Charismatic Movement

My Adventures With God : 
CHAPTER 6 : The Early Charismatic Movement

While all this was happening there were major upheavals going on in the Turramurra Methodist Church. It is the early 1970's, the Charismatic Movement is bringing renewed vitality to mainline churches around the world. There were both good and bad aspects, as I experienced at Turramurra.

Drew Hill, the well loved minister moved on. A new minister was chosen. (I can't remember his name and Freud would probably have had something to say about that!). In the month or so between being appointed and actually arriving the minister and his whole family underwent a profound conversion experience in the “Charismatic Movement”.

They, and more particularly their teenage son and daughter hit Turramurra like a whirlwind. There was already a large teenage youth group. The forceful personalities of the pair and their stories of supernatural things like speaking in tongues and miracles created an immediate effect. The practices like informal gathering to sing catchy scripture-set-to-music songs and the strong emotionalism resonated strongly with the spirit of the 70's.

Among adult members of the church there was a divide. Some were drawn to the movement some were not. Some found the small groups with the singing, praying and sharing very helpful. Some found the whole thing confronting, overly-emotional, and of dubious spiritual depth.

A case in point were the Melbourne family. Husband, wife and six children were a central part of the youth scene. “Mel” as Les Melbourne was affectionately known was an always present feature of youth activities. Never leading, there were young people who very capably did that – just there keeping an eye on things and available to any who wanted to talk. He was sensible, down to earth, of deep faith in Christ and understanding of people. One illustration: He worked for a large corporation. He used to start every day by praying for the wisdom to see the things that needed to be dealt with first, and the wisdom to do these tasks well. One time he foresaw that upper management would order lay-offs. So he talked to the workers, used his contacts throughout the industry and found jobs for some of them to simply transfer over to. When the order came through to cut the workforce there were no forced retrenchments because these arrangements had already been made in a timely and sympathetic way.

“Mrs. Mel” was equally remarkable in perhaps a less visible way. She combined caring efficiently for Mel and the six children with running an open house that was virtually a drop-in centre for the young people of the church and neighbourhood. Together they managed to be a powerful force for good. Their care, hospitality, listening ear and wise counsel had a tremendous stabilising effect on a very large group of us (yes, me too!) going through the turbulent teens and twenties.

Mrs Mel. and the children were all part of the charismatic scene. Mel was not. In time he was one of those who worked to persuade the minister to move on. Yet they managed to maintain their family unity.

In the general congregation, unity was not maintained.

The minister believed that he was being inspired by the Holy Spirit when he preached. I don't know what his preaching had been like previously, but at Turramurra it was long winded, repetitive and vacuous. Towards the end one could tell who the scheduled preacher was the moment one turned into the street where the church was. If it was the charismatic minister there was just a smattering of cars parked there, if it was someone else both curbs were packed right down the street.

One contrast in preaching that I still recall was between the charismatic minister and an old retired pastor. The retired pastor radiated a love for and knowledge of God and a great understanding of scripture. By comparison the charismatic was just froth and bubbles.

Me? I was only ever a watcher on the fringe. But by the end it was the bad bits that stuck in my mind. The preacher's evidently false belief in his inspired preaching. The effect the over-emotionalism had on some of the young people. The claims of miracles (leg lenghtening was a favourite) didn't ring true. The exclusivity and superiority of the inner circle.

Sue and I were among the many who left the church. The experience left me with a healthy caution in my future encounters with the whole pentecostal movement – even though I would say I am equally a “Holy Spirit believer”. (Well no, I would actually want to say “Trinitarian believer” - I worship and adore God Father, Son and Holy Spirit: but the point is that I do believe in the Holy Spirit and the Spirit's work in and through a believer just as much as they do!)

Ethics of War Pt.2

Ethics of War – Pt.2

One Sunday in my then parish in Vermont (the suburb of Melbourne – not the US State) I gave as a children's talk the story of David and Goliath. Straight after the service a lady came up to me brim full of anger and told me in no uncertain terms that she did not bring her children to church to have them hear war glorified.

I was astonished. Foolish me, I had not kept abreast of politics and the new 'political correctness'. I just told Bible stories in the belief that if God had them recorded in the Bible then there was something we could learn from them (OK I didn't tell the David and Bathsheeba story to children – but I did to teenagers).

This lady's reaction was symptomatic of the endemic failing in humanity in every age – that people judge the Bible by their standards rather than letting the Bible be the judge of their standards.

Does the Bible glorify war? No! Not in the least, but it does praise virtue that is shown in war. That is a very different thing!

In David's case in facing down Goliath, it was courage, resourcefulness and above all trust in God. When all the seasoned warriors of his people were retreating in fear from the challenge to do single combat with the giant Goliath, David volunteered. His resourcefulness in utilising speed, agility and a long range weapon (his sling) is most remarkable. His trust in God is his supreme virtue. He sees Goliath's challenge as the Philistines gods against their God. The challenge must be accepted.

