A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
2008-07-03
2008-02-13
Waratah, New South Wales
If you want to see some pictures of my erstwhile post-industrial suburb, click here. I took these pics in March last year, "public domained" them and uploaded them to Wikimedia.
2007-11-14
In Praise of XKCD
This mix of brains and fun, as well as underlying sweetness helped propel xkcd from a hobby to a full-time job for the 23-year-old former NASA roboticist. Since its 2005 launch, xkcd has grown from doodles in the margins of a graphing notebook to T-shirts, radio talks and lectures on humor at MIT, where students batted inflatable raptors around the auditorium. The website drew between 60 million and 70 million pageviews in October, Munroe says, and xkcd's growing fan base has taken to re-enacting events that take place in the comic.XKCD is more than just another internet meme - it seems to make people do things. The picture above is a real-life person standing in a meeting with a sign saying "Citation needed", an in-joke for people who read and contribute to Wikipedia. This protester was inspired to do this based upon an XKCD comic. This is a case where life not only imitates art, it is influenced by it.
But if xkcd is currently making headlines, it's because Munroe's message to "get out and live!" is provoking a stream of real-time events. For example, Richard Stallman was attacked by ninjas in a comical re-enactment of an xkcd strip as he innocently attempted to give a talk at Yale. Photos circulate of people playing chess on roller coasters.
And then Munroe's fans read the installment in which a mysterious dream girl leaves the hero with a set of coordinates for a place and time in the near future.
In the comic, nothing happens. "It turns out that wanting something doesn't make it real," the comic's narrator says mournfully.
But in real life, those coordinates pointed to a real time and place: Sept. 23, 2:38 p.m., in Reverend Thomas J. Williams Park in North Cambridge, Massachusetts. On that day, nearly a thousand xkcd fans from as far away as England and Canada converged on the park, bearing tape measures and Rubik's cubes. At the assigned minute, Munroe emerged and spoke.
"Maybe wanting something does make it real," he said as his fans cheered and fought duels with foam swords. The comic that spurred the gathering was enlarged and hung from a fence, and fans took turns contributing to a new last panel, where dreams can come true.
For me, I am merely an untergeek. I am neither a programmer nor maths head. Some of the comics go waaaaaay over my head. But he still has the ability to make me laugh 9.1 times out of 10.11111111.
2007-09-11
2007-08-11
Backmasking
Backmasking is Wikipedia's article of the day.
"It's fun to Smoke Marijuana"
"There was a little toolshed where he made us suffer"
"It's fun to Smoke Marijuana"
"There was a little toolshed where he made us suffer"
2007-08-04
The best way to view Wikipedia
Wikipedia. Can you trust it? Can you really use it as a trustworthy guide to what is factual?
In many ways the answer is yes. In others the answer is no.
Let me illustrate. Imagine you have a friend who says he knows everything. Of course he doesn't, but he proves to be very good at knowing everything you want to know. Sometimes he slips up, but the good thing is that he will tell you that he's wrong if you ask him. The best thing about this friend is that he can point you in the right direction and give you evidence that backs up his claims.
That friend is Wikipedia. He is valuable in being able to summarise facts and to tell you the place to look if you're wanting to do more study.
In many ways the answer is yes. In others the answer is no.
Let me illustrate. Imagine you have a friend who says he knows everything. Of course he doesn't, but he proves to be very good at knowing everything you want to know. Sometimes he slips up, but the good thing is that he will tell you that he's wrong if you ask him. The best thing about this friend is that he can point you in the right direction and give you evidence that backs up his claims.
That friend is Wikipedia. He is valuable in being able to summarise facts and to tell you the place to look if you're wanting to do more study.
2007-07-26
2007-07-25
2007-07-04
2007-06-27
German Wikipedia gets state funding
They want to improve the quality of German Wikipedia articles.
Of course, other people will get ideas about funding Wikipedia writers - like having a full time writer working on Christian articles. Then, of course, I will be poking my tongue out and saying "nyahh nyahh told you so".
Of course, other people will get ideas about funding Wikipedia writers - like having a full time writer working on Christian articles. Then, of course, I will be poking my tongue out and saying "nyahh nyahh told you so".
2007-06-16
Newcastle Wikipedians
We're all meeting together for the first time tonight, in Beaumont Street, Hamilton. There'll only be 4 of us at this stage. But hopefully we can get more and more as time goes by. I'd like to have a meetup every 3 months or so.
2007-05-05
Creating a conservative world
Conservative people were so incensed at Wikipedia's bias towards left wing beliefs (ie the truth) that they created Conservapedia.
Now they've created Qubetv, a "right-wing only Youtube".
What's next? Porn that contains only conservative-voting female models?
Now they've created Qubetv, a "right-wing only Youtube".
What's next? Porn that contains only conservative-voting female models?
2007-04-27
2007-03-14
Waratah, New South Wales
I've just improved the Wikipedia article by inserting 53 pictures I took yesterday. Check out the photos of the suburb I live in in the photo gallery here.
It'll be useful one day when future historians go scuba diving in the area to find out information about what the world was like before we almost destroyed it.
