The Path I am Travelling

[BenAdam]

The path I am traveling is a strange one. I find myself rejecting more and more the standard forms of the Charismatic church in the west. I abhor the pastor/priest model of leadership, the church industry, the christian music industry (although I love Christian music), etc.

I find myself concerned with not myself, but others. I want justice for all men, but I want men to be holy. I find myself drawn toward people that are unsure rather than bragadocious confidence (not in salvation, but in the finer points). Kierkegaard holds more intrest for me than the lastest Max Lucado spiritual candy.

Anyone else feeling this way?

[Tamara224]

The path I am traveling is a strange one. I find myself rejecting more and more the standard forms of the Charismatic church in the west. I abhor the pastor/priest model of leadership, the church industry, the christian music industry (although I love Christian music), etc.

I find myself concerned with not myself, but others. I want justice for all men, but I want men to be holy. I find myself drawn toward people that are unsure rather than bragadocious confidence (not in salvation, but in the finer points). Kierkegaard holds more intrest for me than the lastest Max Lucado spiritual candy.

Anyone else feeling this way?


Yup. Exactly.

I guess that makes us Emergents, huh?

[BenAdam]

Yup. Exactly.

I guess that makes us Emergents, huh?
Or lonely. :)

[Andry]

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
Mark Twain - Notebook, 1904

[BenAdam]

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
Mark Twain - Notebook, 1904
profound

[jeolmstead]

The path I am traveling is a strange one. I find myself rejecting more and more the standard forms of the Charismatic church in the west. I abhor the pastor/priest model of leadership, the church industry, the christian music industry (although I love Christian music), etc.

I find myself concerned with not myself, but others. I want justice for all men, but I want men to be holy. I find myself drawn toward people that are unsure rather than bragadocious confidence (not in salvation, but in the finer points). Kierkegaard holds more intrest for me than the lastest Max Lucado spiritual candy.

Anyone else feeling this way?
I can very much relate to much of what you are saying. I differ in that I believe in pastoral leadership in the local congregation.

In saying that I also believe in leading by serving. As a pastor my role is to serve, not to be served.

I too want justice for all men. I’m sickened by all the excess I see when so many have nothing. I believe there is enough for everyone.

I also want holiness, true holiness, not the kind you wear like a Sunday shirt, the kind that wells up from the inside and floods your being.

I’m unsure in everything except for love, grace, and mercy. For those I will boast loudly. As for me, I am a humble man with a lot to be humble about.


John O.

[BenAdam]

I can very much relate to much of what you are saying. I differ in that I believe in pastoral leadership in the local congregation.

In saying that I also believe in leading by serving. As a pastor my role is to serve, not to be served.

I too want justice for all men. I’m sickened by all the excess I see when so many have nothing. I believe there is enough for everyone.

I also want holiness, true holiness, not the kind you wear like a Sunday shirt, the kind that wells up from the inside and floods your being.

I’m unsure in everything except for love, grace, and mercy. For those I will boast loudly. As for me, I am a humble man with a lot to be humble about.


John O.
see my brother, you are the kind of Pastor we need, not the king pastor we see so much of... i am humbled by men like you...

[Simon_Templar]

I've said a number of times in various posts that western society is in the middle of a popular revolution.

The post-modernist worldview has been plugging along for quite a while in certain academic communities, like english, the arts, history, etc. Right now we are seeing it explode in the popular realm.

There are some very positive aspects of this, but also some very negative aspects.

This is playing out in the Church in the forms of the emergent and the emerging Church. The two similar names, label two different aspects of post-modern impact in the Church.

The emergent church is more about rejection of authority both in positions such as pastor, and also in the scriptures, and it is about rejection of the idea that we can really know anything certainly. This is the more direct application of post-modernism which outright rejects the idea that we can know objectively, or that we can communicate knowledge, or that there is any such thing as objective authority.

The emerging church tends to be more about presenting the traditional beliefs of the Church in such a way as to make them more understandable, and more relavent to people who live in a post-modern world.

