Last night, my wife and I went to a Christian bookstore to get her a new Bible and a birthday present for my Dad. While there, I thought I would look for a book written by an evangelist I'd seen on TV.
The evangelist's name is Jesse Duplantis and I'd found his preaching to be extremely entertaining and uplifting. He used humor, life stories and the Bible to illustrate his points and he really got me to thinking about my faith and the directions I want to go in search of learning more.
When I got to the bookstore, though, it took a bit to find one of his books. With the help of a person working there, I found it in a section labeled "Charismatics." And I'm asking myself now, what is a Charismatic? Is this a new denomination or just a new method of teaching and preaching?
Anyone know?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I think that it is more a style of preaching, as I have heard of charismatics, I think, in Catholicism as well. As you saw, they are very good public speakers, able to get people to listen to them. If I remember correctly, they are very much into converting people.
msquared
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Charismatics are a loose alliance of believers from various churches who believe that they are empowered by God with miraculous gifts (Gr. charismata; especially tongue-speaking and healing; some will also claim other gifts such as prophecy). They are unfortunately the source of a lot of the so-called healing ministries such as we see on tv (if you bother to watch televangelists).
Some charismatics have founded their own churches, though I cannot think of any names right now. Also, technically, charismatics derive from a specific movement; there are a number of very similar movements such as the Pentecostals who consider themselves separate, though I couldn't tell you what the difference is.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Sopwith,
I am pretty sure it would be referring to the Charismatic movement in the Catholic church.
"It promotes ecumenism and lay involvement, and stifles evangelization of Roman Catholics by Protestant groups. Even Evangelicals can be confused in their outreach to Catholics because of the apparent spirituality of the charismatic Catholics.
Dr. Philip Potter, while general secretary of the World Council of Churches, stated, "the Charismatic renewal provides a link between the churches of the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church, (and) the conservative evangelicals." "
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, he's Protestant rather than Catholic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The way I've always summed up Charismatics: they're people who think they have a direct line to God, and are really enthusiastic about it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Tom. That's the best description of Charismatics I've ever seen.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Bono and the boys are charismatics. That's the only time I've ever heard of it.
How's that for you? World religions and rock stars 101
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Tom
Who says they don't?
msquared
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
“Charismatic” usually refers to movements within mainline denominations that have strong resemblance to Pentecostals (the movements, not the denominations). Until the late 50s/early 60s things like speaking in tongues and being “seized by the spirit” in worship were almost unheard of in the mainline churches. Now there are charismatic movements in most major denominations.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
There are NO charismatic catholic preachers. There are no catholic preachers, only priests. While the catholic church seems to be backwards in many ways, it is also one of the more rational churches in modern times. Evolution is accepted and the bible is not to be taken literally. Most charismatics speak of catholics as demons and anti-christs.
If you are inspired by the near circus atmosphere of Jessie Duplantis, you may be even more inspired by the 3 ring circus style of Benny Hinn. These men are both major frauds.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
As I've done more research this morning, I'm beginning to look at Mr. Duplantis in a different light. Sadly, I've only seen his work 10 or 12 times, but after reading some websites I'm not really sure. It's pretty darned confusing, actually.
The more I read, the more suspect he becomes. But on the other hand, it's the Internet and anything found there must be taken with a grain of salt.
The question that I keep mulling over is: Is he divinely inspired or a charlatan? I can't say yet, but I do know that I've got to make a decision, for I do feel that a misstep could be disastrous.
I do know that he's linked apparently with some folks that I do feel are charlatans or are using the Word to fill their own pockets and egos.
Edit to add: I'm just a child in my faith and I worry that it might be to easy to lure me with a promise of candy.
[ October 09, 2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Watch out for aka.
She's trying to gather acolytes to her for purposes of self-aggrandizment. Oh, she speaks a fine line about "happiness," and sharing "joy," but when it comes down to it, she not nearly as accepting as her literature makes her out to be.
Say, for example, that you have a penchant for throwing tomatoes at nicely dressed people on their way to a fancy restaurant. She won't even speak to you.
Not a word!
Charismatic my left toe.
And don't even get me started on Ralphie and her minions. . .
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Rob
I am going to question you on your statements. There can be lay preachers in the Catholic Church. They may not have any official sanction, but to me any one who preaches can be a preacher.