It'll be useful one day when future historians go scuba diving in the area to find out information about what the world was like before we almost destroyed it.
2007-01-02
5th Test Day one (lots of pics)
6.00am I get up and wake the family. They have to drive me over to Charlestown to get a lift from church friends to travel down to Sydney.
The trip down was quick. We were listening to 2BL and they were promising hot sausages at their tent outside the SCG. We arrived there just as the last sausage was consumed.
We arrived in time to see both sides training. The rain began to softly fall as we began to berate both sides for playing football, touch, softball and even tennis to warm themselves up. Our group was situated in Row J of the O'Reilly Stand. The stand is okay except that it gets the afternoon sun from about 3.00pm onwards. Straight behind us there was the bar and the obligatory food stalls selling overpriced and underquality goods.
The rain came again, but unlike last year it stopped enough for play to start sometime after 11.00am. Since Justin Langer had announced his retirement as well, we all knew that we would be seeing at least one of our retiring heroes play. As it was, Freddie won the toss and elected to bat - much to the crowd's delight to see Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne bowl.
Then we had to endure Human Nature singing the National Anthem.
I don't know if it was the pitch or the quality bowling or the stodgy batting, but the first session was slow. McGrath bowled over after over and was unlucky in some areas but you could tell he was now past his best. Lee, of course, is not my favourite player - but he got the crowd going in his first over when he attempted to castrate Cook with a vicious delivery aimed at the groinal area. Cook survived, and he and Strauss put on a valuable little partnership before Lee eventually got Strauss caught behind. At lunch England were 1/58.
Then we had to endure some opera singing guy singing a tribute to Langer, McGrath and Warne.
During the first session a number of us began to wonder where the "Barmy Army" was. There was not a peep of singing or yelling or chanting from the colourful England supporters. We couldn't even tell where they were in the ground.
One group that was visible was the Aussie "Fanatics", who all wore yellow tops and sat under the scoreboard. They attempted to sing a number of Aussie songs, but they were just too loose and soft for most people to hear. Shannon, the teacher I lived with in Griffith from August until December, was a member of the Fanatics and, after phoning each other on our mobiles, I decided to go over and visit the group at the Lunch break.
The first thing you hit when you descend the stairs in the O'Reilly stand is the main corridor underneath, which was choka-block full of people. England and Aussie supporters, men and women, all cramming together to try and go somewhere - the bar, the food shop, the toilet or, like me, trying to exit the stand altogether.
As I was standing crammed in amongst all these fans I managed to talk to a member of the Barmy Army. He said the group was spread around the place - they were there, but they weren't singing.
Then Phil Tufnell walked by in the crowd. "Hello Mr Tufnell" I said "How are you today?". "Very well thankyou!" he said, smiling, and continued walking. He was dressed in a suit and was taller than I expected. The last time I saw him was in 1994.
After managing to exit I found my way into the fanatics area. I searched for about 20 minutes but Shannon had obviously gone somewhere (probably to get a drink). I walked up to the O'Reilly stand for the post lunch session.
Soon after lunch, Clark picked up Cook. Both openers had stuck around for a while but had not gone on with the job. The slow scoring indicated some sort of war of attrition going on in the middle. Kevin Pietersen then came in and we all expected something good from him.
Pieterson and Bell were scoring slowly but surely. The crowd was quiet. Suddenly from the Hill came a familiar bugle sound - the Barmy Army bugler! The effect on the crowd was electric. Within half a second the crowd (perhaps 30000) began cheering wildly as the Barmy Army started their chanting and singing.
You have to hand it to these guys - they were very entertaining. My favourite is their rendition of God Save the Queen - God save your gracious queen, long live your noble queen... long to reign over YOU!!!! and at that point the Barmy army would all point in the direction of the Aussie fans (in this case, the fanatics). It was stirring stuff. They had around a dozen different chants that they repeated throughout the day - many of which were borderline ribald.
Meanwhile, back at the cricket, the Aussie bowlers continued to toil away without luck. Pietersen and Bell continued their scoring and eventually put on a century partnership. It wasn't pretty cricket - Pietersen looked stuck in second gear and curbed his scroing rate to play it safe. Bell simply nicked and nudged his runs - no mess, no fuss, no charisma. At tea England were 2/149.
By this stage I had consumed one $6.00 glass of white wine, one $4.50 hot dog and an $8.50 fish and chips pack. I really need to bring my own food next year.
After tea things began to swing Australia's way. Pietersen, always a quick scorer, tried to pick up the pace. But he tried hooking McGrath and managed to spoon it to Hussey for a good catch. Pieterson out for 41. Finally! McGrath gets himself a wicket! One over later and Bell, 71, gets a doozey from McGrath again and the ball hits the top of middle stump. I have to say, there is nothing like a crowd cheering as one after seeing the stumps rattled.
Two new batsmen were at the crease. Collingwood and Flintoff, the England captain. Then it became quite dark and cloudy so they turned the lights on.
