The dying loved ones I have been around, not all Christians, were not fearful as they were close to death. But at the point in our lives when we still have 3 lifetimes of plans and desires we want to accomplish or experience, people to love, the unavoidable reality of that brevity is terrible.
Maybe worse than death itself - the unimaginable experience of being differently or not being at all - is the knowledge of how ghastly the process can be of becoming dead -- and you have seen one of the worst.
I think most of us want to die instantaneously and entirely unexpectedly. Let the Reaper be merciful.
I'm with @Kendel on the baleful influence of Finney and of revivalism with its emotional appeals. Which doesn't mean that there can't be authentic or genuinely transformative experiences in settings influenced by all that.
That is unrelated to my point. I work hard to focus on the way these things affect me, understanding that my experience and perception is in no way universal.
@Martin54 I trust your motives in saying this are as pure as any of mine. However, this is not a compliment in the world to which I tangentially belong, the culture of those with disabilities. Exerting my right to speak and express my experience and views on a matter are merely that. In exerting that right I am neither courageous nor necessarily honest. Just as persons with disabilities are no more courageous for breathing and living their lives than anyone else.
Although I think you could put this much more strongly; Broad/Low Church Anglicanism often has a fairly aggressively hostile view of spirituality in general (to the point of having an almost Platonically abstract view of God).
Is this assessment based on your observation of outward appearance. Or has this almost platonically abstract view of God been expressed by those who hold it?
(a) I don't think I was suggesting anything other than a shared 'literary' sensibility and aesthetic factors in the case of the two authors in my Antipodean example.
It happens that the geology of the location was similar to that of a well known beauty-spot in this part of the UK and one which features in one of thd writer's novels.
Let the reader understand.
(b) On Anglicanism. As we know it's a very broad church. I've certainly come across Anglicans such as @chrisstiles and @TurquoiseTastic describes.
Just because you may not have come across them @Martin54 doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'd certainly suggest that there are fewer than there were at one time. These days you are more likely to encounter charismatic-lite Anglicans or liberal-catholic ones than the old stuffy Victorian style ones.
But that'd be material for another thread. These days some URC churches are more 'Anglican' in feel than the pariah church across the road.
I like Anglicans. Some of my best friends are Anglicans but it's been going every which way at a faster rate than it used to.
(a) Sure. I love the creationist busting archaeology of Budg Bim.
(b) I'm certain they do. I've done high church a couple or three times. Well, a couple. No! Three. But yeah, it's all very déclassé nowadays ennit?
Conversely many people who are religious have very little time for the numinous. I think this was very evident in Victorian Broad and Low Church Anglicanism, for example, where mystical experience was seen as primitive and superstitious.
Although I think you could put this much more strongly; Broad/Low Church Anglicanism often has a fairly aggressively hostile view of spirituality in general (to the point of having an almost Platonically abstract view of God).
Whilst still being superstitious? Having 'answers to prayer', 'was that you Lord' moments, denying coincidence, cold reading our own lives. None of the five (four large urban, one large for a village) Anglican congregations I have been part of ever expressed such a view as you describe. All publicly proclaimed the currently miraculous.
Well that tends to be the charismatic types - conservative evos are indeed very wary of such things. I remember my (con evo) CU rep criticising someone's description of prayer as "talking with God": "No", he said, "prayer is talking to God - you can only hear from God by reading the Bible..."
Likewise cessationism was a thing, and even those conservatives who in theory allowed the possibility of present miracles were deeply suspicious about healing, "words" etcetera. There was one exception - conversion was held to be intrinstically miraculous since it was impossible for the unregenerate to exercise saving faith by natural means. I was told by a recently-converted conservative friend that no supposed charismatic miracle could ever be anywhere near as important as the miracle of a non-Christian coming to faith.
(All from mid-1990s UK university experience).
The uneasy coming together of Charismatics in search of a theology and Evangelicals in search of numbers is a fascinating tale.
Conversely many people who are religious have very little time for the numinous. I think this was very evident in Victorian Broad and Low Church Anglicanism, for example, where mystical experience was seen as primitive and superstitious.
Although I think you could put this much more strongly; Broad/Low Church Anglicanism often has a fairly aggressively hostile view of spirituality in general (to the point of having an almost Platonically abstract view of God).
