There has often been contention about these “gifts†- especially between mainstream and pentecostal and charismatic denominations. Effectively though, I feel that these words indicate that the direction of the Communities is clearly described, even if some feel a need for more spectacular indications that they are on the right path.
Reading those words the way I do, I find that it is in keeping with my experience in communities where a devotion and love is found to God and his people. This is the pre-requirement, without which everything else is impossible, as is of course a moderate approach to the subject, which is the only appropriate way to address the issues. It seems a lot of emphasis was put upon prophecy in those early days, perhaps because of the general unrest that the movement was causing. There was a real need for direction and a way of dealing with the animosity that Christians were experiencing.
But equally, the “ministrations†or various means of assistance (the word for which has survived for example in the German term “Diakonie†and the English “Deaconâ€) have been a foundation of community work from the beginning. In the same way, I have often experienced the “grace of God†whilst helping, teaching or encouraging people. I have heard many helpers say that the reward is in doing what we can. However, in Romans, Paul shows that the real quality of what we give people lies in “simplicity†or in selfless giving. Just as leaders need to be hard-working and patient and those caring for others need cheerfulness to overcome the embarrassment of those “in needâ€.
The opinion of some in this Forum has expressed ridicule towards others for their supposedly “lovey-dovey†approach and even accused them of undermining some form of collective determination. They seem to have problems with the diversities of gifts and the diversities of ministrations, and the diversities of workings by the one Spirit, which Paul clearly is advocating.
I wonder whether they would confront me on the grounds of Scripture and explain their attitudes and opinions?
Do you regard anything unique in the idea of Christian love that would distinguish it from normal moral love as in lending a helping hand to one in need?
What I mean by normal moral love is the natural human response to another’s suffering. I gues the classic biblical example would be the action described by the “Good Samaritan.”
The word love seems to always have required explanation, which is well done in John 21:16,17. When Jesus asks Simon Peter, “Do you love me?” he uses the Greek word agapao, asking whether Peter is determined to love him selflessly, but when Peter answers, he uses the Greek word phileo, i.e. “I love”, which is primarily an affectionate love of the heart and adoration. This is the usage in the first and second questions put by Jesus, but in the third he uses Simon’s word. It is as though Jesus were keeping him at a distance, or at least not inviting him to draw near, as in the passionate yearning of his heart he desired to do. When on the third occasion Jesus uses the word “phileoâ€, Peter surrenders to him and is allowed come closer.
It isn’t a decision of the will alone or a determination to follow Christ that is the measure that is used here, not a devotion of reason, but a devotion of dedication and consecration, the linking of two lives in devotion to others - the community of believers. That is why Jesus says a third time, “Feed my sheepâ€. In Aramaic, the word for love in this sense is “rehemâ€, which comes from an old Hebrew word for “womb†and suggests compassion and warmth radiating from an inner place, giving birth to light.
I think this explains what I mean by love and devotion.
Christianity for me as you know is based on transcendence known as re-birth. It would be natural then for me to be attracted to an additional dimension in John 21: 16-17.
I’d like to quote from Dr. Maurice Nicoll’s classic: “The New Man” In it he has a chapter on Peter which I’ve found, as with the whole book, extremely helpful in glimpsing the profound psychology of Christianity.
This profound passage suggests that Peter’s understanding was minimal because it had not passed yet from his intellect to his emotions. He couldn’t as of yet get beyond superficial emotions and allow the experience of feeling to enter. Peter does not yet grasp conscious love. At first he is to feed the lambs, young usually unweened sheep symbolic of new to the teaching. This is the literal truth. After this he serves the sheep. Many of these sheep already understand emotionally what Peter is incapable of as of yet. Finally the merit of his intellect has to be given to the sheep to balance their emotions so he feeds the sheep.
Christianity has both an outward and inward meaning both dependant on love. But love as seen above is of various qualities. To go further I will quote from Jacob needleman’s “Lost Christianity:”
This is classic understanding IMO of “The will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” The balance between the higher mystical and lower physical and psychological experience of love are eventually mediated by the developing soul capable of ontological love or connecting the higher with the lower in man: the internal with the external
I don’t want to go further since I don’t know how this is taken. From experience I know how it can be considered elitist and arrogant to think in this way.
But from this I hope you can see why I think Jesus was more than an Orthodox Jew and Christianity is something very special on its own merits and not be limited to the secular social aspect which attracts all the lovey dovey attitudes which IMO help to defeat it’s urpose. One has to get beyond this to experience the living fullness of the teaching. It would be natural for you to remark that this is not the Christianity you know and I would agree. This is why I go out of my way to emphasize that what is really seen in society is Christendom. Christianity is within it like water within wood. One has to get by the wood to get to the water and there are only a minority with this need.
Again, what I try to do is suggest how there may be much more to Christianity then we are normally exposed to. I am well aware of how strong the opposition of the "Great Beast is since it is a direct threat to the staus quo and its level of collective domination.