The above photo was taken as I snuck down to the fence to take pictures of Justin Langer, who was fielding near the O"reilly stand. Here's some more:
And here's a cropped version which I will probably add to his Wikipedia article:
And here's a photo from the stands where I was sitting:
And here's Johnno and Tom, who were at the game with me.
Tom enjoyed today's entertainment much more than last year's.
Flintoff hit a six off Clark that I completely lost. After that point the Army began singing the praises of Flintoff, singing
We love your gorgeous wife,
...your chain smoking,
...your beer drinking,
...your slips catching,
...your seam bowling,
...your six six hits.
But the six didn't bring about either an increase in runs overall or any wickets. Collingwood and Flintoff remained at the crease when Billy and Aleem offered the light at 6.30.
And then off home again. It took about 45 minutes to get the car out of Moore Park but once we got onto the Harbour Tunnel it was easy peasy all the way back to Novocastria.
The trip down was quick. We were listening to 2BL and they were promising hot sausages at their tent outside the SCG. We arrived there just as the last sausage was consumed.
We arrived in time to see both sides training. The rain began to softly fall as we began to berate both sides for playing football, touch, softball and even tennis to warm themselves up. Our group was situated in Row J of the O'Reilly Stand. The stand is okay except that it gets the afternoon sun from about 3.00pm onwards. Straight behind us there was the bar and the obligatory food stalls selling overpriced and underquality goods.
The rain came again, but unlike last year it stopped enough for play to start sometime after 11.00am. Since Justin Langer had announced his retirement as well, we all knew that we would be seeing at least one of our retiring heroes play. As it was, Freddie won the toss and elected to bat - much to the crowd's delight to see Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne bowl.
Then we had to endure Human Nature singing the National Anthem.
I don't know if it was the pitch or the quality bowling or the stodgy batting, but the first session was slow. McGrath bowled over after over and was unlucky in some areas but you could tell he was now past his best. Lee, of course, is not my favourite player - but he got the crowd going in his first over when he attempted to castrate Cook with a vicious delivery aimed at the groinal area. Cook survived, and he and Strauss put on a valuable little partnership before Lee eventually got Strauss caught behind. At lunch England were 1/58.
Then we had to endure some opera singing guy singing a tribute to Langer, McGrath and Warne.
During the first session a number of us began to wonder where the "Barmy Army" was. There was not a peep of singing or yelling or chanting from the colourful England supporters. We couldn't even tell where they were in the ground.
One group that was visible was the Aussie "Fanatics", who all wore yellow tops and sat under the scoreboard. They attempted to sing a number of Aussie songs, but they were just too loose and soft for most people to hear. Shannon, the teacher I lived with in Griffith from August until December, was a member of the Fanatics and, after phoning each other on our mobiles, I decided to go over and visit the group at the Lunch break.
The first thing you hit when you descend the stairs in the O'Reilly stand is the main corridor underneath, which was choka-block full of people. England and Aussie supporters, men and women, all cramming together to try and go somewhere - the bar, the food shop, the toilet or, like me, trying to exit the stand altogether.
As I was standing crammed in amongst all these fans I managed to talk to a member of the Barmy Army. He said the group was spread around the place - they were there, but they weren't singing.
Then Phil Tufnell walked by in the crowd. "Hello Mr Tufnell" I said "How are you today?". "Very well thankyou!" he said, smiling, and continued walking. He was dressed in a suit and was taller than I expected. The last time I saw him was in 1994.
After managing to exit I found my way into the fanatics area. I searched for about 20 minutes but Shannon had obviously gone somewhere (probably to get a drink). I walked up to the O'Reilly stand for the post lunch session.
Soon after lunch, Clark picked up Cook. Both openers had stuck around for a while but had not gone on with the job. The slow scoring indicated some sort of war of attrition going on in the middle. Kevin Pietersen then came in and we all expected something good from him.
Pieterson and Bell were scoring slowly but surely. The crowd was quiet. Suddenly from the Hill came a familiar bugle sound - the Barmy Army bugler! The effect on the crowd was electric. Within half a second the crowd (perhaps 30000) began cheering wildly as the Barmy Army started their chanting and singing.
You have to hand it to these guys - they were very entertaining. My favourite is their rendition of God Save the Queen - God save your gracious queen, long live your noble queen... long to reign over YOU!!!! and at that point the Barmy army would all point in the direction of the Aussie fans (in this case, the fanatics). It was stirring stuff. They had around a dozen different chants that they repeated throughout the day - many of which were borderline ribald.
Meanwhile, back at the cricket, the Aussie bowlers continued to toil away without luck. Pietersen and Bell continued their scoring and eventually put on a century partnership. It wasn't pretty cricket - Pietersen looked stuck in second gear and curbed his scroing rate to play it safe. Bell simply nicked and nudged his runs - no mess, no fuss, no charisma. At tea England were 2/149.
By this stage I had consumed one $6.00 glass of white wine, one $4.50 hot dog and an $8.50 fish and chips pack. I really need to bring my own food next year.
