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.
Which is what I was saying.
My posts implicitly or explicitly acknowledge that these things have value and we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I don't go round speaking in tongues or prophesying any more but I'd argue that I'm just as 'charismatic' as I was back in my full-on charismatic evangelical days - it's just that the 'pneumatic' dimension is expressed in a different kind of way. The fire is in the hearth as it were and not singeing the curtains.
I can't speak for any one else or anyone else's church setting, other than to say that I have come across clergy from even fairly 'liberal' settings who can cite instances of moments of lucid insight or a 'prompting' to visit a particular parishioner or family at what turned out to be a significant time and where their pastoral input was required.
So yes, these things happen and it's down to each of us in our respective Christian settings to develop ways of dealing with these things. You have suggested a model and one you'd willingly submit to.
On the literature on 'contemplative prayer', I agree with @Dafyd on Rowan Williams on Theresa of Avila and St John of the Cross.
An obvious point might be to suggest we go to the 'originals' themselves. Rather than simply reading [/i]about Theresa of Avila, let's read her own accounts as well. Both/and ... 😉
I can't pretend to have read much 'mystical' or contemplative literature other than Julian of Norwich, Merton and The Practice of the Presence of God.
I've got all the translated volumes of The Philokalia upstairs but have been advised to work my way towards those slowly.
I've only dipped my toes in the more mystical literature. It dies beckon, 'Come on in, the water's lovely.' But I think I need a few basic swimming lessons first.
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.
Help for homelessness low income families, youth, elderly - food, clothing, equipment. Toddler groups. Appeals following recent floods. That sort of thing.
On the theology - Charevo, with everything that goes with it.
Sorry for all the italics in my previous post. I forget to 'end' them after a book title.
Anyhow ... @KarlLB raises an important point. Charismatic evangelical and 'charismatic-lite' churches tend to be comparatively well-resourced compared to more MoTR churches here in the UK and consequently have the resources, in terms of personal, expertise and finance, to engage in the sort of activities Karl mentions.
Over time, I suspect that will smooth off some of the 'rough edges' of their theology ... although I think 'theology' is too strong a word in some (but not all) instances.
I'm not saying they are going to become full-on 'social gospel' types but there has been a discernable shift in some of these churches towards a more liberal view on some Epiphanies issues and indeed a willingness to consider 'universalism' and alternatives to 'unless you are born-again as we define the term you are going to hell.'
These churches are not monolithic.
There is an increasingly wider range of views than one might expect although still framed within an evangelical/post evangelical paradigm.
At the same time, I sense that some of these folk are inclining towards GB News/views and there're certainly elements there that I'd worry about politically - as indeed there are in my own circles.
I've felt for sometime now that many of today's more middle-class charismatics are heading in the direction the Quakers went after the first two or three generations - towards a Quietist position allied to social concern - which is no bad thing of course - although those of us with a more conservative theology might be concerned about how 'far' that's gone when you don't even need to be a theist to be a Friend.
But that's a matter for the Friends themselves and not me.
The last time I visited a 'charismatic-lite' setting I was impressed by the range of social programmes they were involved with and felt that the preaching was simple, direct and small o orthodox - nothing to take exception to on that score.
What I did find difficult was the almost TV chat-show format the irritating videos and graphics and the fact that everything was 'awesome' or 'amazing' and how 'excited' they were that there were visitors in the service.
I'd have been able to handle it if they'd told me my unbelieving relatives were roasting eternally in Hell if they'd only turn the bloody PowerPoint off.
Whatever Hell is, an eternity of cheesy videos and 'awesome' and 'amazing' forthcoming events whether it be a stupendously sensational and cosmic men's breakfast or a stunningly superlative prayer meeting must come close.
It's actually quite hard to pin down what the beliefs of many of these places are. I have a trans Facebook acquaintance who fell in with one and got all the way to and through being baptised - and *then* told she had to renounce who she was and detransition. I hear too many horror stories and the intersection between the sources of those stories and drum kits and big screens up the front is telling. I'd run a mile from a guitar in church despite the fact I'm a sodding guitarist!. The only place I'd feel even slightly safe in such an environment is ironically behind the guitar.
Anyway, I digress.
I suspect this is mostly a function of being where the numbers, money and energy are. There's not much of any of those in the six strong congregation at Sts Derby and Joan in Dunny on the Wold.
Sure. The scene is a lot more varied than it was back in the '80s and '90s but outwardly at least I think there's become more uniformity in terms of style of presentation, choice of worship songs and so on.
I have to be careful as I can sound insulting and dismissive towards those who are happy with worship songs, drum kits and presentation screens etc. I'm not a musician but like you I do appreciate guitar-led music in other contexts - I like watching local bands hereabouts whether they are playing rock, folk, 'Americana' (popular around here) or whatever else.