Whilst still being superstitious? Having 'answers to prayer', 'was that you Lord' moments, denying coincidence, cold reading our own lives. None of the five (four large urban, one large for a village) Anglican congregations I have been part of ever expressed such a view as you describe. All publicly proclaimed the currently miraculous.
Well that tends to be the charismatic types - conservative evos are indeed very wary of such things. I remember my (con evo) CU rep criticising someone's description of prayer as "talking with God": "No", he said, "prayer is talking to God - you can only hear from God by reading the Bible..."
Likewise cessationism was a thing, and even those conservatives who in theory allowed the possibility of present miracles were deeply suspicious about healing, "words" etcetera. There was one exception - conversion was held to be intrinstically miraculous since it was impossible for the unregenerate to exercise saving faith by natural means. I was told by a recently-converted conservative friend that no supposed charismatic miracle could ever be anywhere near as important as the miracle of a non-Christian coming to faith.
(All from mid-1990s UK university experience).
The uneasy coming together of Charismatics in search of a theology and Evangelicals in search of numbers is a fascinating tale.
I don't think it really worked like that. The charismatic renewal crossed many boundaries and not all of it was theology-lite.
Not at first. My late mother-in-law had copies of 'Renewal' magazine going back to 1964. Fascinating.
What strikes me about the earlier issues is how diverse the contributors were in terms of churchmanship or denomination. There was also some actual theology in there too compared to later editions which were narrower in scope.
But I do get a "thin place" thing. A feeling that the very air around me has been buffed and polished by a thousand years of human emotion. It's hard to explain.
I'm now almost sixty and it's been circular for decades; I can't say for sure what triggered it. But I think the "thin place" feeling started when I was six or seven, and that made me curious about history. Learning about history meant that facts were woven into the feeling, which boosted the feeling, which encouraged the fascination with history.
It didn't start in churches, but I do now get it in churches. I don't know if it's fed into my faith, or whether my faith has fed into it. It's as though the atmosphere has a patina.
ETA - It's also something I try to accept rather than analyse.
I can relate to all of this, particularly the ETA bit. In my case, that thin place feeling is very connected to music.
Conversely many people who are religious have very little time for the numinous. I think this was very evident in Victorian Broad and Low Church Anglicanism, for example, where mystical experience was seen as primitive and superstitious.
Although I think you could put this much more strongly; Broad/Low Church Anglicanism often has a fairly aggressively hostile view of spirituality in general (to the point of having an almost Platonically abstract view of God).
Whilst still being superstitious? Having 'answers to prayer', 'was that you Lord' moments, denying coincidence, cold reading our own lives. None of the five (four large urban, one large for a village) Anglican congregations I have been part of ever expressed such a view as you describe. All publicly proclaimed the currently miraculous.
Well that tends to be the charismatic types - conservative evos are indeed very wary of such things. I remember my (con evo) CU rep criticising someone's description of prayer as "talking with God": "No", he said, "prayer is talking to God - you can only hear from God by reading the Bible..."
Likewise cessationism was a thing, and even those conservatives who in theory allowed the possibility of present miracles were deeply suspicious about healing, "words" etcetera. There was one exception - conversion was held to be intrinstically miraculous since it was impossible for the unregenerate to exercise saving faith by natural means. I was told by a recently-converted conservative friend that no supposed charismatic miracle could ever be anywhere near as important as the miracle of a non-Christian coming to faith.
(All from mid-1990s UK university experience).
The uneasy coming together of Charismatics in search of a theology and Evangelicals in search of numbers is a fascinating tale.
I don't think it really worked like that. The charismatic renewal crossed many boundaries and not all of it was theology-lite.
That may have been so initially but by the time I became aware of it (mid to late 80s) it was almost unanimously evangelical. It was some years before I realised that Charismatic and Evangelical were not virtually synonyms.
I would be, even now, very interested, albeit very cautiously, in non-Evangelical Charismatic expressions.
Conversely many people who are religious have very little time for the numinous. I think this was very evident in Victorian Broad and Low Church Anglicanism, for example, where mystical experience was seen as primitive and superstitious.
Although I think you could put this much more strongly; Broad/Low Church Anglicanism often has a fairly aggressively hostile view of spirituality in general (to the point of having an almost Platonically abstract view of God).
