On the way back from Tennessee (after Thanksgiving) I was thinking and driving at the same time, which, ya know, is illegal and I could have been arrested. Reflecting upon an earlier conversation from the previous weekend, I started thinking about Holy Spirit baptism and a postmodern, emerging context and culture. It does seem to me that the way many in previous generations have talked about this is in very modernistic terms. Phrases like 'initial evidence' seem to denote a scientific worldview. It is an observable phenomenon which the observed does not actually have to be engaged in relationship with the subject to determine the results. In fact, the observer does not even need to know the subject in any real way in order to determine whether or not he/she has been baptized. This manner of thought seems to fly in the face of an experiential, subjective culture. One cannot know anything without being in relationship. In other words, one cannot know whether or not someone has been baptized unless they are in relationship with that person. Would it be a move towards looking and focusing more upon the fruits of the Spirit as a whole? (But wouldn't this, even, be something "observable" to label someone) Even then, the pomo culture begs the question, why do you want to know in the first place? Is it a matter of being able to establish some sort of number for stripes on a belt to show how good the preacher was or how much God was present in a meeting? Was the presence of God more manifest in a gathering where 27 people were baptized as opposed to one where only 2 (or perhaps even 0) were baptized? In other words, do we need to know to assure ourselves that God was present?
Could we (should we/can we) even think of Spirit Baptism in more communal terms, i.e. the community is baptized in the Spirit? In this manner, our thinking and speaking would become less individualistic and less focused on the individual and more communal. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I have been thinking in a similar vein. I recently did a few weeks in my class at church on the Holy Spirit. I spoke of the baptism of fire in terms of love. We often hear of it in terms of power but my point was that the power of pentecost is fueled by love from God. Prophecy, miracles, healing all are powered by God's perfect love being worked through the body of Christ on earth. To quote the great theologian Huey Lewis, "it's the power of love".
The baptism experience - tongues - initial evidence is the kiss of God. It is a sign of affection in the context of the believer's relationship with God. It should be a natural progression in your relationship with God just as it is in human relationships. We show varying levels of affection to those we love depending on the context of those relationships.
Do you have to your kiss your wife to be married? Officially no, but why wouldn't you want to? The kiss at the altar might be the 'initial evidence' but is only symbolic of a love and affection that is much deeper.
I think pomo pentecostals must emphasize the releationship not the observable phenomena.
So why have "evidence"? At this point I can think of 3 reasons. (I'm just thinking this through)
1 - It is encouraging and edifying for other believers to see this affection. Just as your parents or other adults modeled what marriage looked like for you (either positively or negatively) so seeing other believers show and receive love from God models and edifies the body.
2 - As a pastor it is helpful for me to be able to see fruit to determine the health of a believer. Healthy Christians should be growing in their relationship with God and it is helpful for me to see it or not see it.
3 - This public symbol forces the believer to go public with their experience. Our individual experiences are meant to be shared by the community. This event sets precedent for the believer to allow others to share in their relationship with God.
Just some thoughts.
Before I would be debating Spirit Baptism and who has the scientific, pomo, or whatever view, I think I might considering dropping the seemingly humorous (to you) profanity from your previous entry.
Or to frame up my beef with your language in light of these comments:
Could we (should we/can we) even think of Spirit Baptism in more communal terms, i.e. the community is baptized in the Spirit? In this manner, our thinking and speaking would become less individualistic and less focused on the individual and more communal. Just a thought.
If it is a communal baptism, considering Christ was Spirit Baptized if anyone was in addition to your Spirit Baptized brothers that read your blog, why not demonstrate at least a little self-control and not drop the F-bombs and other profanity out of the same mouth that is supposed to be blessing the Creator. Just a thought.
mike you sound very fletcherish to me. or at least an interpretation of fletcher.
once again we have a language issue. while i agreee that the intitial evidence kiss metaphor can be used, i dont think that is all that is intended by early pentecostal writers in the use of initila evidence language. clearly they are working out of the modernist mindset, and for them evidence is proof. perhaps we need to ditch that language, and maintain the metaphor, or perhaps we need proof. John uses sign language in the gospel to demonstrate Jesus' identity. proof may of come to a head post-enlightenment but surely the concept has been employed for all of written history and more than likely before we took to weaving papyrus.
Ahh... we have a squirrel.
What is a squirrel? (in this context)
I hope you mean the Fletcheristic comments as a compliment.
I do think early Pentecostals were influenced by modernity. How could they not be? But I also think one of the distinctives about early pentecostalism was the way in which their marginalized status insulated them from a lot of mainstream (modern) thinking. The very nature of tongues, healing, and prophecy even snake-handling are much more mystical than rational. Often these early pentecostals didn't make sense to logical thought.
Perhaps 'initial evidence' was a term born out of pragmatism (which I see differently than rationalism). How do we tell when you have been baptized with fire (or oxidite or lidite or whatever)?