It's just that I no longer want to see or hear them in church, although I could certainly cope with someone singing along with a guitar in a non-formally liturgical context - such as a church camp or something like that.
But there have been plenty of threads about this.
And yes, it's a matter of taste and also of associations - if we've been hurt or damaged by a setting where bells and smells are de-rigeur then we are going to react against those. Same with guitar, keyboard and drums.
So, yes, I digress too ...
I think you are right about it being an issue of where the energy, resources and money are and let's give praise where it's due. The places we've both mentioned are putting time, money and effort into things that make a difference in people's lives and we must applaud them for that.
They aren't putting dosh in the pocket of a TV-evangelist. Although I do have issues with some of the things business people associated with these groups choose to sponsor or finance. But I'm sure I can find things closer to home which would concern me too.
My brother-in-law's parents were earnest Welsh working-class Pentecostals. They ran a mission in a dock area. They regularly had down-and-outs sleeping in their house. They were the real deal. From accounts I've heard I have no doubt that they also saw remarkable answers to prayer and even what we might call instances of 'miraculous' or apparently unexplained healings.
Yet they were repeatedly ripped-off by visiting American evangelists and naively sent off for 'anointed handkerchiefs' and other paraphernalia touted by unscrupulous operators in the US Mid-West.
I hasten to add that we have home-grown charlatans of course and that people in my own Tradition can be gulled into purchasing fake relics and other gee-gaws.
I'd run a mile from a guitar in church despite the fact I'm a sodding guitarist!. The only place I'd feel even slightly safe in such an environment is ironically behind the guitar.
That really, really made me laugh - a big 'me too'. Our organist is quite old, and has been in hospital - for a while we had me on guitar playing old hymns (which I love), before finding a paid organ dep. I was quite concerned that members of the congregation / visiting preachers / our new minister would take my presence as a sign to move our repertoire firmly into the late 20th C, and spent most of the 'chat time' at the end of each service opining as loudly as I felt able on the inadequacies of the guitar as an instrument for leading worship, and how much I was looking forward to B_'s return.
I have no objection in principle to the guitar as an instrument for leading worship - albeit it absolutely needs another instrument or vocalist as it most guitarists are not going to be in a position to provide melody and harmony at the same time on the instrument - it can be done in some styles but it's not how it's normally used.
My objections start with the material it's usually used for, and end with the theology that is contained within and is a fellow traveller with said material.
Something that communists and evangelicals have in common is a sensibility that getting the poorest to rally around your cause is important.
I've long had a deeply cynical take that one reason The Church has run orphanages is because when you take care of an orphan and don't screw it up then you've got a follower for life. You've become their parent figure. There are even stories like this in the gospel "Call none Father but your Father in heaven," etc.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, to take care of the destitute to build a movement. The Black Panthers did it as well. But it's a thing.
Then again, I also think of church arguments I've heard that conservatives will emphasize distributing tracts and doctrines while liberals emphasize digging wells and feeding people. And in my experience that trend feeds into the tension between "membership" and "charity," which I have some prickly experience with.
I have no objection in principle to the guitar as an instrument for leading worship - albeit it absolutely needs another instrument or vocalist as it most guitarists are not going to be in a position to provide melody and harmony at the same time on the instrument - it can be done in some styles but it's not how it's normally used.
My objections start with the material it's usually used for, and end with the theology that is contained within and is a fellow traveller with said material.
I'm not familiar with RC worship material but I understand guitars are used in folk-masses and the like, which would presumably have a somewhat different theological slant to what thee and me have come across in guitar-led worship.
At the risk of a tangent, I think we have to make a distinction between traditional hymns, which are generally 'about' God and worship song which are generally addressed 'to' the Almighty and which are more 'personal' in tone.
In older liturgies, the content tends to be more formally theological - as you'll have recitation of Creeds and affirmations of what the congregation believes to be happening in the Eucharist and so on.
I knew a URC minister who used to vet worship songs for their theological content before he permitted them to be sung, much to his wife's annoyance as she was rather fond of them.
Anyhow ... on @Bullfrog's point - yes, although I do think many if not most evangelicals involved in the kind of initiatives @KarlLB has mentioned do so out of genuine concern and not simply as a way of getting bums on seats - although that's always on the agenda.
In my experience most 'mainstream' evangelicals, if we can put it that way, are more 'both/and' than 'either/or' in these matters - at least here in the UK and would emphasise both evangelism and 'sound' doctrine as well as digging wells and feeding people.
