." But I have a very strong sense that it's something one should handle very carefully.
And of course, the church does not usually have the resources to do these kinds of things appropriately, which means they are often done inappropriately, and harm can ensue.
There was a truly ridiculous example I read about a few days ago involving a professional Catholic exorcist who had proclaimed that UFO's were demonic. Scratch deeper and you find out that they were also aggrandizing themselves on social media and building a career on their reputation. The church demoted them to mere priest after that.
Story here.
I’d also add the genuinely paranormal/psychic/supernatural but neither miraculous nor diabolical. Someone might have a genuine sixth sense or glimpses of real things or the like without them being Divine prophecy nor delusion nor the work of evil spirits. One kind of danger might come from taking those paranormal experiences as Divine, and therefore infallible/prophetic, rather than just “something weird that is often but not always 100% accurate, and isn’t always deeply important.” When one’s worldview doesn’t allow for “wiggle room” of that nature, I think it can lead to delusions of grandeur and serious spiritual dangers. I’ve sometimes wondered about famous people who claim to have, and may really have had, unusual experiences, attributed them to God directly, and then become scary megachurch/televangelist people which wound up doing a lot of harm before their inevitable catastrophic fall. And of course one can have a combination of things, too. As well, something unusual can be true, but someone can still take it too far and even become crazy over it.