[ October 09, 2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: msquared ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*grin* “Preacher” is a function title, like “pastor” or “chaplain.” When a Catholic priest is preaching, he’s a preacher. When he’s shepherding a parish, he’s a pastor. If he’s the pastor for a hospital or in the military, he’s a chaplain. He might be all three of those or none of them, but he’s always a priest.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I don't want to get too deep into this, as I am an atheist. I was born and raised catholic. I have been away from the faith for quite some time and am clearly not up on the lingo(RE preachers etc). You are obviously correct about charismatic catholics. It is my opinion however, that this practice is strange to most catholics, and is not embraced by the majority. Perhaps the vatican has gotten behind it, but I would like to see it deemed a heretical following. Those who claim to be able to channel the holy spirit to heal arthritis etc are frauds. There has been no medical evidence that these people heal anyone.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
On the subject of Faith Healing, one of the passages I read really struck a nerve with me.
In the Bible, it says (please excuse my paraphrasing here) that after Jesus healed someone of a physical ailment he told them to speak of it to no man, but to instead go to the Temple, show the priests and make the appropriate sacrifices to God.
When word got out of His healing, Jesus was mobbed by crowds seeking healing and He had to retreat to the desert to get away.
I look at those who use faith healing to draw crowds and wonder how diametrically opposite this is from Christ's own actions. Why are they shouting their healing ability from the rooftops and performing in front of crowds rather than simply passing through hospitals or among the homeless and hopeless, healing and whispering the words to set someone on the right path?
And it draws a scarier question out for me: Could Satan offer healing on the physical level if he so chose and it served his purposes?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: And it draws a scarier question out for me: Could Satan offer healing on the physical level if he so chose and it served his purposes?
You should be concerned if there are any documented cases of faith healing being successful. As of now, there are none. So if the devil is behind it, she's not doing a very good job.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Robespierre,
I'm pretty sure I've read of studies patients who are being prayed for and who pray recover more quickly than patients who do not.
Now, you can say that the mechanism is the power of positive thinking rather than divine intervention, but the phenomenon does exist. I'll find some links.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Gaah, Benny Hinn! That man sickens me. I've never heard of Jessie Duplantis, but I'm sure he must be subtler than Benny. All Benny ever talks about is money, tithing, donations. I know this is common among televangalists, but I mean the money is IT with Benny. That's is his only message: make a covenant with God, send a $1000 check, and reap the bounty of the Lord's Blessings. "The Holy Spirit is telling me of a $1000 donor, and 5 $100 donors and 2 $500 donors. Folks, call now and sow that seed! I want you to reap the Lord's harvest!! asharateurifnmdfuyeu [babbles] That means send a check.'
It may sound like I'm exaggerating for humor, but that is honestly what Benny's sermons are like, except possibly for the last sentence. But he does speak in tongues and then translate it. If you can watch an entire hour of that you have stronger stomach than I.
Thanks to dkw and others for some background on the Charismatic movement, I didn't know there were Charismatic Catholics, other than the Kennedys.
The Charismatic churches are popular in the rural South. Besides speaking in tongues (biblically explained by the Holy Spirit decending on the faithful 50 days after Christ was crucified, hence "Pentacostal" from 50), some Charismatic sects believe in faith healing through laying on of hands, in rolling around on the ground in the grip of spiritual ecstasy (hence the mocking phrase "holy rollers,">> I believe this refers to any Pentacostalist, could be mistaken), snake handling (popular in Tennessee for some reason, the faithful are said to be immune from snake bites ,no clue what the biblical justification is) and waving hands above the head and swaying during sermons (a Charismatic biblical scholar explained this to me, I forgot the reasoning.)
Charismatics tend to be VERY sincere in their beliefs and devout Christians, the preachers, especially televangalists like Benny Hinn, sometimes cynically manipulate this devotion for their own profit.
They also tend to form splinter groups at the drop of a hat. It cracks me up to hear my Charismatic friend Michael Shapiro declaim indignantly about snake handling and how irrational it is while practising speaking in tongues, hands in the air, inspired prophecy etc. He claims to be a Prophet of God, doesn't have a follower yet. Mike is Jewish, believes in Christ, knows the bible backwards and forwards and is mildly famous for writing the song "Spooky" and blowing sax for the Atlanta Rhythm Section.
quote:In the cool of the evenin' when ev'rything is gettin' kind of groovy I call you up and ask you if you'd like to go with me and see a movie First you say "No", you've got some plans for the night And then you stop, and say, "All right" Love is kinda crazy with a spooky little girl like you. You always keep me guessin', I never seem to know what you are thinkin'
first lines from "Spooky",1963? Mike wrote the original music, not the words. The song has been covered many times over, allowing Mike to live off the royalties.