The emphasis on orphanages is in decline thanks to various lobby groups, both secular and with religious backgrounds, which have been promoting 'family-based' alternatives to institutional care. I get the impression that it's still a 'thing' with some US based mission agencies and Christian charities but to lesser extent than it was 20 or 25 years ago.
I have no objection in principle to the guitar as an instrument for leading worship - albeit it absolutely needs another instrument or vocalist as it most guitarists are not going to be in a position to provide melody and harmony at the same time on the instrument - it can be done in some styles but it's not how it's normally used.
My objections start with the material it's usually used for, and end with the theology that is contained within and is a fellow traveller with said material.
I'm not familiar with RC worship material but I understand guitars are used in folk-masses and the like, which would presumably have a somewhat different theological slant to what thee and me have come across in guitar-led worship.
When a guitar is used at our place, it’s generally for music in a bluegrass or Southern Gospel style.
At the risk of a tangent, I think we have to make a distinction between traditional hymns, which are generally 'about' God and worship song which are generally addressed 'to' the Almighty and which are more 'personal' in tone.
I can readily think of so many examples of traditional hymns that are addressed “to” God and that are personal in tone, as well as examples of worship songs that are “about” God, as to think the distinction you’re trying to draw is of dubious validity.
@Gamma Gamaliel : Another thing that's caused a decline in orphanages is a generally higher standard of living. A lot of orphans were products of war or other mass disaster. Orphans themselves are a symptom of social failure. When society doesn't fail, there's less need for such extra-social services.
Good times mean kids grow up with their parents and there's just less demand for extra-familial services. And when disasters happen, there's a robust social welfare the state to take up the slack, which sometimes produces similar horrors. But people don't develop the same attachment to the foster care system. Nobody thinks that DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services, as it's known in Chicago) is a holy mission. It's just a public service.
I also think of my employer, whose vocation is the care of disabled adults. The original mission of the organization was to provide adoption services for unwed mothers. Trouble was the accumulation of babies that nobody would adopt, which led to a change of mission, especially when having children out of wedlock lost its social stigma. And they moved into their current campus when the orphanage for war orphans outlived its institutional need. Now it's a former hospital for unwed mothers, now a facility for disabled adults operating on physical property that used to house an orphanage. I find the evolution of that story absolutely fascinating, and beautiful in its way.
I often suspect this is why Christian conservatives go hand-in-hand with libertarians. When state organizations fail for lack of funding and support, religious organizations take up the slack.
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.
Help for homelessness low income families, youth, elderly - food, clothing, equipment. Toddler groups. Appeals following recent floods. That sort of thing.
On the theology - Charevo, with everything that goes with it.
Oh I see! Yes, a bit different than here in the US in my experience. But (white) evangelicals and charismatics in the US are different than the UK—I’ve had to tell people that not all evangelicals in the world are like the ones here (and black evangelicals are different than a lot of the white ones in the US, but they get ignored when articles talking about how evangelicals are far-right)…
I wish that charismatics/evangelicals in the US had the kind of reputation you describe, rather than being “Trump’s big voting bloc.”
Here in the US a lot of churches which are known for social justice issues can be very vague on their theology, though I hope this is changing. It’s possible to be wholly theologically orthodox, or even theologically “conservative,” and believe in and fight for social justice, the poor, etc. (again, the US black church has a long tradition of this, but they tend to be forgotten).
I have no objection in principle to the guitar as an instrument for leading worship - albeit it absolutely needs another instrument or vocalist as it most guitarists are not going to be in a position to provide melody and harmony at the same time on the instrument - it can be done in some styles but it's not how it's normally used.
My objections start with the material it's usually used for, and end with the theology that is contained within and is a fellow traveller with said material.
I'm not familiar with RC worship material but I understand guitars are used in folk-masses and the like, which would presumably have a somewhat different theological slant to what thee and me have come across in guitar-led worship.
When a guitar is used at our place, it’s generally for music in a bluegrass or Southern Gospel style.
At the risk of a tangent, I think we have to make a distinction between traditional hymns, which are generally 'about' God and worship song which are generally addressed 'to' the Almighty and which are more 'personal' in tone.
I can readily think of so many examples of traditional hymns that are addressed “to” God and that are personal in tone, as well as examples of worship songs that are “about” God, as to think the distinction you’re trying to draw is of dubious validity.
Spoilsport.
😉
I did say 'generally'.
Of course there are traditional hymns directed 'to' God and contemporary worship songs that are 'about' God - but as a general rule of thumb ...
We could get more 'granular' in an analysis of worship songs and choruses, but that would be a complete tangent. For instance, I'd suggest that those from the Vineyard stable tended to be more 'intimate' (their word) than some of the earlier ones - but again there are exceptions and these things don't map onto neat and clear cut categories.
