Inspired today by coming upon yet more of this twaddle, I am moved to say that I hope no friend of ours will ever be misled by anyone’s profession that in coming to some strange or heretical opinion they have spent many hours agonizing in prayer, seeking the face of God in humble willingness to submit to his will, whatever that will might be, and whatever self-sacrifice it might involve–then, not surprisingly, finding at the end of the process, mirabile dictu, that God is exactly of their opinion.
To be frank, I would be suspicious even if they went as far as crying aloud and cutting themselves with swords and lances until the blood gushes out upon them. But the point here is that people who are led into error by sincere religious talk, delivered in the dialect of piety to which they are accustomed, are themselves fools.
I grew up among polite Evangelicals to whom saying "bullshit!" was functionally equivalent to taking the Lord's name in vain. But really, there are instances when the expletive is in fact a euphemism for some of their leaders' discoveries after "having been in much prayer." Now repeat after me . . . .
Steve, this post is very intriguing, but I’m clueless as to what it refers to. Is there a missing link?
If there is no good reason to identify people I’m criticizing, I don’t, especially if I think the reader may be distracted from the problem about which I’m writing by concentrating on persons. (When I make an exception, it’s usually against someone who is well-known and is abusing his or her teaching authority–and can fight back.) What we have here is a common situation of which I want people to be acutely aware. It’s not necessary to identify the last person I encountered who pulled this stunt, and so inspired the posting.
It’s one of a variations of blaming God for one’s opinions so as to deny others the right to critique or challenge. “The Spirit has told me”, is very common among Charismatics and Pentecostals. Doubt them and you are doubting God.
Steve,
I share the impulse to use that particular noun in when I read descriptions of some of the “prayed-over” theological changes that people make. But I fear it is too blunt an instrument that you offer here.
After all, I might also find it useful for the pronouncements of a Benny Hinn or whatever preacher is “moved by the spirit” to do or say something laughable.
And to describe the latest “conversion” from Intelligent Design to some form of theistic evolution or methodological deism.
And, as a Reformed Protestant, to characterize some of the “pilgrimage” stories of those who have crossed the Tiber to Rome, or suddenly “discovered” that they were really Orthodox or Arminian.
But of course, somewhere in that gradation, I would wind up chided for being “uncharitable” and coarse. And that would probably be deserved.
Forgive me, Mr Hutchins, that’s just something I don’t have say, though I take your point about solipsistic twaddle.
If that makes me “polite,” so be it.
Mark,
I’m often moved to use that rather profane phrase myself when hearing that God wills to save only SOME.
Repeat after me,…
Sorry, OJ, I consider that uncharitable and coarse.
See – the instrument is just too blunt to be in the hands of sinners – especially those who read the Scriptures differently.
Mark,
I think SMH’s point is that we, as theologically conservative Christians, can and should unite against theologically liberal christianity which often claims a kind of ideological immunity by claiming that they have been inspired by God through prayer. I would argue that this kind of Christianity is far more of a threat to the Church than Calvinism, which I also find abhorrent. Now, if you find Orthodoxy more of a threat to the Church than this kind of Christianity, it seems to me that you are disagreeing with the foundational principle of Touchstone, that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants (even Calvinists) can benefit by uniting around a concept of mere Christianity against a theology which is intrusive, intolerant, and a completely different gospel
For me the most memorable (although by no means the most serious) occasion of someone proclaiming “thus saith the Lord” was the fellow, member of the leadership team, who told the church I was attending at the time that God had told him we would have glorious sunshine for the church retreat and outdoor service a few Sundays hence. When it rained, even poured, that Sunday no-one among the church leadership wanted to hear the OT admonitions about how to treat false prophets :-)
With all the psuedo-Christianities that are out there which deny the very fundamentals of the faith I wonder that any Touchstone reader would attack Calvinism, or Arminianism for that matter with the same vigor that should be reserved for actual heresy.
For whatever reason, God seems to have allowed the quest for absolutely perfect doctrine in every particular to remain unfulfilled. Not that some are unwilling to acknowledge the incompleteness of their own formulations. Occasionally, experience itself will force us to stretch our concepts.
A few years ago while vacationing in St. John USVI, my wife and I attended the Moravian church on the east end of the Island. We were the only white faces in the congregation that morning. We sang some unfamiliar but traditional hymns with a German flavor to them, listened to prayers of thanksgiving for the recent visit of a Moravian leader from Germany, and prayers of intercession for the congregations in Nicaragua (these would be the Miskito indians evangelized in the 18th century by the Moravians and since persecuted by both Catholic and Communists). When the pastor came to preach the sermon her text was the passage in Acts where Paul rebuked and excorcised the spirit of divination from the slave girl. At this point, the pastor, a rather large black woman who seemed to bear the mantle of authority with ease, looked knowingly at the congregation and said, “Now this is what we here call an ‘Obi woman.’” Many in the congregation nodded in agreement, and I thought to myself, “God is at work here.”
Though I tend to affirm Touchstone editors’ consistent affirmation of male leadership, there must be room for the occasional Deborah (especially when the cause may be male dereliction). Then too, when the faith is under ferocious attack and we are driven to the citadel we might find ourselves shoulder to shoulder with the most surprising allies.
I think some of you missed my point. I was NOT myself applying Steve’s word to any of the issues in my first post – just indicating that there is a great personal temptation to move the usage downscale from unbelief to wacky belief to alternate (and what I consider unscriptural) scientific belief to people within the faith with whom I happen to disagree.
The reactions of some to my even thinking of using that word to characterize their particular beliefs helped make my point. Hence my characterization of the word as a “blunt instrument”.
I would much rather discuss these other issues (Calvinism or Arminianism, the road to Rome, etc.) in another forum, and let the thread get back on track.
Mark,
Well, thinking it about a bit more carefully, it seems I have completely proven your point. I concede.
Please forgive my uncharitable comments about Calvinism.
Perhaps it is fair to say that there is significant difference between two people coming to irreconcilable interpretations of Scripture in the course of sincere study, and subsequent logical defense of their position from Scripture, and the individual who simply says, “Well, I prayed about it, and God is ok with my divorce (or my homosexual relationship, or my wanting to be a priestess)” with no other leg to stand upon than their subjective knowledge of “God’s” opinion on the matter.