[ October 09, 2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
This is the church I was speaking of, where the priest was murdered.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Katharina, there is actually no evidence that positive thinking helps those with terminal diseases either. There have been studies on this, and those who become depressed etc, have the same longevity and quality of life as those who "think positively."
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I didn't know there were Charismatic Catholics, other than the Kennedys."
Laughing very hard here!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thanks Elizabeth! Glad you liked that line.
Posted by Zan (Member # 4888) on :
Robe, if they become depressed, how can you say they have the same quality of life?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Quality of life referrs to daily aches and pains, ability to move around, etc.
Depression is a very subjective thing, which makes this whole conversation even more toubling. There is no exact test for depression. So these type of studies rely on the honesty of those being studied, and the decisions made by the researchers.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case, Robespierre. Study1
quote: The report cites a survey showing that ninety-nine per cent of the 269 family physicians surveyed recognize that belief can heal. Nine in ten reported that their patients had sought help from a spiritual leader. “I’m not a religious person,” said Herbert Benson, a Harvard medical professor. “I came to this not from belief but from science. Honestly, I came to this feet dragging. We have been trained that the body is not dependent on the mind. We have become totally dependent on the first two legs of medicine--pharmaceuticals and medical procedures. Now evidence has been building about how powerful belief is.”
The newspaper reports: “Other studies back him up. In a 1995 study of 232 heart-bypass surgery patients in Dartmouth, N.H., 9 per cent died within six months of the surgery. Among churchgoers, the death rate was 5 per cent. Among those who had a passionate commitment to religion, not a single patient died, according to Matthews.
quote: In a study by Locke (1984) (as cited in Cohen & Herbert, 1996), anxious mood is associated with decreased natural killer cell activity. NK cells levels were highest on days when a positive mood was reported and lowest on days of negative mood. Natural killer cells are primarily responsible for seeking out and destroying abnormal cells. A high count of NK cells is crucial in the body’s ability to remain free of cancer (Poole, Matheson & Cox, 2001).
quote: In sum, my studies of over 150 melanoma patients produced these findings:
" Melanoma patients who demonstrated more "Type C" behavior had thicker, more aggressive tumors-both signs of a worse prognosis.
" Patients more able to openly express emotions (such as anger, sadness) had more lymphocytes-key cancer-killing immune cells-gathering at the site of their tumors. By contrast, those less able to express emotions (Type C) had fewer of these cells.
" Melanoma patients were significantly more likely to rely on repressive (Type C) coping during an emotionally provocative experimental procedure than either healthy individuals or people with heart disease.
" Women who were stoic in their initial response to their diagnosis, and men who felt helpless and hopeless, were more likely to succumb to the disease.
" Among 117 patients followed, we found significant associations between every single negative emotional state (measured on self-report scales at baseline) and disease relapse or death several years later. An analysis of all my data, from tests and interviews, produced powerful evidence that those who succumbed to cancer had suffered a collapse of their usual Type C coping style. After their diagnosis, they'd been overwhelmed by emotions they had not been able to express or resolve.
I had unearthed strong connections between Type C behavior and disease progression, recurrence, and mortality. Just as importantly, my finding that Type C individuals had fewer tumor-fighting immune cells helped confirm that the immune system is one bridge-perhaps the most consequential one-between mind, body, and cancer. [. . . .]Recently, a number of studies have proven the positive biological effects of similar mind-body therapies on cancer patients. The best known of these studies involved a form of group therapy that, in my view, effectively changed the patients' Type C behavior.
Twelve years ago, David Spiegel, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, began an investigation of group therapy for cancer patients. A rigorous and respected researcher, Dr. Spiegel approached his study with modest expectations. His goal? Simply to find out if group therapy designed specifically for cancer patients could minimize their suffering. He was not a mind-body advocate, holistic practitioner, or New Age acolyte. He did not believe that group therapy would extend the life span of cancer patients. He wanted to see only if it helped them to cope better.
"We did not focus on wishing away the cancer, but on living as fully as you can," Dr. Spiegel told The New York Times. "It was psychotherapy, with the main issue being how to redefine yourself in the face of imminent mortality."