I still think we need to make a distinction between traditional hymns and contemporary worship songs as they are different genres and tend to serve a different purpose - although that distinction has become blurred as some traditional songs are reworked into something akin to a worship song format.
But what do I know? I was only involved in the charismatic evangelical scene for several decades ...
@Bullfrog - I was thinking more in terms of largely US based mission agencies - and later South Korean ones etc - running orphanages in developing countries and often doing it badly.
If you want instances of hubris and spiritual deception I can give you plenty. College kids from the States scooping kids off the street in Kampala and putting them up in a disused bus depot gaining plaudits and TV coverage back home only for it all to collapse once they'd flown home.
I know professionals working in these areas and they have plenty of examples of well-intentioned but misguided efforts by individuals and volunteers trying to help street kids without any training or understanding of the issues.
Things have improved and many agencies have professionalised how they operate. I have a friend who has done sterling work in this arena who first had to convince some US-based mission agencies that social work wasn't 'of the devil' and that working with local governments and authorities rather than under the radar was the best way to proceed.
He has some remarkable success stories. I've spoken to personnel from some of these agencies who've changed their modus operandi as a result and won the co-operation and respect of secular authorities.
I have no objection in principle to the guitar as an instrument for leading worship - albeit it absolutely needs another instrument or vocalist as it most guitarists are not going to be in a position to provide melody and harmony at the same time on the instrument - it can be done in some styles but it's not how it's normally used.
My objections start with the material it's usually used for, and end with the theology that is contained within and is a fellow traveller with said material.
I'm not familiar with RC worship material but I understand guitars are used in folk-masses and the like, which would presumably have a somewhat different theological slant to what thee and me have come across in guitar-led worship.
When a guitar is used at our place, it’s generally for music in a bluegrass or Southern Gospel style.
At the risk of a tangent, I think we have to make a distinction between traditional hymns, which are generally 'about' God and worship song which are generally addressed 'to' the Almighty and which are more 'personal' in tone.
I can readily think of so many examples of traditional hymns that are addressed “to” God and that are personal in tone, as well as examples of worship songs that are “about” God, as to think the distinction you’re trying to draw is of dubious validity.
Spoilsport.
😉
I did say 'generally'.
Of course there are traditional hymns directed 'to' God and contemporary worship songs that are 'about' God - but as a general rule of thumb ...
Yes, you did say “generally.” I’m disagreeing with the proposed distinction, particularly as it relates to “traditional hymnody” (a very broad category) even as “a general rule of thumb.”
I still think we need to make a distinction between traditional hymns and contemporary worship songs as they are different genres and tend to serve a different purpose - although that distinction has become blurred as some traditional songs are reworked into something akin to a worship song format.
And what would such a distinction have to do with the topic of this thread?
@Gamma Gamaliel : Oh for real, and I've heard horror stories about similar institutions even in the USA aimed at "reforming" "troubled" youth.
There's a lot of hurt in people - even people who mean well - trying to take care of vulnerable populations when they don't understand what they're doing. Doing that because your goal is to prove to God or whatever that you're a good person is generally a very dangerous idea.
@Gamma Gamaliel : Oh for real, and I've heard horror stories about similar institutions even in the USA aimed at "reforming" "troubled" youth.
There's a lot of hurt in people - even people who mean well - trying to take care of vulnerable populations when they don't understand what they're doing. Doing that because your goal is to prove to God or whatever that you're a good person is generally a very dangerous idea.
There is defo a massive risk in top down paternalist "we are the nice middle class Christians who know what you need " approach.
A church that I'm very familiar with (let the reader understand) has started a congregation in a more deprived area of town. The language and rhetoric about "darkness and brokenness " that appeared in communication about this initiative would never have been used about a more salubrious area..
I have no objection in principle to the guitar as an instrument for leading worship - albeit it absolutely needs another instrument or vocalist as it most guitarists are not going to be in a position to provide melody and harmony at the same time on the instrument - it can be done in some styles but it's not how it's normally used.
My objections start with the material it's usually used for, and end with the theology that is contained within and is a fellow traveller with said material.
I'm not familiar with RC worship material but I understand guitars are used in folk-masses and the like, which would presumably have a somewhat different theological slant to what thee and me have come across in guitar-led worship.
When a guitar is used at our place, it’s generally for music in a bluegrass or Southern Gospel style.
At the risk of a tangent, I think we have to make a distinction between traditional hymns, which are generally 'about' God and worship song which are generally addressed 'to' the Almighty and which are more 'personal' in tone.