After tea things began to swing Australia's way. Pietersen, always a quick scorer, tried to pick up the pace. But he tried hooking McGrath and managed to spoon it to Hussey for a good catch. Pieterson out for 41. Finally! McGrath gets himself a wicket! One over later and Bell, 71, gets a doozey from McGrath again and the ball hits the top of middle stump. I have to say, there is nothing like a crowd cheering as one after seeing the stumps rattled.
Two new batsmen were at the crease. Collingwood and Flintoff, the England captain. Then it became quite dark and cloudy so they turned the lights on.
The above photo was taken as I snuck down to the fence to take pictures of Justin Langer, who was fielding near the O"reilly stand. Here's some more:
And here's a cropped version which I will probably add to his Wikipedia article:
And here's a photo from the stands where I was sitting:
And here's Johnno and Tom, who were at the game with me.
Tom enjoyed today's entertainment much more than last year's.
Flintoff hit a six off Clark that I completely lost. After that point the Army began singing the praises of Flintoff, singing
We love your gorgeous wife,
...your chain smoking,
...your beer drinking,
...your slips catching,
...your seam bowling,
...your six six hits.
But the six didn't bring about either an increase in runs overall or any wickets. Collingwood and Flintoff remained at the crease when Billy and Aleem offered the light at 6.30.
And then off home again. It took about 45 minutes to get the car out of Moore Park but once we got onto the Harbour Tunnel it was easy peasy all the way back to Novocastria.
2006-05-18
Wikipedia story game
Based (badly) on one of those silly story games like the one going on here. More...
The rules I'm setting up for myself are simple. Go to Wikipedia, hit the random article button, and begin a story based on that article. After 2-3 sentences, hit the random article button again, and continue the story based on what you find in the next random article. The name of the new article does not have to be mentioned, but a link must be provided.
Here goes:
George Douglas Campbell, sat drinking a cup of Earl Grey tea in the drawing room. His servant, Phillip, had retired for the day, complaining of an illness and leaving him to fend for himself. At least it wasn't as bad as that war in Afghanistan he was involved with, he thought ruefully to himself.
Suddenly there was a knock at the front door. For a moment Campbell waited for the expected sounds of Phillip going to the door, but remembered regreatfully that he was ill and unable to help. Putting down his tea, he got up and walked to the door. He opened it, and standing in front of him was a young woman in an attractive dress... but with a disturbing amount of hair visible above his mouth. "Hellooooo" the woman said in a deep booming male voice, "I am John Lind from Sweeeden. May I haf a vroom to sleep in toniyte?"
"Well, I suppose so", Campbell said, disturbed by the presence of this Swedish female impersonator. She walked in but motioned to the door. "Please be to pick up games cartridge?" she asked as she walked into the drawing room.
Campbell stooped over and picked up a small box that fitted into the palm of his hand. The surface was black but the box itself was made of a very light but rigid substance. On the top of the box was some paper, stuck to the box by some glue, with characters that Campbell thought were Japanese.
"Well, Mr, er.., miss Lind" Campbell stammered, "what is this device again?"
Lind had sat down next to the fire and had poured him/herself a cup of tea. "SaGa!" he said "my favourite Nintendo game".
There was another knock at the door. Campbell turned around and saw another man at the door.
"Hiya feller!" The man said, my name's Grant Dexter, I'm here to interview Miss Lind here for her upcoming tour of Canada. Nothing as interesting as her has come out of Sweden since Abba!"
"But.. wait.. please stay where you are" Campbell stammered, wishing that Phillip was there to shoo the intruder off.
"Sorry bud! Miss Lind is waiting" said Dexter, pushing past Campbell and entering the drawing room. "More tea please!" Lind called out in his low voice.
Campbell went into the kitchen and put some fresh water to boil on the stove. He also walked into his study and took out a revolver that he had in the bottom drawer of his bureau - the one that had served him well against the Afghans. Brandishing the weapon loosely, he walked into the drawing room.
Dexter and Lind were deep in conversation, but Lind seemed to be sprouting nonsense. "I went to the jamia where I asked people about the qiyas of their society. Susan the bint of the warraq said that I had committed fasiq against them. So, naturally, I was in trouble."
"It's okay Miss Lind", said Dexter, "I'm not only a record producer, I'm also a majority shareholder in Sears. I'll make sure we can whisk you away to safety from those horrible Afghans. More than that, I can get you some great new women's clothes, and at a bargain price!"
Suddenly another man came through the door. Campbell was dumbfounded.
"Who are all you people?" he cried out "And what are you doing here?"
"I'm George William Taylor" said the man at the door, "and I'm here to find that record company lowlife that didn't publish my spoken word record!"
"No one wants to hear a stupid Canadian politician speak about nothing!" cried Dexter
"You are ashamed of our country's heritage?" asked Taylor.
"No! I am just trying to make a living running a record company. Now if you excuse me I'm interviewing Miss Lind."
"Mr Campbell" cried out Miss/Mr Lind in a disturbingly low voice "Do you have a Nintendo machine? I am desperate to play Saga!"
"I have one Miss Lind" said Dexter. "I'll be back in a second"
"A cup of tea would be nice." said Taylor as he walked in to the drawing room.