Spiegel recruited for his study eighty-six women with advanced, metastatic breast cancer, all of whom received similar medical treatment. But one portion was randomly assigned to the group therapy program, and the rest received only the routine medical care. After ten years, the researchers found that the women in therapy lived almost twice as long as those who did not participate in therapy. The treatment group had survived an average of thirty seven months from the outset of the study, while the non-treatment group lived for a mean of nineteen months.
Metastatic breast cancer carries a very grave prognosis, and only three women were still alive after ten years. But all three had been in the therapy group. "We were shocked when we saw the magnitude of the effect," said Dr. Spiegel. "We expected no biological effect from the psychological one."
Dr. Spiegel's shock spurred a change in his attitude. He now believes that social and emotional factors may indeed play a biological role in recovery. His study was published in the Lancet, the most prestigious British medical journal. The Lancet placed an editorial on psychological cancer treatments in the same issue, which concluded with high praise for Spiegel's study. His scientific method were said to be "beyond criticism", and the editors commended his "intellectually honest approach". Soon, other mainstream medical experts weighed in with their support for the study's validity
Many physicians believe a patient's state of mind has profound effects on their prognosis and mortality rate.
[ October 09, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
{Edited to add a response to Morbo}
Sopwith, though it might be theoretically possible for Satan to heal someone, I doubt that he would do it. IMHO, Satan's agenda involves maximizing suffering, and he is so devoted to this agenda that it can blind him to the potential uses of backtracking. I came to this conclusion after long consideration of the passage where Jesus talks about Satan being divided against himself. Obviously, Satan might be able to obtain benefit to his cause by controlled, occasional exorcism--but though intelligent, he is too short-sighted to see it. I suspect healing works the same way.
This is purely my own derivation. YMMV.
Morbo> The justification for snake-handling may be found in Mark 16:18 and in Acts 28:3-6. The first passage is a promise of miraculous signs. So far as I know, no charismatic group "drinks deadly poison" with the expectation that it will not harm them; go figure. (Though perhaps Heaven's Gate counts?)
The second passage tells of Paul's encounter with a snake on the island of Malta after a shipwreck. The locals expected him to die rather quickly after being bitten, but he was not harmed. Most religious groups, so far as I know, consider this a proper interpretation of the Mark passage--the serpents and deadly poison beverages are the result of accident or persecution, not deliberate acts of believers.
Raising one's hands in worship is apparently a practice originally of Jewish worship; several Psalms encourage worshippers to do it. In a few places Paul mentions it in connection with prayer. (As a young child, I believed it had reference to the "folded hands" position sometimes depicted in art to show that people are praying.) Apparently the idea was originally a symbolic way of showing God that one's hands (and life) were "clean". I find the practice obnoxious, myself, but that's mostly because I feel that in my church it is more likely imitation of other churches than a genuine expression of feeling or belief that it's commanded.
[ October 09, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I enoyed that line also, Morbo!
Yes, there are Catholic charismatics (I prefer the term "windshield-washer people" to "holy rollers." My grandmother was a charismatic, though I am not sure if se still is one, and my mother was a charismatic.
I have had some very negative experiences with charismatics which are probably a factor in why I no longer consider myself a Christian, so it is only with great difficulty that I can show any restraint on the topic. My mother obsessed with charismatic Catholicism as one phase down her tortured descent into mental illness (detailed elsewhere on this forum). Many of the mass delusions I believe the charismatics practice dovetailed nicely with her own delusions, exacerbating her problems. Her fellow charismatics also did not display themselves to be good Christians in my opinion, and so when she started taking things even further than they did, and started becoming scary even to them, they did not try to get her to acept help, or (to my knowledge) ever pray for her. Instead, they conspired with a priest to get her kicked out of the group.
In order to appease my mother (back when I was still trying to appease her, and to live with her illness) I attended many charismatic meetings (they often meet much more frequently than once a week), attended Mass several times at Catholic churches that put on a charismatic service, and even went to one charismatic Catholic retreat. I was very knowledgeable about my religion, because I was a theology minor in college, and I was, at one point in my life, an Associate in the Jesuit order (one step below a Novice, and on my way toward becoming a Jesuit priest). I have forgotten a lot since then, but back then I knew what I was talking about.
What I found was that people who were charismatics typically had a very unsophisticated view of religion. It was very child-like: they focused on punishments and rewards and magic, and all three were always in very tangible terms. They typically were unaware of what the dogma of the Church actually were, had no knowledge of Church history, and they were typically fundamentalists. (I apologize if I am being offensive; I am just trying to summarize my impressions.) Although there were charismatic priests, most of their leaders were not priests, and their leaders were often openly hostile toward the Catholic church, even though their common participants were not, at least initially.