Whilst still being superstitious? Having 'answers to prayer', 'was that you Lord' moments, denying coincidence, cold reading our own lives. None of the five (four large urban, one large for a village) Anglican congregations I have been part of ever expressed such a view as you describe. All publicly proclaimed the currently miraculous.
Well that tends to be the charismatic types - conservative evos are indeed very wary of such things. I remember my (con evo) CU rep criticising someone's description of prayer as "talking with God": "No", he said, "prayer is talking to God - you can only hear from God by reading the Bible..."
Likewise cessationism was a thing, and even those conservatives who in theory allowed the possibility of present miracles were deeply suspicious about healing, "words" etcetera. There was one exception - conversion was held to be intrinstically miraculous since it was impossible for the unregenerate to exercise saving faith by natural means. I was told by a recently-converted conservative friend that no supposed charismatic miracle could ever be anywhere near as important as the miracle of a non-Christian coming to faith.
(All from mid-1990s UK university experience).
The uneasy coming together of Charismatics in search of a theology and Evangelicals in search of numbers is a fascinating tale.
I don't think it really worked like that. The charismatic renewal crossed many boundaries and not all of it was theology-lite.
That may have been so initially but by the time I became aware of it (mid to late 80s) it was almost unanimously evangelical. It was some years before I realised that Charismatic and Evangelical were not virtually synonyms.
I would be, even now, very interested, albeit very cautiously, in non-Evangelical Charismatic expressions.
There are (or were) a number of Anglo-Catholic churches with Charismatic features (if that's the right word!). Our Place's late Reader was interested in this, and IIRC visited one or two - alas! I can't ask him where, as he died a couple of months ago...
This one springs to mind (I once attended a weekday Mass), though it's a long way from @KarlLB-land...
Conversely many people who are religious have very little time for the numinous. I think this was very evident in Victorian Broad and Low Church Anglicanism, for example, where mystical experience was seen as primitive and superstitious.
Although I think you could put this much more strongly; Broad/Low Church Anglicanism often has a fairly aggressively hostile view of spirituality in general (to the point of having an almost Platonically abstract view of God).
Whilst still being superstitious? Having 'answers to prayer', 'was that you Lord' moments, denying coincidence, cold reading our own lives. None of the five (four large urban, one large for a village) Anglican congregations I have been part of ever expressed such a view as you describe. All publicly proclaimed the currently miraculous.
Well that tends to be the charismatic types - conservative evos are indeed very wary of such things. I remember my (con evo) CU rep criticising someone's description of prayer as "talking with God": "No", he said, "prayer is talking to God - you can only hear from God by reading the Bible..."
Likewise cessationism was a thing, and even those conservatives who in theory allowed the possibility of present miracles were deeply suspicious about healing, "words" etcetera. There was one exception - conversion was held to be intrinstically miraculous since it was impossible for the unregenerate to exercise saving faith by natural means. I was told by a recently-converted conservative friend that no supposed charismatic miracle could ever be anywhere near as important as the miracle of a non-Christian coming to faith.
(All from mid-1990s UK university experience).
The uneasy coming together of Charismatics in search of a theology and Evangelicals in search of numbers is a fascinating tale.
I don't think it really worked like that. The charismatic renewal crossed many boundaries and not all of it was theology-lite.
That may have been so initially but by the time I became aware of it (mid to late 80s) it was almost unanimously evangelical. It was some years before I realised that Charismatic and Evangelical were not virtually synonyms.
I would be, even now, very interested, albeit very cautiously, in non-Evangelical Charismatic expressions.
I was objecting to your characterisation that there was necessarily some independent group of 'Charismatics' who were in search of a theology, not necessarily that later on the two terms may have become synonymous in some places.
Conversely many people who are religious have very little time for the numinous. I think this was very evident in Victorian Broad and Low Church Anglicanism, for example, where mystical experience was seen as primitive and superstitious.
Although I think you could put this much more strongly; Broad/Low Church Anglicanism often has a fairly aggressively hostile view of spirituality in general (to the point of having an almost Platonically abstract view of God).
Whilst still being superstitious? Having 'answers to prayer', 'was that you Lord' moments, denying coincidence, cold reading our own lives. None of the five (four large urban, one large for a village) Anglican congregations I have been part of ever expressed such a view as you describe. All publicly proclaimed the currently miraculous.