Presently, Dexter came back with two strange looking boxes which Dexter explained were a Television and a Nintendo Machine. Since there were no power points in Campbell's house, Dexter and Taylor managed to jury-rig up a car battery to the two items.
The TV turned on.
Suddenly Campbell could hear the beautiful sounds of a violin. On the screen on the television he saw a man playing. Entranced by the man and the sound, he drew closer. Suddenly the screen went blank.
"Okay, Nintendo's plugged in" said Dexter.
As the two played Saga, Campbell stood transfixed, remembering the beautiful violin. Then Saga started, and Dexter and Lind began playing.
"Austrian violinists are wonderful aren't they?" Taylor asked a confused Campbell.
"I suppose so" Campbell stammered.
"I met one once when I was on the board at Capitol Records" he said "lovely chap he was. Dead now I think."
"I see Capitol didn't think much of your spoken word garbage either!" Dexter called out.
"I pronounce a Fasiq upon you!" cried Taylor.
Lind looked up.
"I have ze board of Sears now looking afvter me!" he/she said.
"Well I have an assassin who can pop a cap in your false ass!" said Taylor. He lives in Al Hudud ash Shamaliyah!
------------------
And that's ten - about as much as I can stand. It might end up being a funny thing to do, who knows?
The rules I'm setting up for myself are simple. Go to Wikipedia, hit the random article button, and begin a story based on that article. After 2-3 sentences, hit the random article button again, and continue the story based on what you find in the next random article. The name of the new article does not have to be mentioned, but a link must be provided.
Here goes:
George Douglas Campbell, sat drinking a cup of Earl Grey tea in the drawing room. His servant, Phillip, had retired for the day, complaining of an illness and leaving him to fend for himself. At least it wasn't as bad as that war in Afghanistan he was involved with, he thought ruefully to himself.
Suddenly there was a knock at the front door. For a moment Campbell waited for the expected sounds of Phillip going to the door, but remembered regreatfully that he was ill and unable to help. Putting down his tea, he got up and walked to the door. He opened it, and standing in front of him was a young woman in an attractive dress... but with a disturbing amount of hair visible above his mouth. "Hellooooo" the woman said in a deep booming male voice, "I am John Lind from Sweeeden. May I haf a vroom to sleep in toniyte?"
"Well, I suppose so", Campbell said, disturbed by the presence of this Swedish female impersonator. She walked in but motioned to the door. "Please be to pick up games cartridge?" she asked as she walked into the drawing room.
Campbell stooped over and picked up a small box that fitted into the palm of his hand. The surface was black but the box itself was made of a very light but rigid substance. On the top of the box was some paper, stuck to the box by some glue, with characters that Campbell thought were Japanese.
"Well, Mr, er.., miss Lind" Campbell stammered, "what is this device again?"
Lind had sat down next to the fire and had poured him/herself a cup of tea. "SaGa!" he said "my favourite Nintendo game".
There was another knock at the door. Campbell turned around and saw another man at the door.
"Hiya feller!" The man said, my name's Grant Dexter, I'm here to interview Miss Lind here for her upcoming tour of Canada. Nothing as interesting as her has come out of Sweden since Abba!"
"But.. wait.. please stay where you are" Campbell stammered, wishing that Phillip was there to shoo the intruder off.
"Sorry bud! Miss Lind is waiting" said Dexter, pushing past Campbell and entering the drawing room. "More tea please!" Lind called out in his low voice.
Campbell went into the kitchen and put some fresh water to boil on the stove. He also walked into his study and took out a revolver that he had in the bottom drawer of his bureau - the one that had served him well against the Afghans. Brandishing the weapon loosely, he walked into the drawing room.
Dexter and Lind were deep in conversation, but Lind seemed to be sprouting nonsense. "I went to the jamia where I asked people about the qiyas of their society. Susan the bint of the warraq said that I had committed fasiq against them. So, naturally, I was in trouble."
"It's okay Miss Lind", said Dexter, "I'm not only a record producer, I'm also a majority shareholder in Sears. I'll make sure we can whisk you away to safety from those horrible Afghans. More than that, I can get you some great new women's clothes, and at a bargain price!"
Suddenly another man came through the door. Campbell was dumbfounded.
"Who are all you people?" he cried out "And what are you doing here?"
"I'm George William Taylor" said the man at the door, "and I'm here to find that record company lowlife that didn't publish my spoken word record!"
"No one wants to hear a stupid Canadian politician speak about nothing!" cried Dexter
"You are ashamed of our country's heritage?" asked Taylor.
"No! I am just trying to make a living running a record company. Now if you excuse me I'm interviewing Miss Lind."
"Mr Campbell" cried out Miss/Mr Lind in a disturbingly low voice "Do you have a Nintendo machine? I am desperate to play Saga!"
"I have one Miss Lind" said Dexter. "I'll be back in a second"
"A cup of tea would be nice." said Taylor as he walked in to the drawing room.
Presently, Dexter came back with two strange looking boxes which Dexter explained were a Television and a Nintendo Machine. Since there were no power points in Campbell's house, Dexter and Taylor managed to jury-rig up a car battery to the two items.