The retreat I attended did not have a priest involved in it. They celebrated a "Mass of the Holy Spirit," in which people received "communion of the holy spirit," which really skirts the line of what a lay person is allowed to do (a lay person cannot consecrate the Eucharist, and cannot say a mass except under special circumstances). At this service, we were prayed over, in tongues, and actively encouraged to allow the holy spirit into us, which would be demonstrated by losing bodily control and falling back, or by speaking in tongues ourselves. Many people did fall over or begin to speak in tongues, and were made a big deal of. I personally did not have any experience of the holy spirit in this. Actually, between the chanting, the rough-hewn chapel lit only by candles, the swaying, the moaning, etc., the impression I took away from it was not that I had been at any sort of Christian gathering, but rather that I had spent two days among satanists.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, but no snakes were handled Icarus. You call that Charismatic? Heretic!
quote: And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!
[edit:Thanks for the biblical references, Maccabeus. I knew there was some justification for the beliefs but not where or what it was. edit2:Maccabeus reminded me to tell you I sympathize with your mother's struggle with faith and mental illness, and your coping with her struggles, Icarus.]
[ October 09, 2003, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Icarus, I sympathize with you. Historically, charismatic worship has been a significant cause of loss of faith among less emotionally demonstrative or more rationalistic people. It played an important role in the appearance in America of the religious movement I belong to.
quote: ...the excitement in some is now sufficiently high, and they rise, shouting, jumping, falling over benches, or on the floor, until it has become necessary for the friends to interpose, and restrain them by force, to prevent them from being injured or killed.
Many of the important figures in the 19th century churches of Christ were people who had concluded that all this emotional froth had no place in religion. It was, in effect, a middle way between believing God had rejected you and rejecting religion entirely.
Brents goes on, facetiously, to suggest that the "friends" involved ought not to restrain the worshippers, as what they are doing is supposedly the action of the Holy Spirit in them. "If He kills them, they ought to die." The loss of your mother saddens me, and is surely a shameful mark on her co-religionists that they could not have the common sense or decency to recognize that she had a problem and try to help.
Posted by Zan (Member # 4888) on :
I'm not sure where I'm remembering this from, but I thought there was a passage in the Bible that says people should NOT do things like handling deadly snakes. It's somewhat like asking God to prove himself.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Zan, you may be thinking of Luke 4:9-12. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I have clearly been out researched. Thankyou for the links Morbo. I will not take the time to point out what i consider to be major flaws in all of those studies. It would be tedious indeed. I will merely state that moods are subjective, and therefor, all conclusions drawn from them are suspect. Also, the idea that supernatural powers can have an effect on the natural world, seems to be a contradiction. If the powers were indeed supernatural, that would mean that they have no basis in the natural world. This also implies that they have no power here, lest they be natural, of the natural world.
[ October 09, 2003, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Robespierre, the issue is far from decided and provokes much controversy in the medical and scientific community. No consensus exists. I just took issue with your saying "no evidence exists." The problem as you mention is the difficulty of objective, non-biased scientific research on something so subjective as "belief" and "depresion." But the well-documented placebo effect proves that belief in the mind can have a profound effect on the body and it's health, for some people.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Robespierre, that seems to be an argument from words and definitions. Suppose we did not call these powers supernatural, but claimed that they were some natural force?
I can see immediately one thing you might say--that they would then be subject to the rules we know natural forces are subject to. But we only know that these forces are subject to such rules by experimenting with those forces themselves. Other forces might follow different rules entirely and it would make no difference to the outcome of our previous experiments.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Oh, I thought that you meant the band: The Charismatics !
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
You know the guy who wrote Spooky? That is so cool. That's one of my Mom's favorite songs and one of the few owned by my parents when I was growing up. Every time we listened to music, it was either Spooky, Pop Muzik, or Billy Joel's greatest hits volume 1. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I can see immediately one thing you might say--that they would then be subject to the rules we know natural forces are subject to. But we only know that these forces are subject to such rules by experimenting with those forces themselves. Other forces might follow different rules entirely and it would make no difference to the outcome of our previous experiments.
You see correctly. If indeed these forces have power in the natural world, there should be a way to measure them. Perhaps even by methods currently impossible, but for the theory to have meaning, it must be able to be tested and proven right or wrong.