Well that tends to be the charismatic types - conservative evos are indeed very wary of such things. I remember my (con evo) CU rep criticising someone's description of prayer as "talking with God": "No", he said, "prayer is talking to God - you can only hear from God by reading the Bible..."
Likewise cessationism was a thing, and even those conservatives who in theory allowed the possibility of present miracles were deeply suspicious about healing, "words" etcetera. There was one exception - conversion was held to be intrinstically miraculous since it was impossible for the unregenerate to exercise saving faith by natural means. I was told by a recently-converted conservative friend that no supposed charismatic miracle could ever be anywhere near as important as the miracle of a non-Christian coming to faith.
(All from mid-1990s UK university experience).
The uneasy coming together of Charismatics in search of a theology and Evangelicals in search of numbers is a fascinating tale.
I don't think it really worked like that. The charismatic renewal crossed many boundaries and not all of it was theology-lite.
That may have been so initially but by the time I became aware of it (mid to late 80s) it was almost unanimously evangelical. It was some years before I realised that Charismatic and Evangelical were not virtually synonyms.
I would be, even now, very interested, albeit very cautiously, in non-Evangelical Charismatic expressions.
When my husband and I were accepted as mission partners with the Anglican Church our sending agency were thrilled we came from a Cathedral as it meant they could approach churches from higher up the candle to try to see if they would like to be linked with us. One of those churches was quite remarkable. The Anglo Catholic priest (now retired) had embraced the charismatic renewal and their services were an amazing blend of the sacramental and charismatic stuff like tongues and spontaneous singing.
I cited a C of E church, but I have no doubt that there are Charismatic Roman Catholic churches as well.
There are certainly RC parishes with charismatic prayer groups, but there isn't a lot of room in our liturgy for spontaneity. So you wouldn't expect tongues etc at a Sunday Mass. (Doing my damndest to suppress an inappropriate aside.)
I cited a C of E church, but I have no doubt that there are Charismatic Roman Catholic churches as well.
There are certainly RC parishes with charismatic prayer groups, but there isn't a lot of room in our liturgy for spontaneity. So you wouldn't expect tongues etc at a Sunday Mass. (Doing my damndest to suppress an inappropriate aside.)
😂 Remarkable self control imo!
The church I mentioned was very liturgical so the charismatic stuff was mainly during and after communion.
I attended an RC convent school and we went on retreat in the sixth form. The priest leading the retreat was definitely influenced by the renewal movement and he inspired some of my fellow students to start a school charismatic prayer group when we returned.
For what it's worth there were even some Orthodox involved in the early days of the charismatic renewal. I seem to remember reading that Billy Richards, a stalwart Assemblies of God evangelist walked out of an ecumenical charismatic gathering in Guildford Cathedral because an Orthodox priest was stood a few pews in front of him engaging in the groove.
From what I can gather, it all fizzled out fairly quickly as they felt much of it was spurious. I suspect there may have been some wariness of ecumenism too.
That isn't to say there's not a charismatic dimension within Orthodoxy but it's more around 'staretz' or elders - mostly monastics - being able to foretell or suss things or freaky stuff like wonder-working relics and icons.
Yes, I know I've sounded glib there. I'm not dismissing it necessarily.
At least two of my professors at Concordia Seminary before the split were Charismatic. They later took positions at Pacific Lutheran Seminary in Berkley, California.
We are in danger of going off topic, but my impression is that the charismatic thing is still going in RC circles but in a more behind the scenes way.
It's still detectable in some Anglo-Catholic circles but my impression is that it's been toned down there to some extent.
Within mainstream Protestant groups 'charismatic-lite' is now more common than the full-on versions. Out in the independent Protestant sector it can vary from 'charismatic-lite' and post-charismatic to way over the top loopy-doopy stuff.
Overall, other than among some fringe groups, I'd say the whole thing has toned down to a large extent. It's even become quite Quakerly in some quarters.
We are in danger of going off topic, but my impression is that the charismatic thing is still going in RC circles but in a more behind the scenes way.
It's useful when considering the Charismatic Renewal to remember that it didn't happen everywhere at once, and lingered longer in some places than others - there were still groups that retained the ecumenical spirit of the initial movement well into the 80s in places like South America and parts of Asia.