Since their God is the one true God, victory is assured. The story bears out that David's faith was proved correct.

Perhaps modern people's problem is being too simplistic. The Bible is both more subtle and more precise. More consistently moral yet more realistic in its view of the world. So in various aspects it depicts both sides of the coin so to speak. Take these for example:

The Bible does not even envisage the possibility of people being pacifists, yet extols the virtues of seeking peace: “Blessed are the peacemakers” etc.

On one hand God goes (to use a modern phrase) absolutely ballistic against war crimes and also only slightly less 'ballistic' against people who start wars just to expand their borders.

On the other hand, God raises up military leaders for the ancient Israelites when they are in need, He gives military prowess and strength. He advises their military leaders on tactics to defeat invading enemies. He even miraculously causes mysterious mass deaths in an invading Assyrian army, causing them to withdraw.

The Bible says God hates violence and murder. So the description of evil people: “Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. They pursue evil schemes; acts of violence mark their ways.” (Isaiah 59:7) and even stronger words :

“The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.” (Psalm 11:5)

Yet military people figure among his favourites, with abundant examples from Joshua through to the soldiers in Jesus day.

We even find God miraculously healing Na'aman – Not only is Na'aman a successful army commander but a foreigner who has actually been fighting against the Israelites.

Again on the meta-question of warfare we see two sides. On one side an example where at one stage God apparently sets up a situation where there will be continued conflict so that the fledgling Israelite nation will have trained soldiers: “These are the nations the Lord left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan (he did this only to teach warfare to the descendants of the Israelites who had not had previous battle experience):” (Joshua 3:1,2)

On the other he depicts one of the blessings of heaven being an end to war “They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4)

Even from this small selection one can see how easy it is for people who come to the Bible with pre-conceived ideas to selectively present quotes to bolster these ideas. The real world is is more complicated than their model. God is perhaps the ultimate realist. He knows exactly how the world is and how fallen human nature operates. He manages to have an absolute moral being and yet take in reality and the 'big picture' to show the way his sort of people should act.

Both the jingoistic warmongers of the past and the PC anti-war / anti-military advocates of the present are only looking at half the picture.

War is terrible, but sometimes less terrible than letting evil go unopposed.

War is terrible, but evil people will force it on good people until it is made a thing of the past in Heaven. So as the saying goes “seek peace and prepare for war”.

Next Week : Is all Violence Bad ... ?

Ethics of War

The Ethics of War

This is one question where churches seem to espouse whatever is the flavour of the month in their base culture. There are of course a host of reasons both sociological and spiritual why this is so, but the problem for me at this point is what their apparently their negotiable ethics says about the Bible as a source of moral teaching.

Whatever position churches have at a particular time they generally claim vociferously that this is what the Bible teaches. That phenomenon is a problem when I want to establish the Bible as a keyhole to glimpse the absolute standard of morals!

Take the topic of the ethics of war. The opposite extremes of the bloodthirsty mediaeval church and the pacifist Quakers I will leave to one side for the moment. I want to take as an example modern and mainstream church attitudes.

My first parish included a little rural town called Lang Lang. There was a photo in the church vestry that I found both haunting and inspiring. It was of the minister of that church immediately after the First World War.

He had, like so many young men at that time, gone to the war. In his case as a Chaplain. He served in the trenches in France and Belgium. Gas was used as a weapon extensively, particularly chlorine gas – cheap easily produced but deadly, and often inflicting a very painful and lingering death. One time this chaplain went out with stretcher bearers to rescue wounded soldiers. During this time there was a chlorine gas attack. The chaplain, like all the troops had been issued with a gas mask and put it on. Then he found one of the wounded did not have a gas mask and taking his own one off he put it on the wounded man.

His lungs were so damaged by the gas that he was chronically ill during his time as minister at Lang Lang, and he died within a few years. What an incredible example of self-sacrificing Christian love; but what an awful thing the war was.

My point is that here was one (there were of course countless others) person who was devout, Christian, and of strong and commendable moral courage who believed it was right to go to war. This was also I believe the almost universal position of the mainstream denominations at that time

Let me come forward in time to an illustration of the beliefs of another minister this time in conflict with those of his denomination in the late 1960's.

The year was 1981. I was a young and keen curate and my vicar had let me take the funeral of an old lady I had been visiting in the local nursing home. A man introduced himself as the lady's son, he lived in another state and had come some distance for the funeral. After the service we got talking and this was the story he told:

He had been a young Presbyterian minister during the time of the Vietnam War. At one of their church's synods he had made a speech criticising the Australian government for introducing conscription and sending troops to fight alongside the Americans in this war.

During one of the breaks in the synod session a very senior minister confronted him, and poking him in the chest with a finger said: “Remember this day! This is the day your career in the Presbyterian Church ended!”

The man at the funeral, now much older looked wistfully past me into the distance and said: “and it was”.