The TV turned on.
Suddenly Campbell could hear the beautiful sounds of a violin. On the screen on the television he saw a man playing. Entranced by the man and the sound, he drew closer. Suddenly the screen went blank.
"Okay, Nintendo's plugged in" said Dexter.
As the two played Saga, Campbell stood transfixed, remembering the beautiful violin. Then Saga started, and Dexter and Lind began playing.
"Austrian violinists are wonderful aren't they?" Taylor asked a confused Campbell.
"I suppose so" Campbell stammered.
"I met one once when I was on the board at Capitol Records" he said "lovely chap he was. Dead now I think."
"I see Capitol didn't think much of your spoken word garbage either!" Dexter called out.
"I pronounce a Fasiq upon you!" cried Taylor.
Lind looked up.
"I have ze board of Sears now looking afvter me!" he/she said.
"Well I have an assassin who can pop a cap in your false ass!" said Taylor. He lives in Al Hudud ash Shamaliyah!
------------------
And that's ten - about as much as I can stand. It might end up being a funny thing to do, who knows?
2006-04-02
Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal Belief
This was my Magnum Opus at Wikipedia and is now in danger of deletion. To keep it from disappearing forever, I'm pasting it here:
Charismatic is an umbrella term used to describe those Christians who believe that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian Church, such as glossalalia, healing and miracles, are available to contemporary Christians and ought to be experienced and practised today.
The word charismatic is derived from the Greek word charis (meaning a grace or a gift) which is the term used in the Bible to describe a wide range of supernatural experiences (especially in 1 Corinthians 12-14). [1]
Often confused with Pentecostalism (which it was inspired by), Charismatic Christianity tends to differ in key aspects: many Charismatics reject the preeminence given by Pentecostalism to glossolalia, reject the legalism often associated with some sectors of Pentecostalism, and tend to stay in their existing denominations instead of forming new groups (although this is no longer as true as it once was, and most house churches freely use charismatic gifts).
Charismatic expressions are not exclusive to any single denomination, nor is Charismatic theology uniquely Protestant. There is a burgeoning Charismatic movement within the Catholic Church.
Pentecostalism is a specific movement within evangelical Christianity that began in the early 20th century. It is typified by enthusiastic religious gatherings and the firm belief that God can empower the Christian for victorious life and service via the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - proof of which is found in part in the external evidence of tongue speaking. Historic Pentecostalism has its roots in the Holiness Movement and the Revivalism of the Second Great Awakening in America during the early 19th century.
More recently, the term Neocharismatic has been used to designate those groups with pentecostal-like experiences that have no traditional connection with either the Pentecostal or Charismatic movements. The Third Wave, a term coined by American theologian C. Peter Wagner, is regarded as part of the larger Neocharismatic movement, and it is typified by the growth of churches in the Vineyard Movement, among others. For the purposes of this article, this new movement will exist under the Charismatic terminology. More detailed information on these movements and what they believe can be found in their respective articles.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 The nature of criticism
* 2 Criticisms from Evangelical Christians
o 2.1 Blessings, money and prosperity
o 2.2 Exegesis
o 2.3 Influences of the Latter Rain Movement
o 2.4 Oneness Pentecostals
o 2.5 Scripture, authority and guidance
o 2.6 Speaking in Tongues
o 2.7 Theology of worship
* 3 Criticisms from Catholic and/or Orthodox Christians
* 4 Criticisms from other religions
* 5 Criticisms from society generally
o 5.1 Faith Healing
o 5.2 Prosperity and Faith
o 5.3 Religious ecstasy as a psychological phenomenon
o 5.4 Word of Faith theology
o 5.5 See also
* 6 Criticisms from within the Pentecostal / Charismatic movement
o 6.1 Authoritative leadership
o 6.2 Psychological Abuse
o 6.3 Theological scholarship
o 6.4 See also
* 7 External links
The nature of criticism
Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians and organisations have, either fairly or unfairly, been subjected to numerous criticisms by both those within the Christian faith, as well as by those in the wider world.
The debate between Charismatic and non-Charismatic Christians occurs at several levels. One fundamendal theological question is usually whether the charismata described in the New Testament and apparently widely used by Jesus, the Apostles and early church leaders were a special dispensation for New Testament times only, or whether the gifts were for the Christian church down the ages.
At one time (1958) Pentecostals made up two-thirds of the membership of the National Association of Evangelicals, and by some estimates they still comprise the largest segment of Evangelicalism. Nevertheless, today many Evangelicals are not sympathetic to the beliefs and practices of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. Evangelical critics hold that the movement has departed from the Bible and is teaching unbiblical ideas. The Cambridge Declaration, written in 1996 by Reformed Evangelicals, is an expression of resistance against modern trends within the evangelical movement, as well as some of the issues raised by Charismatic and Pentecostal belief.
Since the Roman Catholic Church has been influenced by Charismatic teaching since the late 1960s, there are also critics within the movement that argue that Catholic Charismatics have departed from the church's traditions and teaching, and have replaced the authority of the church with a subjective way of guidance.