I can readily think of so many examples of traditional hymns that are addressed “to” God and that are personal in tone, as well as examples of worship songs that are “about” God, as to think the distinction you’re trying to draw is of dubious validity.
Spoilsport.
😉
I did say 'generally'.
Of course there are traditional hymns directed 'to' God and contemporary worship songs that are 'about' God - but as a general rule of thumb ...
Yes, you did say “generally.” I’m disagreeing with the proposed distinction, particularly as it relates to “traditional hymnody” (a very broad category) even as “a general rule of thumb.”
I still think we need to make a distinction between traditional hymns and contemporary worship songs as they are different genres and tend to serve a different purpose - although that distinction has become blurred as some traditional songs are reworked into something akin to a worship song format.
And what would such a distinction have to do with the topic of this thread?
Well, I had acknowledged it was a tangent and was returning to the topic in hand after chewing the fat with @KarlLB for a bit as his spiritual heritage overlaps to some extent with mine.
Scooby Doo villain voice: 'And I'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky kids ...'
I'm late to this thread, but have been appreciating its contents. This isn't apropos to much, but I just wanted to share that George Herbert was an author Christopher Hitchens mentioned regularly as one he valued greatly.
Also, Dan McClellan is preparing to launch another online section of his Reading Biblical Hebrew course (that's not its official name, but you get it). FYI, for anyone who might want to get a toehold on that.
Interestingly, the Chair of a group in Salisbury which organises Herbert-related events in Bemerton (where Herbert was the parson) is an atheist like Hitchens. I've heard him speak on the subject and he's a great admirer of Herbert's poetry as well as interested in him as a 'local' figure as it were.
I've also heard of Hindus and people of other faiths who admire Herbert's work. I think there's an integrity about it that can speak to people of all faiths and none. You sense his sincerity.
Q who made you?
A God made me
Q Why did God make you ?
A to know Him,love Him and serve him in this life and
to be happy for ever with him in the next.
These questions and answers would have been learned over many centuries by Catholic schoolchildren and then put to the back of their minds as they got on with life.
The OP reminds me of one of my favourite novels called 'Embezzled Heaven'
The main character,Teta Linek, has taken to heart these questions and answers and made her life a constant attempt to get to Heaven.
She was born about 1866 in one of the provinces of the Austro Hungarian Empire and worked as a cook in prominent Austrian families. One day in 1906 her widowed sister in law appears and asks her to be financially responsible for her brother's son. Teta takes on this responsibility paying for the boy's schooling etc with the idea that she will pay for him to become a priest and that he will,out of thankfulness pray for her and smooth her path to Heaven which she imagines as 'Pensionopolis' a place where people will not have to work.
The war of 1914-18 somewhat interrupts her plan but her nephew comes back and she continues to help him towards ordination,the expenses of leading a priestly life in Prague and also helping to fulfil his dream of being a missionary in Tierra del Fuego.
When that is over the nephew writes to say that he has been appointed as parish priest in Hustopec Czechoslovakia, formerly Auspitz in Moravia where Tete had been brought up. There was a lot to be done to the priest's house which he hoped she would help with. Then as she retires she should come and stay with him.
It is now 1936 and time for her to retire. She takes the train to Hustapec and find the priest's house,but her nephew is not there. He has never been there and has never been a priest but for thirty years he has taken all her money.
This is a terrible moment when she sees how silly and gullible she has been. However she soon puts all the blame on herself as she realises that she has done all this without any love for her nephew but solely,as she saw it for her own selfishness in trying to obtain a better place in Heaven.
How she resolves these difficulties is then the major part of the story which takes place between Easter and Pentecost of 1936.
Although it is never directly mentioned the story takes place in an Austria which was being targetted by the Nazis and the writer,Franz Werfel ,was not a Catholic but rather a Jew. As he escaped from Nazi Austria he found himself sheltering in the French town of Lourdes
in the early 1940s from which stems one of his most famous works, The Song of Bernadette.
Comments
Which is what I was saying.
My posts implicitly or explicitly acknowledge that these things have value and we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I don't go round speaking in tongues or prophesying any more but I'd argue that I'm just as 'charismatic' as I was back in my full-on charismatic evangelical days - it's just that the 'pneumatic' dimension is expressed in a different kind of way. The fire is in the hearth as it were and not singeing the curtains.
I can't speak for any one else or anyone else's church setting, other than to say that I have come across clergy from even fairly 'liberal' settings who can cite instances of moments of lucid insight or a 'prompting' to visit a particular parishioner or family at what turned out to be a significant time and where their pastoral input was required.
So yes, these things happen and it's down to each of us in our respective Christian settings to develop ways of dealing with these things. You have suggested a model and one you'd willingly submit to.