Yes, only it is a shame that you can’t explain it with your own words. It suggests that you have a library full of books but no life. You make the impression of being in your ivory tower, looking down on everybody else, very good in theory, but inadequate in practice.
You realise of course that you are going off topic again? I’m telling you now, so that there is no misunderstanding. The pre-requisition of spiritual gifts is love and devotion. Whether you call this “concious†love or “phileoâ€, I see it as a devotion of dedication and consecration, the linking of two lives in devotion to others - the community of believers. Of course there is a need for “agapao†(‘mechanical’ love?) too, within a framework of compassion and warmth it is also necessary to be disciplined.
I believe that we often feel that faith is a question of wanting, but it is also a question of surrender, similar to the love of two people for each other. Surrendering to the will of God, to loving our neighbour, overwhelmed by the realisation that I am passionately loved, is the message that the Cross of Christ imparts. It is an emotional decision, not just a question of will. It is an important part of faith, even though some groups preach nothing else.
I think you are off on a completely different track. This complication of the subject may be interesting in a book, but what does it actually mean in our inter-action? I think that we have to talk to people with normal terminology, otherwise we are like the Pharisees and Scribes who are said to have put burdens on the backs of people, without moving a finger to help them.
What we have to open up is an understanding for the fact that love is very much an important quality of life, but that it is something that we often want to receive, but seldom give in the same way. It is in effect a further aspect to the golden rule: Love as you would be loved. What Needleman refers to as “psychological†love is the “nourishment of the soulâ€. But it nourishes best, when the cream isn’t scooped off the top. We hold back the best of what we can offer, which leads to the situation we have in everyday life – and the lack of spiritual gifts.
The Christian community needs this kind of commitment to fulfil the promise of God. It has so much potential, if we could only see that we hold the key. The adoration of Peter, and also of the Scribes and Pharisees, needed the surrender to the will of God to be complete. That is why the man who quotes the commandments to love God and love our neighbour is “near†to the truth. If we can surrender to the will of God, overwhelmed by the love of God, we cross the threshold. This is where contemplation begins, the “mystical love†if you like, comparable to the wordless love of lovers, discovering each other, delving deeper and deeper into the innermost, discovering the Ineffable.
If this can be given space and continuation, it can become a living tradition and will find its own rites and rituals, its own liturgy and songs – all examples of the gifts of the Spirit – and persevere over centuries. The requirement however is, that it remains a living tradition, nurtured by love and devotion, as well as the natural creativity that lovers always have.
If you could part from the ideas of “higher†and “lowerâ€, you might do something to get away from the label of being “considered elitist and arrogantâ€. Another way would to stop quoting so much from books and start quoting from life.
I see the fact that this message begins with the “secular social aspect†as a starting place and not as something inferior. If we can build on that, promoting an affectionate co-existence, getting closer to each other, we have more chance of crossing the threshold and surrendering to the love of God - returning home and getting the ring of sonship put on our finger.
We also have then more chances of experiencing the Grace of God in such spiritual gifts as have already been quoted.
I have explained it many times. I fail to see how stating my beliefs means looking down on someone or that I have no life.
I use these quotes to show that these opinions are not just my own and indicate to those reading this thread where they could get additional info on this incredible psychology of “being” known as Christianity because in this day and age, with the emphasis on either New Age escapism or Secularism, it is difficult to find.
This is what you see and I see it differently. Welcome to the human race. A spiritual gift is a gift and it does not require love and devotion on anyone’s part to receive. The gift allows a person to experience that there is more than external life. As it implies in the parable of the talents, the necessity is to expand on them.
You don’t seem to be aware of and respect the differences between qualities of attributes such as love and devotion and why they can lead to either war or peace.
This is a prime example. It is a matter of conscious surrender rather than emotional surrender which is just slavery. The faith of the Centurion was praised not because of its emotional surrender but its conscious assessment of reality.
It is not me that is complicating anything but rather you that is ignoring what is essential. It’s not a matter of talking to people but how we experience it in ourselves. Prof. Needleman goes on to explain precisely why ontological love is the key and the dangers of psychological love in the absence of the ruling principle or soul that without it seems to impress you so. All you have to do is look at history and you will see how obvious this is. It can only be your egotism that denies you the obvious
You do not see psychologically why this cannot be done and must turn on itself. You don’t appreciate the necessity of the conscious grounding of ontological love that distinguishes the energy of the Spirit from expressions of emotional or suppressed sexual energy. The delving you are describing is IMO nothing but basking in the beautiful light of Lucifer, that most glorious of angels.
Being built on egotism, it will be a nice tool of the “Great Beast” giving the impression of progress at the expense of reality and follow the normal cycles of nature. It appears that you want to begin building another Tower of Babel.
