this phrase should not to be confused with being NON-charismatic, and certainly not as being ANTI-charismatic. The process of separating what is truly of the Holy Spirit and what is needless -- and often harmful -- baggage is the whole idea behind developing a post-charismatic understanding of how a supernatural God works supernaturally amongst and through the mystical gathering called the Body. In other words, post-charismatic, but not post-Spirit.
Now, this articulates my feelings quite well. I still believe in [and practice, actually] spiritual gifts and an experiential thing in faith, but I can't identify with the kinds of authoritarian and excess and tendencies to 'name it and claim it' that seems to mark too much of what goes under the label "charismatic" nowadays. I really liked the vibe of the early charismatic thing where it was associated with a renaissance in folk arts [okay, a bit twee now but in principle the imaging of God's creativity is no bad thing] and there were people like Post Green Community doing a fairly radical discipleship thing [David Watson too].
However, like with "post evangelical" the 'post' prefix tends to connote something left behind. I want a term that still somehow keeps faith with the fact that I 'practice' faith with 'supernatural gifts' [however we understand that] but don't necessarily hold with the fleshly-emo hype [so 'amen' to post-hype] or the naive theologies [heck, I'm a glossolalist and a trained linguist: I have a more sophisticated ur-understanding of what might be going on in many cases...]. So I recognise the term but hold back from claiming it. ... contemplative charismatic ... ? ....
Actually, taking my cue from the late John Wimber, I'm inclined to label myself 'non-religious Charismatic'. In a meeting in Sheffield towards the end of the '80's John Wimber damped down some Pentecostal style emotional hype that was beginning in one part of the hall by saying words to the effect of' "Now don't get all religious on me". Which to me lays bare a lot of the real issue of the matter: it is enthusiasm [literal, etymological, meaning: 'enGodding'] which is channelled through a human nervous system in culturally conditioned ways. That's not to say we can ever have a pure experience of God untouched by our neuro-cultural a prioris: it may be possible to have it, but we can't 'know' it without processing it and that processing will pull in our neuro-cultural formation thus far. So there's no reason why we should not seek to express our enthusiasm in more religionless ways: "Yes!", "Hooray!" and so on are surely as okay as "Alleluia", perhaps in some circumstances better? We don't need to hype up the emotional temperature for God to act through us. I don't see Jesus working up a 'high' in order to expell demons or to cleanse leprosy; he just does it.
That's not to say that gratitude, excitement or amazement are trivial in Christian experience. It is to say that the way they are expressed is optional.
Take tongue-speaking. On the whole it is not an actual language being spoken [sorry if that's a 'there is no Santa Claus' moment for you; take a moment and breathe through it. Ready now? Let's go on ...]. What is probably happening is that the centres of the brain responsible for the production of speech sounds are being activated without being linked to the parts that deal with semantics and syntax. So what we get are strings of phonemes in vaguely speech-like patterns. It is an activation of part of the verbal capability. It can be used to praise God and to be a kind of mantra; an activation of part of the brain enabling other things to go on more easily. It can also be used detached from a relationship with God in Christ. It as a latent capability of probably most human beings that somehow becomes activated in relating to God and analogous situations. It can therefore be used by God as a kind of mediating point, almost sacramentally, perhaps, an opening of ourselves to God that may not happen otherwise. It is a human bodily mediated response to being touched by the spiritual-beyond.
That's how it looks from here at the moment, anyway.
jonnybaker: post charismatic:
Filed in: Christian, Holy_Spirit, charismatic, Pentecostal, critique
4 comments:
Thanks for this Andii, I shall have to look up Jonny's stuff. I certainly rings bells with me, having spent 8 years or so on the whole charismatic/pentecostal treadmill. I left it when I could no longer tell the hype from the holy. I wouldn't like to say that I've "grown out of it", but I certainly have left the whole emotional packaging behind. Dave Tomlinson said somethng similar at Greenbelt a few years ago, asking whether tongues was a "right-brain activity" (but I may have my hemispheres switched there!)
I think that the right brain is alleged to be the one dealing with non-linear, a-rational thinking; so that's the right ...er... correct one. Remember the spinal cord switches over sides as a result of evolutionary accidents to do with fish out of water, so since most of us are right handed and write with that hand, the left side of the brain is the rational, linear side. I think.
Any way, more substantially; I think one of the things that a lot of spiritual seekers who don't find the chari-costal thing attractive are reacting to is the feeling of been emotionally taken for a ride. I suspect it's the emotional equivalent of being bundled into the back of a white van. Some people really like that whole taking your emotions out and really giving them a ride round town but others find it actually destroys any sense of the numinous for them.
I recall dealing with someone like this once and introducing them to more meditative sides of Christianity because the other stuff was killing their interest.
Thank you for an interesting article. I would, however, take issue with your observation that the expression of enthusiasm (i.e., emotion-laden words and gestures in responses of worship and affirmation of the word of God) smacks of "religion" (meaning, I assume, "religious behavior or hype").
I do agree that human experience is culturally conditioned to some extent. I would, however, point out that the worship styles of groups such as Pentecostals, charismatics, etc., are closer biblically to those found in the Bible than to those seen in the majority of churches in existence today. The Psalms are replete with worship that shouts, sings aloud, dances and calls others to do so! Just so you know, I was a Vineyard pastor for many years. As I thought on our style of worship, I eventually concluded that our worship style tended to reflect an intellectual, overly-cerebral, westernized form of worship that minimizes our emotional response to God and views the emotions as somehow dangerous, less trustworthy, or--even worse--an attempt to not look like "those others" who come from less-educated, socioeconomically-deprived classes. In other words, our reactions to freedom in worship may be more a problem of our pride and fear of appearing foolish than anything else. It does seem to me that it takes a laying down of my pride and ego to worship God utilizing the biblical forms of shouting, dancing and other exuberant expressions of praise to Jesus. My perception is that it can be just as "religious" to abstain from biblical expressions of worship out of fear of man or intellectual pride. If my observations are valid, it appears that much of Christianity in our country (and western Christianity in general) functions in worship this way. I long for myself and others to recapture the practice of worship in line with that found in Scripture, and recover what it means for us to utilize all that is in us--mind, will AND emotions--to love God "with all our heart, mind, soul and strength."
Thanks Dan. I think that much of what I said actually fits your concern, as I read it. I would agree that there is a danger of going into the other pole, and in so doing finding we'd axchanged one cultural something for another. That said I worry that you may be norming the cultural expressions of first century eastern Mediterranean people. Is that culture any better (or worse) that 19 century British (for example). Is our own 'liking' for it any more than seeing in the past what we would hope for in the present? And even if it is not we still have to do the work of discernment as to whether what we are wanting to see in the present is on our hearts because the Spirit has put it there. And even if S/He has put it there, we still have to be aware of the possibility that we can out-run the Spirit and miss a turning.
By all means let's praise exuberantly, but be wary of looking down on those who don't (and vice versa, of course).
I agree about 'religiosity', just beware of the wiles of culture! It's not that human experience is cultured to some extent; it's that human experience is inveterately cultured, and that it part of (the implication of) being made finite in the image of God who is community.
Post a Comment