We've talked a fair bit and agreed more than disagreed I think, over the years here. I have to be honest, though, that I am disturbed by the rejection of authority. This is something that is directly contradictory to God's very character and invariably it leads to deception and usually to a worse tyranny.

You see this in the political realm, though it is no less true in the realm of the Church.
Those who reject just ordained authority invariably end up with a worse tyranny.

In the US, our revolution was based not on rejection of authority, but on rejection of a king who was acting beyond his authority.
In france, the revolution was based simply on rejection of authority all together.

In the US, our founders believed absolutely in the necessity of authority and government. In france they attempted to create a society based on true egalitarianism in which there were no ruling authorities.
The result was that the US established a stable orderly free society. France had a short stint of bloody chaos punctuated by the rise of an absolute tyrant.

The same is always seen in communism, communism stresses the equality of all the people in all regards and rejects the idea of any ordained authority, the result is always an oppressive tyrannical regime.

The irony in the Church situation is that the P/C churches were all formed by rejecting the authority of the groups they were previously in, and the result in most cases have been legalistic, often tyrannical situations in which the pastors often border on personality cults.

In the pentecostal awakening, the holiness movement etc, They split from their parent churches because they didn't feel that the leadership was making room for them, or wasn't going along with them fast enough, or they had too much opposition.
The result was that the simply rejected the idea that those churches had authority. The result was they created a situation in which many of their own churches became and remain legalistic and tyrannical in their operation.

Rejecting authority never gets people freedom, because the truth is freedom only exists under the protection of authority.
The fact is that communistic models of egalitarian society can not work, wether it be a country, or a Church, its not that they shouldn't be tried, its that even if you try you will inevitably fail because the idea itself CAN NOT work. it isn't capable of sustaining itself.

In short, there will always be rulership, the only question is, will it be based on the idea of authority, in which the ruler is held responsible to a higher authority and he is limited by the higher authority, or will it be based on simply who has the ability to force his will on everony else, in which case there is no limiting higher authority, and no responsability placed upon the ruler.

[Andry]

Kierkegaard was a believer.

[BenAdam]

I've said a number of times in various posts that western society is in the middle of a popular revolution.

The post-modernist worldview has been plugging along for quite a while in certain academic communities, like english, the arts, history, etc. Right now we are seeing it explode in the popular realm.

There are some very positive aspects of this, but also some very negative aspects.

This is playing out in the Church in the forms of the emergent and the emerging Church. The two similar names, label two different aspects of post-modern impact in the Church.

The emergent church is more about rejection of authority both in positions such as pastor, and also in the scriptures, and it is about rejection of the idea that we can really know anything certainly. This is the more direct application of post-modernism which outright rejects the idea that we can know objectively, or that we can communicate knowledge, or that there is any such thing as objective authority.

The emerging church tends to be more about presenting the traditional beliefs of the Church in such a way as to make them more understandable, and more relavent to people who live in a post-modern world.

We've talked a fair bit and agreed more than disagreed I think, over the years here. I have to be honest, though, that I am disturbed by the rejection of authority. This is something that is directly contradictory to God's very character and invariably it leads to deception and usually to a worse tyranny.

You see this in the political realm, though it is no less true in the realm of the Church.
Those who reject just ordained authority invariably end up with a worse tyranny.

In the US, our revolution was based not on rejection of authority, but on rejection of a king who was acting beyond his authority.
In france, the revolution was based simply on rejection of authority all together.

In the US, our founders believed absolutely in the necessity of authority and government. In france they attempted to create a society based on true egalitarianism in which there were no ruling authorities.
The result was that the US established a stable orderly free society. France had a short stint of bloody chaos punctuated by the rise of an absolute tyrant.

The same is always seen in communism, communism stresses the equality of all the people in all regards and rejects the idea of any ordained authority, the result is always an oppressive tyrannical regime.

The irony in the Church situation is that the P/C churches were all formed by rejecting the authority of the groups they were previously in, and the result in most cases have been legalistic, often tyrannical situations in which the pastors often border on personality cults.