With the shift in recruitment to the priesthood over time it's not surprising that within the RC in particular there were concentric and echoing waves of this phenomena following the initial movement.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap. The boss is OK with it. When I go in this afternoon, my spine will be tingled by another Ghanaian group, not by the ranting pastor, a very nice chap, you can hear down the street, but by the women singing acapella. I'm looking forward to the Cameroonians coming back. And Nigerians of course. And Indians. Many with anglicized names. Another Indian Orthodox group want two days for St. George's Day. We have one already. But they won't be Pentecostal obviously.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap. The boss is OK with it. When I go in this afternoon, my spine will be tingled by another Ghanaian group, not by the ranting pastor, a very nice chap, you can hear down the street, but by the women singing acapella. I'm looking forward to the Cameroonians coming back. And Nigerians of course. And Indians. Many with anglicized names. Another Indian Orthodox group want two days for St. George's Day. We have one already. But they won't be Pentecostal obviously.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap.
Orientalism aside this has zero to do with recapitulating the 18th century.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap. The boss is OK with it. When I go in this afternoon, my spine will be tingled by another Ghanaian group, not by the ranting pastor, a very nice chap, you can hear down the street, but by the women singing acapella. I'm looking forward to the Cameroonians coming back. And Nigerians of course. And Indians. Many with anglicized names. Another Indian Orthodox group want two days for St. George's Day. We have one already. But they won't be Pentecostal obviously.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap. The boss is OK with it. When I go in this afternoon, my spine will be tingled by another Ghanaian group, not by the ranting pastor, a very nice chap, you can hear down the street, but by the women singing acapella. I'm looking forward to the Cameroonians coming back. And Nigerians of course. And Indians. Many with anglicized names. Another Indian Orthodox group want two days for St. George's Day. We have one already. But they won't be Pentecostal obviously.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap. The boss is OK with it. When I go in this afternoon, my spine will be tingled by another Ghanaian group, not by the ranting pastor, a very nice chap, you can hear down the street, but by the women singing acapella. I'm looking forward to the Cameroonians coming back. And Nigerians of course. And Indians. Many with anglicized names. Another Indian Orthodox group want two days for St. George's Day. We have one already. But they won't be Pentecostal obviously.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap.
Orientalism aside this has zero to do with recapitulating the 18th century.
It's institutionalized revivalism within the neo-bourgeois socio-economic phase.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap.
Orientalism aside this has zero to do with recapitulating the 18th century.
It's institutionalized revivalism within the neo-bourgeois socio-economic phase.
Yes, those are certainly some words. Unfortunately it's utter nonsense as your own description lays out.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap.
Orientalism aside this has zero to do with recapitulating the 18th century.
It's institutionalized revivalism within the neo-bourgeois socio-economic phase.
Yes, those are certainly some words. Unfortunately it's utter nonsense as your own description lays out.
Yeah. Other cultures, including immigrant, are reiterating that now.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap.
Orientalism aside this has zero to do with recapitulating the 18th century.
It's institutionalized revivalism within the neo-bourgeois socio-economic phase.
Yes, those are certainly some words. Unfortunately it's utter nonsense as your own description lays out.
Yes I haven't made the case that I believe in my 'mostly... massive over-generalisation'.
And my 'words' are based on that belief. That Christian cultures and sub-cultures are mainly determined by socio-economic development. West Africa is producing a huge bourgeoisie, like India. And many of the former, less, but some, of the latter (due to the massive institutions of Hinduism and Islam) are becoming devout bourgeois Christians. I've encountered no Orthodox West Africans but plenty of Orthodox Indians incidentally. Afro-Caribbean sabbatarians. One Catholic. Many Anglicans as with Indians. Most are immigrant or students, not first generation. They are the only hope for the Church and the NHS, care sector and tax base in the UK.
And no, they aren't becoming Methodists. But they are largely Pentecostal, Charismatic. That's what I have encountered in this city for years. They clamour to use my halls. Wesley preaching in fields to people fornicating under wagons wasn't Methodism either. Methodism, non-conformism grew out of, institutionalized revival. Like Mexico's revolution.
It's all, including the spread of wild Christianity beyond established settlement in America, very conservatively socio-economically deterministic to me.
And my 'words' are based on that belief. That Christian cultures and sub-cultures are mainly determined by socio-economic development.