So as late as 1960's it was an anathema to speak against a war in the Presbyterian church. As I recall, it would at least have been “unwelcome” in many other denominations. (A notable exception was high profile Methodist minister and director of the Wesley Mission in Sydney The Rev'd Dr. Sir Alan Walker who was a very outspoken critic of the war.)

Come forward just a few decades. The Anglican Church of which I am a member is now endemically anti-war. I suspect this is part of a swing to “Social Progressive” politics on the part of the people concerned. Hence it is still patchy, many are of this persuasion, some are not. However it has certainly been evident that a vocal bloc are anti-war and some are straight out anti-military – even to the extent of vilifying members of the clergy who are chaplains to the armed services. It is also a fact that very senior church people have criticised the Australian government for sending troops to fight in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In so short a space of time what the church expounds as “right” has reversed. I think that this is only one instance of a much more extensive problem: the chameleon ethical face of the church.

I think it happens when people's ideas and ideals come not (as they say – and quite likely themselves suppose) from the Bible but from political beliefs or cultural assumptions. These sources are (perhaps unconsciously) held more sacred than the Bible by the people concerned. The result is that the Bible is used (or misused) only to provide a legitimation for these already held beliefs rather than in its proper role to critique and mould them.

I am still struggling with how this can be overcome in order to utilise the ethical precepts of the Bible. One idea I am testing is that Aristotle holds the key. One of his cameos is of the complete man (Yes even Aristotle was a man of his times and thought to be complete one had to be male, Greek and a free citizen) We do not agree with him on that! However his ideal person was so imbued with moral sense that they not only did the right thing at all times but did so without internal struggle. No hand wringing or 'agonising over decisions' for them! They knew the right and they did it, whatever the cost.

I am toying with the idea that maybe this how the Bible should in large part work. That it can, under God, transform people into that sort of ideal condition that Aristotle glimpsed. Such people have their moral sense grounded on the absolute moral standard. Being build on this secure foundation their minds can work out solutions to ethical problems. On the other hand people who are dominated by what Biblical writers describe as our fallen human nature and the desires and values of “this world” will continue to see and use the Bible as a support for what they already want the answer to be, not as a source of inspiration!

But for the next few posts I will try to find what the Bible actually says about this moral issue. More of that next week!

Still Thinking !

Still Thinking !

I have been away from the blog for a couple of months, OK I got lazy!!!

Now I'm back … but there is still this niggling problem in my mind :

THE BIG PROBLEM

As Jeremiah said : “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (17:9)

The problem is us! Or more precisely two human traits ; First is the capacity of the human mind to interpret data to mean what the person wants to be the case; Second is our ability to fool ourselves that we are being righteous when in fact we are being devious deceitful and dishonest!

I was watching a TV documentary on an oil rig disaster in the gulf of Mexico which caused huge environmental damage and killed the crew on duty in the 'drilling shed' on the drilling platform. As one expert commented: the men did not want to die, but they were under extreme pressure to complete the job, so they really wanted the test they were conducting to show that it was safe to pull up the drill. But the test 'failed' so they tried another way of measuring if the iol well was going to leak. This way indicated that it was OK. But as the expert pointed out, the gauge readings they were looking at still showed a discrepancy that should have alerted them to the fact that something was wrong. (actually the second test only looked like a 'pass' because of another fault!).

So the crew interpreted the data in front of them – maybe quite unconsciously – how they wanted it to be rather than how it really was. In their case they paid for their mistake with their lives!

My point is, as I said way back in my last post, people – normal well meaning people – still often see what they want to see in the Bible. So how do we use it as the standard of ethics?

The second human trait compounds this problem. Again Jeremiah said it: “How can you say, “We are wise,for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (8:8)

I was one time, as a young engineer, sitting in on a test to see if certain machinery performed as specified. The manufacturer and the customer were running the test, we were the umpires. As our senior engineer quipped: “Sure figures can't lie – but liars can figure!” That quote stuck in my mind.

It is a matter of history that bad people have justified doing bad things with some catch phrase taken from the scriptures. It is also a matter of (even recent) history that churches have even in a single lifetime changed their dogma on what they say the Bible teaches on a particular subject. So once again how do we use the Bible as the standard of ethics?

I believe there must be an answer. I expect it is something along the lines that I was exploring in the last few blogs. But I think the problem is so big and so fundamental to the whole exploration of ethics that I am going to try to untangle a few strands of it!

I started on the Ten Commandments, and in particular the “No Murdering” one. I am still taking that topic, but doing something different with it.

I was thinking I could go through the Bible and extract a holistic paradigm on killing. Two problems: Firstly that soon turned out to be biting off much more than I could chew! Secondly as outlined above – who is to say that my interpretation is not just me making the data fit my pre-conceived ideas, or worse performing some clever sleight of hand to make people believe what I want them to believe!

So I am going to take two or three instances where this command has been the subject of controversy, and where the church has, in my lifetime, done a complete turn around. I am hoping this will sharpen our appetite for searching the Bible and help us to have the right sort of scepticism.

Next post I will tackle ….. Ah! That would be telling – tune in again to find out!