In the pentecostal awakening, the holiness movement etc, They split from their parent churches because they didn't feel that the leadership was making room for them, or wasn't going along with them fast enough, or they had too much opposition.
The result was that the simply rejected the idea that those churches had authority. The result was they created a situation in which many of their own churches became and remain legalistic and tyrannical in their operation.

Rejecting authority never gets people freedom, because the truth is freedom only exists under the protection of authority.
The fact is that communistic models of egalitarian society can not work, wether it be a country, or a Church, its not that they shouldn't be tried, its that even if you try you will inevitably fail because the idea itself CAN NOT work. it isn't capable of sustaining itself.

In short, there will always be rulership, the only question is, will it be based on the idea of authority, in which the ruler is held responsible to a higher authority and he is limited by the higher authority, or will it be based on simply who has the ability to force his will on everony else, in which case there is no limiting higher authority, and no responsability placed upon the ruler.
You raise some excellent points and maybe I need to clear something up, I am not for rejecting authority. Authority is hugely important in man's life. As you astutely pointed out elsewhere, God is an absolute monarch, no questions asked. The problem I have is man made authority that is wrapped up in spiritual clothing, what you get is an Ishmael. Looks like Abraham, but is birthed by an Egyptian. Jesus gave us a model for leadership that is "The greasted among you is the servant of all." A model which He lived out. Elders have been relegated to supporting Pastors, instead of congregations. Deacons are political appointements in many churches (ie cronyism). I fully support Bibilcal authority however.

[Andry]

You raise some excellent points and maybe I need to clear something up, I am not for rejecting authority. Authority is hugely important in man's life. As you astutely pointed out elsewhere, God is an absolute monarch, no questions asked. The problem I have is man made authority that is wrapped up in spiritual clothing, what you get is an Ishmael. Looks like Abraham, but is birthed by an Egyptian. Jesus gave us a model for leadership that is "The greasted among you is the servant of all." A model which He lived out. Elders have been relegated to supporting Pastors, instead of congregations. Deacons are political appointements in many churches (ie cronyism). I fully support Bibilcal authority however.
Is this the right thread, or should it be in the Authority/Tradition thread? I've read that thread with interest, but have yet to comment.

There are different levels of authority, and misunderstanding them leads to confusion and controversy.

[BenAdam]

Is this the right thread, or should it be in the Authority/Tradition thread? I've read that thread with interest, but have yet to comment.

There are different levels of authority, and misunderstanding them leads to confusion and controversy.
Well I mention in my OP something about Pastors so I think ST was making an observation in general about me. I agree with you btw and can't wait for you to comment in the other thread on this.

And I know Kierkegaard was a believer. :)

[Simon_Templar]

You raise some excellent points and maybe I need to clear something up, I am not for rejecting authority. Authority is hugely important in man's life. As you astutely pointed out elsewhere, God is an absolute monarch, no questions asked. The problem I have is man made authority that is wrapped up in spiritual clothing, what you get is an Ishmael. Looks like Abraham, but is birthed by an Egyptian. Jesus gave us a model for leadership that is "The greasted among you is the servant of all." A model which He lived out. Elders have been relegated to supporting Pastors, instead of congregations. Deacons are political appointements in many churches (ie cronyism). I fully support Bibilcal authority however.
I agree with most of this, however, I think we need to be careful about rejecing the position based on the failings of the men.

We deffinetly need a lot of teaching about real godly leadership though. Its a rarity.

[jeolmstead]

I've said a number of times in various posts that western society is in the middle of a popular revolution.

The post-modernist worldview has been plugging along for quite a while in certain academic communities, like english, the arts, history, etc. Right now we are seeing it explode in the popular realm.

There are some very positive aspects of this, but also some very negative aspects.

This is playing out in the Church in the forms of the emergent and the emerging Church. The two similar names, label two different aspects of post-modern impact in the Church.