Not everyone would of course.
But at least there'd be protocols in place.
An obvious point might be to suggest we go to the 'originals' themselves. Rather than simply reading [/i]about Theresa of Avila, let's read her own accounts as well. Both/and ... 😉
I can't pretend to have read much 'mystical' or contemplative literature other than Julian of Norwich, Merton and The Practice of the Presence of God.
I've got all the translated volumes of The Philokalia upstairs but have been advised to work my way towards those slowly.
I've only dipped my toes in the more mystical literature. It dies beckon, 'Come on in, the water's lovely.' But I think I need a few basic swimming lessons first.
Help for homelessness low income families, youth, elderly - food, clothing, equipment. Toddler groups. Appeals following recent floods. That sort of thing.
On the theology - Charevo, with everything that goes with it.
Anyhow ... @KarlLB raises an important point. Charismatic evangelical and 'charismatic-lite' churches tend to be comparatively well-resourced compared to more MoTR churches here in the UK and consequently have the resources, in terms of personal, expertise and finance, to engage in the sort of activities Karl mentions.
Over time, I suspect that will smooth off some of the 'rough edges' of their theology ... although I think 'theology' is too strong a word in some (but not all) instances.
I'm not saying they are going to become full-on 'social gospel' types but there has been a discernable shift in some of these churches towards a more liberal view on some Epiphanies issues and indeed a willingness to consider 'universalism' and alternatives to 'unless you are born-again as we define the term you are going to hell.'
These churches are not monolithic.
There is an increasingly wider range of views than one might expect although still framed within an evangelical/post evangelical paradigm.
At the same time, I sense that some of these folk are inclining towards GB News/views and there're certainly elements there that I'd worry about politically - as indeed there are in my own circles.
I've felt for sometime now that many of today's more middle-class charismatics are heading in the direction the Quakers went after the first two or three generations - towards a Quietist position allied to social concern - which is no bad thing of course - although those of us with a more conservative theology might be concerned about how 'far' that's gone when you don't even need to be a theist to be a Friend.
But that's a matter for the Friends themselves and not me.
The last time I visited a 'charismatic-lite' setting I was impressed by the range of social programmes they were involved with and felt that the preaching was simple, direct and small o orthodox - nothing to take exception to on that score.
What I did find difficult was the almost TV chat-show format the irritating videos and graphics and the fact that everything was 'awesome' or 'amazing' and how 'excited' they were that there were visitors in the service.
I'd have been able to handle it if they'd told me my unbelieving relatives were roasting eternally in Hell if they'd only turn the bloody PowerPoint off.
Whatever Hell is, an eternity of cheesy videos and 'awesome' and 'amazing' forthcoming events whether it be a stupendously sensational and cosmic men's breakfast or a stunningly superlative prayer meeting must come close.
Anyway, I digress.
I suspect this is mostly a function of being where the numbers, money and energy are. There's not much of any of those in the six strong congregation at Sts Derby and Joan in Dunny on the Wold.
I have to be careful as I can sound insulting and dismissive towards those who are happy with worship songs, drum kits and presentation screens etc. I'm not a musician but like you I do appreciate guitar-led music in other contexts - I like watching local bands hereabouts whether they are playing rock, folk, 'Americana' (popular around here) or whatever else.
It's just that I no longer want to see or hear them in church, although I could certainly cope with someone singing along with a guitar in a non-formally liturgical context - such as a church camp or something like that.
But there have been plenty of threads about this.
And yes, it's a matter of taste and also of associations - if we've been hurt or damaged by a setting where bells and smells are de-rigeur then we are going to react against those. Same with guitar, keyboard and drums.
So, yes, I digress too ...
I think you are right about it being an issue of where the energy, resources and money are and let's give praise where it's due. The places we've both mentioned are putting time, money and effort into things that make a difference in people's lives and we must applaud them for that.
They aren't putting dosh in the pocket of a TV-evangelist. Although I do have issues with some of the things business people associated with these groups choose to sponsor or finance. But I'm sure I can find things closer to home which would concern me too.
My brother-in-law's parents were earnest Welsh working-class Pentecostals. They ran a mission in a dock area. They regularly had down-and-outs sleeping in their house. They were the real deal. From accounts I've heard I have no doubt that they also saw remarkable answers to prayer and even what we might call instances of 'miraculous' or apparently unexplained healings.
Yet they were repeatedly ripped-off by visiting American evangelists and naively sent off for 'anointed handkerchiefs' and other paraphernalia touted by unscrupulous operators in the US Mid-West.
I hasten to add that we have home-grown charlatans of course and that people in my own Tradition can be gulled into purchasing fake relics and other gee-gaws.
