Phil Johnson, whom I referenced yesterday in another realted article on divination makes this interesting proposition: "The fact of the matter is that phenomenologically prophecy belongs under the canopy of divination. Evangelicals confuse the phenomenology of divination with questions about the theology of divination. The proper question that persists is: 'which God?' It is a theological query, rather than centred on 'which technique' is okay."
Which is certainly a 'cat among pigeons' statement, but I suspect it may be right. About the only method of divination that is outlawed technique-wise is consulting the dead. He makes a good case by pointing out the OT's licit divinatory techniques, and to it we might add the lot casting of the apostles in Acts 2 to choose a new apostle to replace Judas.
Certainly, a theology that sees God working in and through the processes of the world cannot rule out the possibility of guidance comeing through some of these techniques. Perhaps the issue is not only 'which God' but also of whether God is repsected as personal and living rather than as some kind of force of fate. I guess that could be a sub-question of 'which God?' -a kind of 'and how conceived?', the issue might also be related to that of 'who's in charge?', since a lot of contemporary divination is implicitly about us taking control and bending the 'spiritual', the 'divine' etc to serve our agenda.
circle of pneuma: Divination:
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
3 comments:
Andii, thanks for dropping by circle of pneuma on "guidance" and "divination".
I agree with you that one can also probe the issue of guidance and divination by pondering "motives". So in pursuing divination in the OT the questions that should accompany reflections on the texts are:
1. Which God are we dealing with here Yahweh or some other deity?
2. What is the motive/s of the Israelites in each instance when a divinatory encounter occurs?
3. What is the message given to the Israelites? (Reassurance? Specific guidance and direction? Admonishment and judgement?)And a concomitant reflection is considering the outcomes.
It is really in light of these kinds of questions that "which technique" only then comes into consideration. Once we discern what is forbidden in the Torah, then the issue of divination centres on which God is Israel (or God's servants generally) relying on, and why do they proceed to set out a fleece, act on predetermined signs (like lapping water; fired arrows etc)? Also when does Yahweh take the initiative by sending an angel in a vision or dream? Yahweh's pneuma moves a prophet to act and to speak, etc. So discerning is it Yahweh or Baal is important, and with it comes the point is Israel listening to Yahweh or Baal?
All of this seems to beg for more reflections when one notes how clairvoyance, tarot, astrology etc have surged to the foreground in alternate spiritualities today -- surely a dialogical issue as well as an issue of praxis for Christians.
And our motives today become an important factor in the equation: are we genuinely seeking God's direction or are we operating with mixed motives trying to take control or seek self aggrandizing outcomes?
The casting of lots is interesting because it is pretty much like "drawing straws" or "tossing a coin". And Matthias is indeed chosen as Judas Iscariot's replacement in Acts by casting lots.
I agree that consulting the dead is prohibited in Deuteronomy, and the object lesson is 1 Samuel 28. Saul, who is supposed to have rid Israel of spiritists, ends up in spiritual apostasy and Yahweh has already judged him. Samuel whilst he was alive rebuked Saul and told him that his throne was forfeited in favour of another. So by chapter 28 Saul is unable to receive guidance from Yahweh, and turns to the woman at Endor. The irony here is that Samuel does speak from the grave and issues a reiteration of Yahweh's judgement. In effect, Saul thinks he can manipulate his situation since Yahweh has stopped all contact with him. The text shows obliquely: "you dummy, if Yahweh no longer speaks to you by dreams or prophecy, what gives you the idea that you will be any better off inquiring of the dead?"
My other struggle is that the evangelical books that seek to expose or analyse the occult, astrology, new age etc, tend to make blanket prouncements on divination by merely proof texting Deut 13 and 18, and never look at the issue of divination any further in Scripture -- so if all divination is prohibited (the assumption generally made), then how do we reconcile Deut 18 with casting lots, Urim and Thummim, dreams, visions, putting out the fleece etc? This is an Achilles heel in the anti-occult books.
Phil, thanks for such a full and informative comment! I liked what you wrote here: "And our motives today become an important factor in the equation: are we genuinely seeking God's direction or are we operating with mixed motives trying to take control or seek self aggrandizing outcomes"
I think that's spot on; too much contemporary evangelicalism is on a pwer-over trip which distorts all too much of the dealings they/we have with the rest of the world. We need to rediscover the dynamic of the 72 -go an be guests of others, let them be hosts; let them have the power over us while we simply discern what's going on with God and follow that ..
I think that the interesting thing about the signs you mention like Gideon's fleece is the way they are woven into a dialogue with God.
I quite agree that there is a kind of double standard operating.
I think that you're on to something there Matt. My own personal take is that I suspect that bodily movements and all that in such circumstances [shamanic and similar] say a great deal about human physiology in the face of the 'uncanny' and altered states of consciousness more than what spiritual reality -if any- lies behind them. There's also a huge amount we need to factor in about suggestibility and mimesis. The illusionist Derren Brown [a UK performer] has done a lot which shows up how much can be accompished simply by suggestions with the 33% of people who are susceptible; including mocking up a seance complete with phenomena, which the participants fully believed in at the time but which the camera showed to be obvious fakery.
I think that you are right about more thinking needed; I suspect we need a proper research approach which takes in the whol thing from physiology to suggestibility even before we properly address the spiritual realities.
Post a Comment