Squirreling is a term used in debating. I have included a definition:
'Squirreling is the distortion of the definition to enable a team to argue a pre-prepared argument that it wishes to debate regardless of the motion actually set.'
(from http://www.schoolsdebate.com/docs/definitions.asp)
In this case, the 'motion' was Spirit-baptism, but our collegue (sp?) jumped to profanity.
A little rehashing of my Rhetoric and Public Discourse class. ;)
yeah, brandon, I thought the same thing, although not in 'Squirreling' language. Thats okay, I'm not about censorship and such. As far as the conversation at hand, I like the metaphor language, "tongues as the kiss of God" and the marriage stuff. Hopefully we haven't uncritically accepted Dr. Land's metaphor, as I fear that some may simply because he is a very brilliant person. That's all I can say now. Gotta go.
Squirrel? Actually, for that to be the case, I'd have to be running a campaign against profanity.
Now, had you not skipped over page 1 in your Discourse primer, you would understand that before an audience can decode and receive an encoded message filtering it through all surrounding noise, the speaker must appear credible to his target.
Without knowing you save what I read here, your credibility presented the problem for your modest discourse on the Charismata.
My point, if you were capable of receiving from your audience thus completing the give and take necessary for communication to actually happen is...It is hard to receive anything about the third person of the Trinity from a foul mouthed seminary student.
Ouch. Travis.
In a sense I agree. But it's hard for me to receive what your saying based on your foul attitude from a silly fantasy football game. If you want to discuss offensive communication, the way you handled yourself prior to quitting the league was pretty ridiculous. Your inappropriate attitude about a silly game hurt your credibility with me. (no i don't want to rehash your grievances with Pete - but an apology to the league would have been nice)
Coming on to someone else's blog and lecturing them isn't a good way to start off a conversation either.
If Josh wants all of the Church of God Kingdom to see his f-bomb (he perhaps doesn't know you have listed him on the cogblog list) then so be it. If you're not comfortable putting him on your list because of his vulgar language I could see that too.
You did hijack this post and have now turned it into a discussion on profanity. Is that squirreling or soap boxing?
BTW - I like your blog, I've meant to tell you that before now. It's well done. Hopefully I haven't tarnished my credibility with you to receive a compliment.
Man, what are we talking about here?... ahh yes, tongues as initial evidence. This has been a struggle of mine for some time. Initially, coming out of the Baptist background, I rejected tongues as initial evidence. Now I am wavering between the fact that it does seem to be the Bible evidence and believing that perhaps it is AN evidence, but not THE evidence.
Here is a quick thought.... Perhaps the early Pentecostals were worried about THE evidence because they felt they had to PROVE the reality of the experience. Do we still need to PROVE the Baptism in the Spirit? There is no biblical discussion of a need for initial evidence... Indeed, just a thought.
Mike,
First, I don't have Josh listed.
Secondly, if Josh is going to go public with controversial things (i.e. profanity while debating the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) that reflects negatively on the Holy Spirit, don't expect it to go unchallenged, especially when posted on a blog.
Thirdly, the majority of the guys playing in the league agreed with the rules and my perspective. In the end, I chose not to play in a league where the rules meant nothing. That situation doesn't change the fact that Pete is my bro and a good friend.
Now, concerning love- I love my daughters. And, because I do, I correct them when they're wrong. Love is not watching a fellow Christ follower be vulgar and pretending its no big deal because it is a big deal.
I should have emailed Josh so that it could have been a private thing. That's on me and Josh, I'm sorry for that. Forgive me.
I appreciate the props on my space. Its always nice to catch some feedback. I'll be in Tyler the week before Christmas. Maybe, we can catch up a bit then.
Trav
Since my name has been brought into the conversation I suppose I should comment. All that I really want if for Trav to admit that I was right in approving the Palmer/Manning trade. Fantasy Football is all about the numbers. (How's that for a blog-jack?)
This could become the most hi-jacked blog thread in the world.
Here's another log for the fire.
How about those BCS rankings? I'm ready for a playoff system.
Yeah well, I am sure the big dogs are all happy about their golden boys going undefeated... but it is definitely time for a playoff. I forget, have I dogged anyone about fantasy football or choice vocabulary? I don't want to miss out on an opportunity. Did I ever tell you about the time I had to debate the whole gun control issue... I didn't see any squirrels then, but I did have to chase a family of them out of my attic recently...
Pete, don't make a mistake by bringing your emotional argument into a rational debate.
Speaking of guns...I'm going 'hunting' with a bunch of guys from church next week. I'm not actually hunting (I don't want to pay for the safety course and license). I just gonna go and hang out which seems to be the reason most of them are going too.
Joel you use vulgar chinese language and it would be ok. We wouldn't know any difference.
Post a Comment