Both Charismatic and Pentecostal churches aggressively evangelise "non-believers", and although intentional proselytizing from other evangelical groups is discouraged, the recruiting of members from other religions does occur. Adherents of these other religions may also find the movement's tenets to be offensive to their belief system in a way that is unique and not simply part of the general offensiveness they might find in all forms of Christian belief.
Society generally is beginning to experience the movement as well, and have critiqued it according to psychological and behavioral norms, finding in the movement expressions of human behaviour that they might find offensive.
The movement itself has also spawned its own critics. Many of the fiercest critics of Charismatics and Pentecostals are those who have either "given up" the Christian faith altogether, or have moderated their beliefs somewhat to bring balance to what they see as offensive.
Criticisms from Evangelical Christians
See also: Cambridge Declaration
A number of critics of Pentecostal / Charismatic beliefs have established themselves in Discernment Ministries to promote their theological viewpoints. The main areas of criticism are outlined below. Please note that the use of the term Evangelical here refers to those Christians who claim to be Born-again but do not hold to many Pentecostal or Charismatic beliefs, rather than the broader common definition. These Evangelicals are likely to come from a Reformed or Dispensationalist point of view.
Blessings, money and prosperity
See also: Word of faith, You Need More Money (Book)
A significant portion of the Charismatic movement and a number of Pentecostals believe that the Christian life is lived in a better way than a non-Christian one, and that, as a result of this better life, God will bless them and make them prosperous. Many Charismatics believe that their faith will lead to better health (physical, mental and emotional), more money and worldly possessions, and a much happier and joyous lifestyle. Although this belief in health, wealth and happiness is common throughout some of the Charismatic movement, there are different degrees and emphases throughout.
Many Charismatic and Pentecostal teachers believe that God will reward us in this life with riches and health.
Enlarge
Many Charismatic and Pentecostal teachers believe that God will reward us in this life with riches and health.
There is no doubt that many new converts give up common worldly vices, such as smoking and gambling, and, as a result of this change of spending habits, end up with more money in their bank accounts and a healthier body. There is also no doubt that conversions to any religion will often lead to a subjective sense of peace and happiness in those involved. Furthermore, a religious conversion almost always leads to the individual subjecting themselves to external rules and ways of thinking, which allows a different perespective on their lives and the ability to make relatively objective choices that will lead to greater levels of prosperity. What all this indicates is that there is some truth in the claim that the Christian faith can lead to greater health, wealth and happiness - at least from a behavioural point of view.
The difference between Evangelicals and Charismatics on this issue is that Evangelicals, while agreeing that some level of worldly prosperity may result, will contend that God is not really interested in worldly possessions. For many evangelicals, the Christian faith is not about worldly prosperity at all, but about heavenly riches especially those given freely through the death and resurrection of Christ. For Evangelicals, it does not therefore follow that the Christian faith will automatically lead to health, wealth and prosperity, and nor should a Christian expect it or ask for it.
Evangelicals have, however, argued that such an emphasis in the Charismatic movement has led people away from the heavenly riches that are promised in Christ. Rather than focus upon Christ and the Cross, Evangelicals argue that, when Charismatics focus upon worldly prosperity, they are both teaching serious theological error and failing to teach the true Gospel. Additionally, many Evangelicals believe that Christians have every Spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1:3), a position that precludes any demand or promise for further blessings from God. For the Evangelical, Christ is all the blessing a Christian needs. Many Pentecostals and Neocharismatics are in agreement with this aspect of the Evangelical argument.
A problem therefore arises when Charismatics claim that God is offering Christians more blessings than the gift of Christ. Since they are not given automatically to Christians, Charismatics hold to the idea that these blessings can be appropriated by obedience in the Scriptures, specifically, faithfully tithing 10 percent of one's income to his or her local church. However, Charismatic Christians believe that the mere act of the giving of tithes and offerings does not automatically return blessings. Giving must be done in faith and out of a heart of worship. The beliver must have the motivation of advancing the Gospel, not the accumulation of wealth. Many Evangelicals believe that this idea seriously undermines the biblical teaching on God's grace. Evangelicals would pose such questions as Why would God give a Christian salvation and eternal life as a free gift, but offer worldly blessings only to those who perform better than others? For the Evangelical, if God specially rewards greater faith in Christians by giving them worldly prosperity, then it is one step away from saying that all of God's blessings, including salvation, are based upon works. The Charismatic response would be that faith is not a work; rather, it is a trust in and reliance upon that which God has revealed in His Word regarding these matters.
Teaching on prosperity, while common throughout some of the Charismatic movement, differs in emphasis from church to church. As in the Evangelical Christian world, Charismatics themselves can be wary of false teaching and will often self-regulate against any obvious excesses. Evangelicals would argue, however, that such self-regulation is not enough.