It basically comes down to this question:
What can we honestly say is happening?
I think right now, we cannot honestly say that people are being healed by prayer or positive thinking. We can say it is possible, and show strong corrolations, but no causations. Until we can delineate just what is happening, or at least show objective evidence that there even IS something happening, we cannot honestly say.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Robespierre> I think we have reached an agreement.
For the record, I'm pretty skeptical about such healings myself. I snicker at faith healers and attribute the studies in question, for the most part, to the placebo effect; a few I'm not sure about.
Nonetheless, I do believe in God and miracles, and eventually I do expect such things to be put to the test, one way or another, just as they were centuries ago.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I agree, it looks like we have similar outlooks on this. Minus the belief in god and miracles.
I can empathize though, with those who do believe, as I once was one of you. I still feel somewhat attached to the catholic church. I enjoy reading about church history and discussing the issues. I have a desire for catholocism to be respected, and in my mind, this is not possible with so called "charismatic" events.
[ October 09, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Robespierre, to be honest I find Catholicism puzzling. I agree that charismatic beliefs will lead to less respect for Catholics, though. I'm not sure whether that bothers me or not.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I have a dire for catholocism to be respected, and in my mind, this is not possible with so called "charismatic" events."
That would cancel out quite a few of the saints, I think.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, Mike is as cool as the other side of the pillow. But he's whacked. One of the last times I saw Mike about 3 years ago he came over and we hung out for awhile. The next day he said he saw the ghosts of his dead relatives floating around my place. How are you supposed to respond to that?
"See ya!" "What were they wearing?" poor Michael. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sopwith...my only advice is to read and think for yourself. But find someone you trust who is both knowledgable and sincere with whom you can discuss your questions or issues that arise.
Remember that Christians are described in many parts of the New Testament as sober, reflective, etc.
Another good thing to do is think through how you can tell if the "messages" you are receiving are really from God or just something your brain manufactured.
The trick is to always test against scripture. If something you are starting to believe is contradicted in scripture, it's probably not a message from God.
These simple "rules" would forestall a lot of the whackier stuff that makes the evening news "mom kills all 8 children because she wants to protect them from the devil -- film at 11"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I can empathize though, with those who do believe, as I once was one of you. I still feel somewhat attached to the catholic church. I enjoy reading about church history and discussing the issues. I have a dire for catholocism to be respected, and in my mind, this is not possible with so called "charismatic" events.
I pretty much agree with this.
quote:The trick is to always test against scripture. If something you are starting to believe is contradicted in scripture, it's probably not a message from God.
I think this statement needs a lot more qualification . . . or what if you are thinking maybe homosexuality is not a sin?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus, you're probably right. There are lots of things that might pop into someone's head that are not from God but might still find support in Scripture if you either look hard enough, or quit looking too soon to spot the mitigating scriptures, etc.
My view about what scripture says about homosexuality is that it is at best "ambivalent." If one looks at the old testament, it's mentioned pretty explicitly as an abomination. But then so is "eating shellfish" so you kind of have to wonder whether or not that rule applies. Then there's some stuff in the New Testament that offers a proscription against judging others, in general, and then there's Paul and his stuff...
But the point is more like you have to study and understand scripture really well before you can judge whether something is "from God" or of ones own manufacture. That's where it becomes seriously important to have a person who is MORE MATURE in the faith in order to help sort this stuff out, IMHO.
And I think that's where most people's personal failings in listening to God's voice within them come from. They figure "oh, heard a voice, it's God, I'll go do what it said" and maybe don't have enough knowledge or experience to judge these things.
Case in point. I know of a church that was utterly destroyed when a female parishioner determined that God had ordered her to have the pastor's illegitimate child. She tried very hard to seduce the pastor, despite the fact that he was married and so was she... And she drew people into this silly debate over whether she'd been ordered to pursue this course of action.
She might've sought mature counseling by someone in the faith and forestalled all the problems. By the time people reined her in, the situation was out of hand and the community didn't survive it.
Sad, really.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: That would cancel out quite a few of the saints, I think.
Being an atheist, I am not an apologist for the catholic church. I don't believe that ANY of those saints performed miracles or even that Jesus rose from the dead. I am just interested in the church and its evolution through the millenia.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know I agree with you, Bob. But I'm just pointing out how finding scriptural support for something is not the end-all. Hence the call for qualification.
EDIT to clarify.