That really, really made me laugh - a big 'me too'. Our organist is quite old, and has been in hospital - for a while we had me on guitar playing old hymns (which I love), before finding a paid organ dep. I was quite concerned that members of the congregation / visiting preachers / our new minister would take my presence as a sign to move our repertoire firmly into the late 20th C, and spent most of the 'chat time' at the end of each service opining as loudly as I felt able on the inadequacies of the guitar as an instrument for leading worship, and how much I was looking forward to B_'s return.
My objections start with the material it's usually used for, and end with the theology that is contained within and is a fellow traveller with said material.
I've long had a deeply cynical take that one reason The Church has run orphanages is because when you take care of an orphan and don't screw it up then you've got a follower for life. You've become their parent figure. There are even stories like this in the gospel "Call none Father but your Father in heaven," etc.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, to take care of the destitute to build a movement. The Black Panthers did it as well. But it's a thing.
Then again, I also think of church arguments I've heard that conservatives will emphasize distributing tracts and doctrines while liberals emphasize digging wells and feeding people. And in my experience that trend feeds into the tension between "membership" and "charity," which I have some prickly experience with.
I'm not familiar with RC worship material but I understand guitars are used in folk-masses and the like, which would presumably have a somewhat different theological slant to what thee and me have come across in guitar-led worship.
At the risk of a tangent, I think we have to make a distinction between traditional hymns, which are generally 'about' God and worship song which are generally addressed 'to' the Almighty and which are more 'personal' in tone.
In older liturgies, the content tends to be more formally theological - as you'll have recitation of Creeds and affirmations of what the congregation believes to be happening in the Eucharist and so on.
I knew a URC minister who used to vet worship songs for their theological content before he permitted them to be sung, much to his wife's annoyance as she was rather fond of them.
Anyhow ... on @Bullfrog's point - yes, although I do think many if not most evangelicals involved in the kind of initiatives @KarlLB has mentioned do so out of genuine concern and not simply as a way of getting bums on seats - although that's always on the agenda.
In my experience most 'mainstream' evangelicals, if we can put it that way, are more 'both/and' than 'either/or' in these matters - at least here in the UK and would emphasise both evangelism and 'sound' doctrine as well as digging wells and feeding people.
The emphasis on orphanages is in decline thanks to various lobby groups, both secular and with religious backgrounds, which have been promoting 'family-based' alternatives to institutional care. I get the impression that it's still a 'thing' with some US based mission agencies and Christian charities but to lesser extent than it was 20 or 25 years ago.
I can readily think of so many examples of traditional hymns that are addressed “to” God and that are personal in tone, as well as examples of worship songs that are “about” God, as to think the distinction you’re trying to draw is of dubious validity.
Good times mean kids grow up with their parents and there's just less demand for extra-familial services. And when disasters happen, there's a robust social welfare the state to take up the slack, which sometimes produces similar horrors. But people don't develop the same attachment to the foster care system. Nobody thinks that DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services, as it's known in Chicago) is a holy mission. It's just a public service.
I also think of my employer, whose vocation is the care of disabled adults. The original mission of the organization was to provide adoption services for unwed mothers. Trouble was the accumulation of babies that nobody would adopt, which led to a change of mission, especially when having children out of wedlock lost its social stigma. And they moved into their current campus when the orphanage for war orphans outlived its institutional need. Now it's a former hospital for unwed mothers, now a facility for disabled adults operating on physical property that used to house an orphanage. I find the evolution of that story absolutely fascinating, and beautiful in its way.
I often suspect this is why Christian conservatives go hand-in-hand with libertarians. When state organizations fail for lack of funding and support, religious organizations take up the slack.
Oh I see! Yes, a bit different than here in the US in my experience. But (white) evangelicals and charismatics in the US are different than the UK—I’ve had to tell people that not all evangelicals in the world are like the ones here (and black evangelicals are different than a lot of the white ones in the US, but they get ignored when articles talking about how evangelicals are far-right)…
I wish that charismatics/evangelicals in the US had the kind of reputation you describe, rather than being “Trump’s big voting bloc.”
Here in the US a lot of churches which are known for social justice issues can be very vague on their theology, though I hope this is changing. It’s possible to be wholly theologically orthodox, or even theologically “conservative,” and believe in and fight for social justice, the poor, etc. (again, the US black church has a long tradition of this, but they tend to be forgotten).
Spoilsport.
😉
I did say 'generally'.
Of course there are traditional hymns directed 'to' God and contemporary worship songs that are 'about' God - but as a general rule of thumb ...