The emergent church is more about rejection of authority both in positions such as pastor, and also in the scriptures, and it is about rejection of the idea that we can really know anything certainly. This is the more direct application of post-modernism which outright rejects the idea that we can know objectively, or that we can communicate knowledge, or that there is any such thing as objective authority.

The emerging church tends to be more about presenting the traditional beliefs of the Church in such a way as to make them more understandable, and more relavent to people who live in a post-modern world.

We've talked a fair bit and agreed more than disagreed I think, over the years here. I have to be honest, though, that I am disturbed by the rejection of authority. This is something that is directly contradictory to God's very character and invariably it leads to deception and usually to a worse tyranny.

You see this in the political realm, though it is no less true in the realm of the Church.
Those who reject just ordained authority invariably end up with a worse tyranny.

In the US, our revolution was based not on rejection of authority, but on rejection of a king who was acting beyond his authority.
In france, the revolution was based simply on rejection of authority all together.

In the US, our founders believed absolutely in the necessity of authority and government. In france they attempted to create a society based on true egalitarianism in which there were no ruling authorities.
The result was that the US established a stable orderly free society. France had a short stint of bloody chaos punctuated by the rise of an absolute tyrant.

The same is always seen in communism, communism stresses the equality of all the people in all regards and rejects the idea of any ordained authority, the result is always an oppressive tyrannical regime.

The irony in the Church situation is that the P/C churches were all formed by rejecting the authority of the groups they were previously in, and the result in most cases have been legalistic, often tyrannical situations in which the pastors often border on personality cults.

In the pentecostal awakening, the holiness movement etc, They split from their parent churches because they didn't feel that the leadership was making room for them, or wasn't going along with them fast enough, or they had too much opposition.
The result was that the simply rejected the idea that those churches had authority. The result was they created a situation in which many of their own churches became and remain legalistic and tyrannical in their operation.

Rejecting authority never gets people freedom, because the truth is freedom only exists under the protection of authority.
The fact is that communistic models of egalitarian society can not work, wether it be a country, or a Church, its not that they shouldn't be tried, its that even if you try you will inevitably fail because the idea itself CAN NOT work. it isn't capable of sustaining itself.

In short, there will always be rulership, the only question is, will it be based on the idea of authority, in which the ruler is held responsible to a higher authority and he is limited by the higher authority, or will it be based on simply who has the ability to force his will on everony else, in which case there is no limiting higher authority, and no responsability placed upon the ruler.
I agree......

[Simon_Templar]

More on topic to the OP though,

I have very much felt a call to a more devoted, and a more almost monastic faith.. not monastic in the sense ot being seperated and solitary.. but in the sense of devotion to prayer, meditating, a more mystical faith. Mystical being meant as an experience of God which is not external, not verifiable by the external senses etc.

a spirituality which goes beyond both intellect and emotion, but which makes both of them that much more meaningful.


PS, this has lead me much more to pursuing personal spiritual disciplines, and when I have been successful in doing that, it has been great. However, it has also shown me what a complete failure I am and how incredibly much I must throw myself on the mercy and grace of God. Which in itself has been a very hard, but often a very good experience.

[Tamara224]

You raise some excellent points and maybe I need to clear something up, I am not for rejecting authority. Authority is hugely important in man's life. As you astutely pointed out elsewhere, God is an absolute monarch, no questions asked. The problem I have is man made authority that is wrapped up in spiritual clothing, what you get is an Ishmael. Looks like Abraham, but is birthed by an Egyptian. Jesus gave us a model for leadership that is "The greasted among you is the servant of all." A model which He lived out. Elders have been relegated to supporting Pastors, instead of congregations. Deacons are political appointements in many churches (ie cronyism). I fully support Bibilcal authority however.


:thumbsup:

[Redheadedstepchild]

subscribing...what a great discussion!

[ANM29]

The path I am traveling is a strange one. I find myself rejecting more and more the standard forms of the Charismatic church in the west. I abhor the pastor/priest model of leadership, the church industry, the christian music industry (although I love Christian music), etc.