So I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but I don't think it's simply a recapitulation of the 18th Century due to to West Africa being at a similar stage of socio-economic development (because by and large it isn't - they have their own route and these things are path dependent).
West Africa is producing a huge bourgeoisie, like India. And many of the former, less, but some, of the latter (due to the massive institutions of Hinduism and Islam) are becoming devout bourgeois Christians.
But they are largely Pentecostal, Charismatic. That's what I have encountered in this city for years. They clamour to use my halls.
But to look at your example, this isn't institutionalized except at the margins (literally other bad analogies would be 'better' - say entrepreneurial startup culture), the haut bourgeoisie (using neo-bourgeoisie in the sense of signifying elites) tend to try and fit socially and religiously into the institutions in the west, the Pentecostal/Charismatic end tends to pull from the aspirational end of society.
Comments
Maybe worse than death itself - the unimaginable experience of being differently or not being at all - is the knowledge of how ghastly the process can be of becoming dead -- and you have seen one of the worst.
I think most of us want to die instantaneously and entirely unexpectedly. Let the Reaper be merciful.
How awful for you. And yet you have missed faith, even while the experience of it caused fear? I would think shedding faith would be a relief.
That is unrelated to my point. I work hard to focus on the way these things affect me, understanding that my experience and perception is in no way universal.
@Martin54 I trust your motives in saying this are as pure as any of mine. However, this is not a compliment in the world to which I tangentially belong, the culture of those with disabilities. Exerting my right to speak and express my experience and views on a matter are merely that. In exerting that right I am neither courageous nor necessarily honest. Just as persons with disabilities are no more courageous for breathing and living their lives than anyone else.
Is this assessment based on your observation of outward appearance. Or has this almost platonically abstract view of God been expressed by those who hold it?
(a) Sure. I love the creationist busting archaeology of Budg Bim.
(b) I'm certain they do. I've done high church a couple or three times. Well, a couple. No! Three. But yeah, it's all very déclassé nowadays ennit?
The uneasy coming together of Charismatics in search of a theology and Evangelicals in search of numbers is a fascinating tale.
I don't think it really worked like that. The charismatic renewal crossed many boundaries and not all of it was theology-lite.
What strikes me about the earlier issues is how diverse the contributors were in terms of churchmanship or denomination. There was also some actual theology in there too compared to later editions which were narrower in scope.
That may have been so initially but by the time I became aware of it (mid to late 80s) it was almost unanimously evangelical. It was some years before I realised that Charismatic and Evangelical were not virtually synonyms.
I would be, even now, very interested, albeit very cautiously, in non-Evangelical Charismatic expressions.
There are (or were) a number of Anglo-Catholic churches with Charismatic features (if that's the right word!). Our Place's late Reader was interested in this, and IIRC visited one or two - alas! I can't ask him where, as he died a couple of months ago...
This one springs to mind (I once attended a weekday Mass), though it's a long way from @KarlLB-land...
https://www.josephtheworker.org/
@KarlLB land...
No, quod scripsi, scripsi.
I was objecting to your characterisation that there was necessarily some independent group of 'Charismatics' who were in search of a theology, not necessarily that later on the two terms may have become synonymous in some places.
I cited a C of E church, but I have no doubt that there are Charismatic Roman Catholic churches as well.
When my husband and I were accepted as mission partners with the Anglican Church our sending agency were thrilled we came from a Cathedral as it meant they could approach churches from higher up the candle to try to see if they would like to be linked with us. One of those churches was quite remarkable. The Anglo Catholic priest (now retired) had embraced the charismatic renewal and their services were an amazing blend of the sacramental and charismatic stuff like tongues and spontaneous singing.
There are certainly RC parishes with charismatic prayer groups, but there isn't a lot of room in our liturgy for spontaneity. So you wouldn't expect tongues etc at a Sunday Mass. (Doing my damndest to suppress an inappropriate aside.)
😂 Remarkable self control imo!
The church I mentioned was very liturgical so the charismatic stuff was mainly during and after communion.
I attended an RC convent school and we went on retreat in the sixth form. The priest leading the retreat was definitely influenced by the renewal movement and he inspired some of my fellow students to start a school charismatic prayer group when we returned.