I may become Mr. Wonderful to you but spiritually dead for me. When I consider those like Dr. Nicoll and Prof Needleman who understand levels and consider the objections coming from you and JT, I cannot feel intimidated. Since one of my ancestors painted one of the most famous depictions of the cosmological descent described as the days of Creation in the Bible, being drawn to this inner truth is more natural for me. No thanks, I will accept the growls in pursuit of reality.
Metanoia, this inner change of psychological direction is the beginning of re-birth and the essence of Christianity. It does not begin with the “secular social aspect.” It begins with coming to grips with oneself and the need for meaning natural for the most ancient of all questions: “Who am I.” Without it, all the good intentions you may be preaching are doomed to turn on themselves and follow the cycles of the “Great Beast” in his service to the laws of nature governing our planet.
“Know thyself.” It can’t hurt and may help you. It is the beginning that you would rather ignore in favor of referring to community. It is the way of expanding our spiritual gifts rather than discarding them through emotional displays of imagination.
I’ve tried to stay away from this, but since my name is mentioned…
Bob, I do appreciate your willingness to make the attempt, but it is going nowhere. Surely you see this. If Nick can’t co-opt a thread and twist it into a sermon from his mount, no amount of explanation is going to change that.
Nick, once again your attempt to turn every thread into a pontification of esoteric christianity, replete with quotes from your favorite sources is rejected. Your single point view of everything spiritual may suffice for you, but it has no place in open discourse where any number of different viewpoints are open for discussion. Apparently you think you are doing a service to the ILP community, but you’re not. Your one way point of view and your refusal to grant any other possible way of seeing the world comes off as bullying and arrogance. You have been told that by any number of forum members, over a long period of time. That you choose to continue in this way of approaching others says that you aren’t free in your beliefs. You cling to them and deny any other possibilities. It is irritating to say the least, but mostly it is just sad. You obviously have a good mind, and that may be the problem. You appear to have convinced yourself that you ‘know’. You don’t. I have no idea who you are. I’m sure that you are the nicest of fellows, but you simply aren’t doing yourself any favors here. Please take time to reflect on how you approach others. Stop being one of those experts you dislike so much. Become a human with frailties. Become capable of saying, I don’t know.
In case you missed it, Bob stated at the beginning:
I thought it may refer to me as well so decide to politely answer as to the Christian concerns for the “lovey-dovey†approach. This is what it is about. How you can say I’m turning this thread into a pontification of esoteric Christianity is beyond me.
Where have I denied the expression of diverse view points? Is it that surprising desiring to maintain a theoretical distinction between Christianity and Christendom especially when considered important for the psych of those who need it?
Have I ever came out against Buddhism or Hinduism for example. No, they have a lotof wisdom to offer. All I’ve said that like Christianity, they suffer the same fate of secularization. It is the human condition
It is not a matter of me knowing anything but being honest enough to verify that life for me has been as living in Plato’s cave but I do not believe it is not necessary that it be this way.
What use is it to continually point out what seems wrong about life and glorify the cleverness by which we enjoy this suffering and find meaning in it. So I try and speak of solutions.
Bob speaks of a solution and I try and explain why I believe these attempts are doomed because they do not begin with the inner contradictory nature of man and how to bring about inner unity. I then speak of another possibility that begins with the impartial verification of ones inner nature. In the old days before PC took over defining ahead of time correct attitudes, this used to be called discussion.
I appreciate being approached honestly. I try and give the same respect to others since it is necessary for meaningful discussion concerning religion’s role in the betterment of mankind.
I know it’s irritating to read these insults to our egotism if we believe we are Gods but I believe as do others that non the less, it is still essential not to put new wine into old bottles but begin from a fresh perspective by admitting our nothingness.
This is the crux of the problem for you. Just the idea our nothingness is repulsive enough. So we have a difference in our perspectives. It is just impossible for you to respect it. That is why you use words like “bullying and arrogance.” You want to believe something is there that is not because the idea of our nothingness is so repulsive to your ego.
If I’m willing to admit my nothingness, how much more frail can I get? So that is square one: now what? Yet such discussions are repulsive to you since you disagree with the starting point. If such discussions are really a disservice to the ILP community, then the community has troubles.
If the purpose of a discussion is to mock this or that or curse out the New Testament I can only respond to it as did Chapman when he wrote “You cannot criticize the New Testament, It criticizes you.” As Simone Weil said: " “Affliction doesn’t cause the human condition, it reveals it.” Understanding the Bible requires the willingness to open ones perspective since that is its purpose. It would be foolish to jump into such a topic with just more complaints.
But instead you wish to condemn me for taking a minority view that is politically incorrect.
“I don’t know” but am becoming more willing to learn how to be able to know.
This is a tough subject and worth exploring for those with open minds. But your attitude in the following suggest otherwise for you:
I am responding to the question of the thread. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. God forbid you should try to reason out of the secular box.