I find myself concerned with not myself, but others. I want justice for all men, but I want men to be holy. I find myself drawn toward people that are unsure rather than bragadocious confidence (not in salvation, but in the finer points). Kierkegaard holds more intrest for me than the lastest Max Lucado spiritual candy.

Anyone else feeling this way?

Yes, I felt like this for years. Except I am not as frustrated anymore about it. I have peace that surpasses all human understanding now.

[MrSnow]

The path I am traveling is a strange one. I find myself rejecting more and more the standard forms of the Charismatic church in the west. I abhor the pastor/priest model of leadership, the church industry, the christian music industry (although I love Christian music), etc.

I find myself concerned with not myself, but others. I want justice for all men, but I want men to be holy. I find myself drawn toward people that are unsure rather than bragadocious confidence (not in salvation, but in the finer points). Kierkegaard holds more intrest for me than the lastest Max Lucado spiritual candy.

Anyone else feeling this way?

I feel ya, bro. I also abhor the "church industry" and the christian music industry. And "church industry" is exactly what it is in many places, and that is such a shame.

I grow weary of "playing church".

I feel the same concerning most/all of the points you raised. I have felt that the "charismatic experience" in many charismatic churches is just a big game. I want to show genuine self-emptying love to people, not just talk about how much "power" they can have. As far as I'm concerned, there is no power greater than the power of self-emptying love. The power to deny oneself and lift up another can work far more wonders than people realize. I want to see THAT power of God manifested in His church.

I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are just as valid today as they were in the first century. But frankly, if we aren't displaying the love of Christ to the world, then all those "gifts" are worthless.

I also want people (as well as myself) to be holy. I want to show people what holiness can do for their lives. I want them to experience the deepening vision of God that only comes by dying to sin and growing in righteousness.

I hate all the phony crap that I see in "charismatic" churches. That was what largely made me NOT charismatic growing up. I want the attention to be off of ourselves and how holy we look to other people, and on God. I hate it when the measure of one's holiness is based upon how much they appear to manifest "gifts".

I have yet to find a charismatic church about which I can say "this is the real thing. This is what Christ intended. They're not putting on any show here." I wish that weren't the case.

I want to be led by a servant. When the time comes for me to step up and lead, I want to lead as a servant.

I just want to be with people who genuinely want to glorify God, and aren't concerned with putting on the right show, or saying the right words, or praying the right way. Ya mean?

[BenAdam]

There is a great blog post on Brother Maynard's blog here -> http://www.subversiveinfluence.com/wordpress/?p=1549 about Evangelicals becoming more Charismatic. Overall it is critical because along with accepting good charismatic doctrine, other abusive things are slipping in. Brother Maynard talks about rejecting Charismatic but not Charismata. Overall a very good blog post.

[Tamara224]

There is a great blog post on Brother Maynard's blog here -> http://www.subversiveinfluence.com/wordpress/?p=1549 about Evangelicals becoming more Charismatic. Overall it is critical because along with accepting good charismatic doctrine, other abusive things are slipping in. Brother Maynard talks about rejecting Charismatic but not Charismata. Overall a very good blog post.


Very interesting. A few months ago in the main forum, we had a discussion about post-modernism. I tried to point out that there are actually a lot of similarities between post-modern thought and Charismatic/Pentecostal thought (i.e. experiential vs. dogmatic). It wasn't well received.

But it seems to me that the rise in post-modernism is leading to the shift towards Charismaticism.

What do you think?

[BenAdam]

Very interesting. A few months ago in the main forum, we had a discussion about post-modernism. I tried to point out that there are actually a lot of similarities between post-modern thought and Charismatic/Pentecostal thought (i.e. experiential vs. dogmatic). It wasn't well received.

But it seems to me that the rise in post-modernism is leading to the shift towards Charismaticism.

What do you think?
I somewhat disagree. I think the rise in Post-modernism is leading people away from "classic" charismaticism, whereas at the same time due to social acceptance, charismaticism is moving into the main stream.