From what I can gather, it all fizzled out fairly quickly as they felt much of it was spurious. I suspect there may have been some wariness of ecumenism too.
That isn't to say there's not a charismatic dimension within Orthodoxy but it's more around 'staretz' or elders - mostly monastics - being able to foretell or suss things or freaky stuff like wonder-working relics and icons.
Yes, I know I've sounded glib there. I'm not dismissing it necessarily.
It's still detectable in some Anglo-Catholic circles but my impression is that it's been toned down there to some extent.
Within mainstream Protestant groups 'charismatic-lite' is now more common than the full-on versions. Out in the independent Protestant sector it can vary from 'charismatic-lite' and post-charismatic to way over the top loopy-doopy stuff.
Overall, other than among some fringe groups, I'd say the whole thing has toned down to a large extent. It's even become quite Quakerly in some quarters.
It's useful when considering the Charismatic Renewal to remember that it didn't happen everywhere at once, and lingered longer in some places than others - there were still groups that retained the ecumenical spirit of the initial movement well into the 80s in places like South America and parts of Asia.
With the shift in recruitment to the priesthood over time it's not surprising that within the RC in particular there were concentric and echoing waves of this phenomena following the initial movement.
This is mostly a massive over-generalisation.
And in US politics, a scary one. (I'm referring here to The Seven Mountain Mandate and related historical stuff.)
Only mostly. On Good Friday an Indian friend from church, who works at the cathedral, came in to the office, dark of mien. There was a large, colourful, Leicester University Ghanaian student group having a very different service in the lower hall. There were twice as many as there were in the church service. I can only characterize it as glossolalia rap. The boss is OK with it. When I go in this afternoon, my spine will be tingled by another Ghanaian group, not by the ranting pastor, a very nice chap, you can hear down the street, but by the women singing acapella. I'm looking forward to the Cameroonians coming back. And Nigerians of course. And Indians. Many with anglicized names. Another Indian Orthodox group want two days for St. George's Day. We have one already. But they won't be Pentecostal obviously.
I wonder how much of that is culture-based rather than spirit-based. Ululations etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md7OvU5JIcI
Orientalism aside this has zero to do with recapitulating the 18th century.
All of it.
All of it, the entire schema (data plus metadata, structure), is entirely natural, material. Back through when we were fish to when we were protists.
I'm not aware of anything, any anomaly, that needs a spirit-based, whatever that could be, explanation.
Sorry. I thought you were implying that they were examples of charismatic worship.
They are. Which is entirely culture-based. Which is entirely social-psychologically based.
It's institutionalized revivalism within the neo-bourgeois socio-economic phase.
Yes, those are certainly some words. Unfortunately it's utter nonsense as your own description lays out.
If you say so.
Pax @chrisstiles.
Yes I haven't made the case that I believe in my 'mostly... massive over-generalisation'.
And my 'words' are based on that belief. That Christian cultures and sub-cultures are mainly determined by socio-economic development. West Africa is producing a huge bourgeoisie, like India. And many of the former, less, but some, of the latter (due to the massive institutions of Hinduism and Islam) are becoming devout bourgeois Christians. I've encountered no Orthodox West Africans but plenty of Orthodox Indians incidentally. Afro-Caribbean sabbatarians. One Catholic. Many Anglicans as with Indians. Most are immigrant or students, not first generation. They are the only hope for the Church and the NHS, care sector and tax base in the UK.
And no, they aren't becoming Methodists. But they are largely Pentecostal, Charismatic. That's what I have encountered in this city for years. They clamour to use my halls. Wesley preaching in fields to people fornicating under wagons wasn't Methodism either. Methodism, non-conformism grew out of, institutionalized revival. Like Mexico's revolution.
It's all, including the spread of wild Christianity beyond established settlement in America, very conservatively socio-economically deterministic to me.
So I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but I don't think it's simply a recapitulation of the 18th Century due to to West Africa being at a similar stage of socio-economic development (because by and large it isn't - they have their own route and these things are path dependent).
But to look at your example, this isn't institutionalized except at the margins (literally other bad analogies would be 'better' - say entrepreneurial startup culture), the haut bourgeoisie (using neo-bourgeoisie in the sense of signifying elites) tend to try and fit socially and religiously into the institutions in the west, the Pentecostal/Charismatic end tends to pull from the aspirational end of society.