We could get more 'granular' in an analysis of worship songs and choruses, but that would be a complete tangent. For instance, I'd suggest that those from the Vineyard stable tended to be more 'intimate' (their word) than some of the earlier ones - but again there are exceptions and these things don't map onto neat and clear cut categories.
I still think we need to make a distinction between traditional hymns and contemporary worship songs as they are different genres and tend to serve a different purpose - although that distinction has become blurred as some traditional songs are reworked into something akin to a worship song format.
But what do I know? I was only involved in the charismatic evangelical scene for several decades ...
@Bullfrog - I was thinking more in terms of largely US based mission agencies - and later South Korean ones etc - running orphanages in developing countries and often doing it badly.
If you want instances of hubris and spiritual deception I can give you plenty. College kids from the States scooping kids off the street in Kampala and putting them up in a disused bus depot gaining plaudits and TV coverage back home only for it all to collapse once they'd flown home.
I know professionals working in these areas and they have plenty of examples of well-intentioned but misguided efforts by individuals and volunteers trying to help street kids without any training or understanding of the issues.
Things have improved and many agencies have professionalised how they operate. I have a friend who has done sterling work in this arena who first had to convince some US-based mission agencies that social work wasn't 'of the devil' and that working with local governments and authorities rather than under the radar was the best way to proceed.
He has some remarkable success stories. I've spoken to personnel from some of these agencies who've changed their modus operandi as a result and won the co-operation and respect of secular authorities.
And what would such a distinction have to do with the topic of this thread?
There's a lot of hurt in people - even people who mean well - trying to take care of vulnerable populations when they don't understand what they're doing. Doing that because your goal is to prove to God or whatever that you're a good person is generally a very dangerous idea.
There is defo a massive risk in top down paternalist "we are the nice middle class Christians who know what you need " approach.
A church that I'm very familiar with (let the reader understand) has started a congregation in a more deprived area of town. The language and rhetoric about "darkness and brokenness " that appeared in communication about this initiative would never have been used about a more salubrious area..
Well, I had acknowledged it was a tangent and was returning to the topic in hand after chewing the fat with @KarlLB for a bit as his spiritual heritage overlaps to some extent with mine.
Scooby Doo villain voice: 'And I'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky kids ...'
Also, Dan McClellan is preparing to launch another online section of his Reading Biblical Hebrew course (that's not its official name, but you get it). FYI, for anyone who might want to get a toehold on that.
I've also heard of Hindus and people of other faiths who admire Herbert's work. I think there's an integrity about it that can speak to people of all faiths and none. You sense his sincerity.
A God made me
Q Why did God make you ?
A to know Him,love Him and serve him in this life and
to be happy for ever with him in the next.
These questions and answers would have been learned over many centuries by Catholic schoolchildren and then put to the back of their minds as they got on with life.
The OP reminds me of one of my favourite novels called 'Embezzled Heaven'
The main character,Teta Linek, has taken to heart these questions and answers and made her life a constant attempt to get to Heaven.
She was born about 1866 in one of the provinces of the Austro Hungarian Empire and worked as a cook in prominent Austrian families. One day in 1906 her widowed sister in law appears and asks her to be financially responsible for her brother's son. Teta takes on this responsibility paying for the boy's schooling etc with the idea that she will pay for him to become a priest and that he will,out of thankfulness pray for her and smooth her path to Heaven which she imagines as 'Pensionopolis' a place where people will not have to work.
The war of 1914-18 somewhat interrupts her plan but her nephew comes back and she continues to help him towards ordination,the expenses of leading a priestly life in Prague and also helping to fulfil his dream of being a missionary in Tierra del Fuego.
When that is over the nephew writes to say that he has been appointed as parish priest in Hustopec Czechoslovakia, formerly Auspitz in Moravia where Tete had been brought up. There was a lot to be done to the priest's house which he hoped she would help with. Then as she retires she should come and stay with him.
It is now 1936 and time for her to retire. She takes the train to Hustapec and find the priest's house,but her nephew is not there. He has never been there and has never been a priest but for thirty years he has taken all her money.
This is a terrible moment when she sees how silly and gullible she has been. However she soon puts all the blame on herself as she realises that she has done all this without any love for her nephew but solely,as she saw it for her own selfishness in trying to obtain a better place in Heaven.
How she resolves these difficulties is then the major part of the story which takes place between Easter and Pentecost of 1936.
Although it is never directly mentioned the story takes place in an Austria which was being targetted by the Nazis and the writer,Franz Werfel ,was not a Catholic but rather a Jew. As he escaped from Nazi Austria he found himself sheltering in the French town of Lourdes
in the early 1940s from which stems one of his most famous works, The Song of Bernadette.