May 19
Still a sceptic for Jesus
I am very hesitant about writing this post in comment on Peter’s account of falling down in Dudley. I do so, however, because in the comments on this post of mine, he has kept pushing it on me, and even gone so far as to say that my cynicism means there’s no hope God will ever work in Worcestershire. I nonetheless remain very reticent about commenting on the value and truth of someone else’s spiritual experience. Therefore I make these points first.
- In my view it would be perfectly possible for Peter or anyone else to attend a faked and hyped-up meeting, and still have a genuine experience of God. What I say about the meeting is not a comment on any individual experience. Just because God uses something doesn’t make it good of itself.
- It would likewise be perfectly possible for an event to be genuine, and for any particular claim to be touched by God at it to itself be faked or delusional.
- Again in my view, most of these things are a mix of faith and phoniness, or, if you like in Pauline terms, the spiritual and the fleshly. I would say that about every expression of human response to God, traditional or new, including my own. The difference is that the traditional expressions tend to have developed tools of discernment and discipline to deal with this.
Despite these caveats, I remain profoundly sceptical of this “outpouring” as its devotees seem to call it. We have seen this pattern before. We move from second blessing, to third wave, to Toronto and on. As these have gone on, it seems that most of those going are those who have been through the previous wave. Somehow, life has just not lived up to all those promises they thought God was giving them the previous time. Somehow the world hasn’t all turned Christian in an end-times revival. Somehow, individuals find themselves struggling with the same old problems, patterns and habits of sin. Rather than explore the traditional disciplines, they resist the routinisation of charisma, by looking for a new one. Sooner or later the next bandwagon comes along, and they jump on it. The phenomena are more extreme, surely that means there’s more sign of God’s blessing. It is, above all else, the sense of the revivalist boy who cried revival wolf, that leaves me deeply sceptical.
By his own account, Peter drove for 2½ hours (presumably breaking the speed limit) to get there. He goes excited, convinced, and deeply desirous of an experience. He starts queuing two hours before the start time of 7.30pm. The first hour consists of loud songs with a lot of clapping, before a mood change into more meditative singing. A long time seems to elapse before the main speaker takes the stage, and it is even later (about 10.00pm) before he gets to his main talk. As the evening winds on, it is nearly midnight before the time for ministry arrives. There seems to be an expectation made very clear that people will fall over once ministered to. Most duly seem to do so. I find it hard to believe that two hours driving, two hours queuing, and four and a half hours’ being prepared for ministry with song and talk in a crowded, noisy, warm and communal venue, won’t in themselves create conditions in which people are susceptible of falling over and having intense experiences. Peter adds an aside that many had travelled much further (and therefore longer) than he had.
The means of ministry is strange too. Punters get touched by a cloth soaked in oil and imported from the Florida revival meetings. This is the “anointing” or the time for ‘impartation”. Peter tries to justify this as biblical from Acts 19:12, where people take cloths that have got Paul’s oily sweat on them as means of healing the sick. But just because a practice is referred to in the Bible doesn’t mean its “biblical”. Such is the sloppy logic by which Mormons baptise the dead. I was, to be frank, much more impressed in the past by the low-key way someone like John Wimber seemed to work. I didn’t agree with his theology, but I warmed to his lack of gimmicks.
None of this, I repeat, says anything in itself about the validity of Peter’s experience. I do not know him, or the prayer needs he hints at in his post. I am not his vicar or his spiritual director, and discerning the genuineness of his experience is something for him to explore with them and with those who know him as a real person, and not a blog. But equally I see nothing in the description he offers of this event to make me revise the criticisms I previously made. It looks like an experience seeking entertainment to me, for those who think being slain in the Spirit is the acme of spiritual cool.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
No, I haven’t really
My point was that if your cynicism (which I’m glad you toned down to scepticism) was typical of Worcestershire that might be true. Anyway, I withdrew the comment when I realised that the centre of Dudley, where God is at work, is in fact historically a part of Worcestershire.
When I say that God is at work, I agree that I cannot prove that it was not faked, even my own experience is not proof of that. But then I cannot prove that Jesus lived, died and rose again, but I have to take it on faith. Similarly I can take it on faith that God is at work in Dudley and in Lakeland, while agreeing with you that there may be an admixture of phoniness. It is right to be on the watch for this, but not to descend into cynicism.
Yes, there have been waves of revival which have come and gone. Yes, some people look just for spiritual highs. Is it bad to look for get close to God? There may be many reasons why these revivals don’t last, but I’m sure one of them is the negative attitude they are met with in many churches.
I think it should be clear that I share many of your concerns about the length and noise level of the Dudley meeting. I was indeed tired by the end of it. But not so tired that I lost my critical faculties. I accept that simply quoting Acts 19:12 is not adequate to justify the method of anointing, but I am still tired and so not prepared to write a full justification here.
The people who had travelled further may simply have broken the speed limit more flagrantly!
Thanks for the advice on “discerning the genuineness of his experience” with my vicar. I should point out that I went to Dudley with his blessing and prayed for him and others in my church to receive this same anointing with his blessing.
Doug, might I suggest that when you have a free evening you make the short trip to Dudley to check this out for yourself. You might be surprised. I accept that you won’t like the “worship”, but I think you will end up realising that God is in that place.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Peter,
Can I thank you for taking this post in the way it was intended, and for offering so measured a reply?
PS - I don’t really know the meaning of a free evening at the moment!
May 20th, 2008 at 3:59 am
I do not feel that I can ever judge the mystical experiences of another person. To me, the compelling factor is that Peter feels the reality of his experiences. If those experiences bring him closer to God — all the better.
Do I think Peter has provided sufficient documentation, for say, a scientific paper? Certainly not. But that does not mean that I am skeptical of his experiences — I simply accept his judgment of his own experiences for what it is. I do not come from a common religious tradition as Peter, but I believe that God is a light to all nations, and I look forward to the spiritual insights that I hope Peter will share with us as a result of his extraordinary experience.
To read, for example, the Desert Fathers and their stunning insights, as mere hallucinations induced by their extreme environments is to miss the point. What they experienced — or any mystic experiences — is of course a private matter between them and God. But the spiritual insights that they can share with us as a result is a lasting legacy.
Christianity is far more hostile to mystical experience than Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism, for example, so I am happy to encounter an articulate, intelligent Christian with the courage to describe his own experiences. Now, Peter’s spirituality is rather alien to my own, and I do not seek experiences like Peter’s. Still, I do not find the question “is this real?” a useful question to ask in the face of statement like Peter’s. In fact, I don’t even know what that question means. Instead, I ask, “what can I learn from Peter?”
May 20th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Thanks, Iyov, I appreciate your attitude. And yours, Doug, because despite your scepticism you accept that my experience may be genuine.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
[...] MetaCatholic: Still a sceptic for Jesus [...]
May 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
[...] few days ago Doug tagged me with the Impossible Dream meme. Since then we have had our disagreements about the Dudley outpouring. But there are no hard feelings, so now I have more or less recovered [...]
July 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
[...] refraining from saying much more about Todd Bentley’s bizarre “ministry” than I said in this post, though I remain baffled by some people’s credulity. But I remain concerned that the power of [...]