[ October 09, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I went to a few "Charismatic" churches when I was a young teen, and I think Tom and dkw are the most correct, with what my experience was, in any case.
They are not exactly a denomination, as most are independant churches, but they do, sor of, ah, network. They can usually be told from Pentecostals by the tendency to not condemn the wearing of jewelry and makeup by women. They don't handle snakes as a rule, though God only knows what you may find. My churches never had anyone rolling in the floor, and they mostly treated the 'speaking in tongues' as something that you did consciously, not something that posessed you. They refered to it as praying 'in the spirit' as opposed to praying 'with understanding'. Kind of like saying "OHM" in meditation-- the meaning was not as important as ... whatever the spiritual element was.
Another big thing in the Charismatic movement was believing that God wants us to prosper financially, so it allowed the rich to not feel guilty, and the poor to 'believe ' their way to riches. Sort of. Anyway, that's the short answer just from memory.
--Olivet, who is now a heathen and loving it. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
<reeling, rolling>
I think I'm just going to open my heart and follow where it leads.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Good plan. I tend to be wary with people who put more emphasis on the “gifts of the Spirit” – tongues, prophecy, healing, etc, than the “fruit of the Spirit” -- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22). If the gifts don’t seem to be bearing the fruit, then I think it’s fair to question whether it’s really “of the Spirit.”
If this guy’s preaching is leading you to think deeply about your faith, great. If it’s bringing you closer to God, making you a stronger disciple of Christ, wonderful. Just remember that ultimately you are a follower of Jesus Christ, not of Jesse Duplantis. Listen for God’s voice yourself, don’t just take his word for it.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Never was going to follow him, actually, he had just inspired a good feeling in me and stoked the furnace a bit.
There's one destination, but we've all got to find our own individual paths. Luckily, there's a good guidebook. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
What she said.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Yep, I do.
[ October 09, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Taberah (Member # 4014) on :
No thread on Christianity would be complete without one of the Christians referring to C.S. Lewis. It's a Hatrack tradition, right?
Since no one has beat me to the punch, allow me to recommend C.S. Lewis as a good source of sober-minded thinking about Christianity. For the issues that this particular thread has been dealing with, his book Miracles may be a good reference.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Mere Christianity is probably next on my reading list. I'll let you know on the Duplantis book... so far, it reads well.
And please excuse me, I read slowly. On purpose.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I loved C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, as well as most of his other non-fiction and religious fiction. The Problem of Pain was great, and I also enjoyed The Great Divorce, etc.
It is worth noting, however, that one of the ideas I came across in the Narnia Books led to the first crack in my somewhat structured view of How Things Work as far as religion goes.
I have said this before, and I know it's weird, but I'm not a church-goer anymore, largely BECAUSE of the influence of C.S. Lewis' writings.
In The Last Battle, this guy who followed a false god, but did so with a pure heart, ends up in 'heaven'. I thought about it a long time, and it finally made so much sense to me that I couldn't stand to be in a church that believed you have to do X Y and Z just like THIS to get into 'heaven' or to have a relationship with the 'real' god. Which was prettymuch all of them (except Unitarians, I think, and I'm not ready to go that far, either).
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: Could Satan offer healing on the physical level if he so chose and it served his purposes?
I don't think so, not an actual healing, anyway. The Bible says that God is the healer. But maybe he could be the one who makes you think you are sick in the first place? I KNOW that he can confuse a non-Christian so much that they will think pretty much anything he wants them to, i.e. I'm sick, I'm not sick.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm pretty sure he works just as hard at confusing Christians. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't make me immune to temptation or treachery. It just makes me more aware of how thin the path can be at some times and how vast the possibilities are.
Posted by Jexxster (Member # 5293) on :
Not really important info, but in my time in Guatemala (where I first encountered Charismatics) it was a movement confined solely to the Catholic Church.
It surprised me to see that it wasn't exclusive.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
But the Catholic Church is the dominant denomination in Guatemala, so just about every movement you find there will consist primarily of Catholics, no?
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Tom. That's the best description of Charismatics I've ever seen.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
,no clue what the biblical justification is) and waving hands above the head and swaying during sermons (a Charismatic biblical scholar explained this to me, I forgot the reasoning.)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
is as cool as the other side of the pillow. But he's whacked. One of the last times I saw Mike about 3 years ago he came over and we hung out for awhile. The next day he said he saw the ghosts of his dead relatives floating around my place. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
poor Michael. ![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)