Several leading Pentecostal denominations, including the Church of God (Cleveland), openly renounce the hyper-prosperity message. To the credit of Pentecostals, many have been confronting this error for a number of years. Recent efforts of the Center for Pentecostal Leadership and Care, directed by Dr. James P. Bowers, have resulted in the publication of a document entitled, You Can Have What You Say: A Pastoral Response to the Prosperity Gospel. This volume evaluates the threat posed to the faith and practice of Pentecostal believers by the “prosperity gospel” and provides a practical analysis of its roots and appeal. The book (1) considers how prosperity theology is affecting local congregations, (2) examines the philosophical and theological roots of prosperity teaching against the backdrop of classical Pentecostal doctrine, (3) addresses how Pentecostal pastors can strategize a response within the context of the local church and (4) offers resources, exercises, and activities that will assist the pastor in implementing an effective and faithful approach to this concern.
Exegesis
Exegesis is the way in which Biblical passages are examined and interpreted. Although Charismatics and Evangelicals alike believe that the Bible can be understood and applied by all believers, Evangelicals are often critical of the way in which Charismatics (and Pentecostals) interpret and apply scripture.
This issue is a much larger one in modern society because it has to take into account modern ways and methods of interpreting written text. Evangelicals tend to take a Structuralist view of interpreting the Bible. This means that Biblical texts should be interpreted according to their literary type and takes into account the text's purpose, its audience and its historical and philosophical context. Moreover, an Evangelical will argue that a Biblical text can only be understood and applied in this manner, and that any departure from this will lead to a misinterpretation of Scripture. In this sense, Evangelicals believe that the Bible is like any other text in the manner in which you read it, but unlike any other text because its ultimate authorship is divine.
A Pentecostal preacher. The content of preaching is often determined by Biblical interpretation (exegesis)
Enlarge
A Pentecostal preacher. The content of preaching is often determined by Biblical interpretation (exegesis)
Charismatics, however, are less likely to follow a Structuralist approach to interpreting scripture. While they may not discard the Evangelical approach, many Charismatics believe that the Bible's divine authorship allows it to be interpreted in a more subjective and reader-centred manner. In many ways, it could be argued that Charismatics are more likely to take a Post-structuralist or even Post-modernist way of interpreting Scripture. Thus a Charismatic will be able to take a verse of Scripture out of its literary context and apply it in a subjective manner. Such an approach could be defended by arguing that God's power to guide cannot be limited by human conventions such as textual structure. Furthermore, since it is God who is guiding the individual through this interpretive process, it could be argued that it is a superior way of interpretation since it assumes that God is able to give the Christian immediate and clear guidance. The Evangelical approach to interpretation, however, could therefore be seen as a limiting of God and has an overly intellectual and transcendent view of God, rather than a personal and immanent view of God that typifies Charismatic interpretation.
Evangelicals argue, however, that many modern day Charismatic leaders have gone beyond this subjective interpretive model and are actually teaching things that are contrary to orthodox Christian belief. The fact that there is such a diverse range of beliefs within the Charismatic movement (beliefs which are often contrary) is proof, according to Evangelicals, that such an interpretive model is flawed. After all, the Evangelical would say, why is God not guiding his people in a consistent manner?
An example of the difference between a Charismatic and an Evangelical interpretation of Scripture can be seen in a quick examination of 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, which says My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power (NIV).
One way that this verse could be interpreted by Charismatics is that it backs up the belief that God is acting in our world to produce miracles. Therefore, it could be argued, church meetings should include times when God can work miracles. On the other hand, preaching conducted solely on the basis of the human understanding could be classed as the “wise and persuasive words” mentioned in this verse, and such preaching should not be the focus of the Christian meeting. This interpretation basically assumes that Paul's ministry in Corinth was both a preaching ministry and a ministry that involved supernatural manifestations. The implication for Charismatics is that since Paul did this, so should the modern-day church.
Another way this verse could be interpreted by Charismatics focuses on the phrase “so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power”. What this could prove is that the Christian should trust not in various arguments or in intellectual knowledge alone, but upon a more experiential knowledge of God. On the basis on this rationale, some Charismatics conclude that it should not matter, therefore, if someone disagrees with them or challenges them in their faith – they can trust in their personal experience. However, many Charismatics and Pentecostals alike hold that all subjective experience is subject to the authority of the objective Word of God.
The Evangelical interprets these verses in a very different way. The verse needs to be taken in context with the rest of what Paul says, especially chapter 1:22-23 which says Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. Critics of the Charismatic understanding of the supernatural would say that these verses contradict the idea that Paul's ministry was primarily one of performing miracles. 2:2 is also important to the Evangelical because it states that I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. Thus the demonstration of the Spirit's power found in 2:4 could in fact be the conversion experience of the Corinthian readers, and “God's power” in 2:5 is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals argue that this way of interpreting the text fits into a structuralist model because it takes the verses in its historical and grammatical context. Charismatics and even Pentecostals would counter-argue that such an interpretation reads more into the text than is clearly stated and ignores the historical context -- a context that was characterized by the dynamic of the Holy Spirit manifested through supernatural signs and wonders. Furthermore, if 1:22-23 is a condemnation of reliance upon signs and wonders, then it is equally a condemnation of an overly intellectualized approach to the Gospel.
It needs to be pointed out that claims of "faulty" exegesis are not a criticism that can be applied solely to Charismatics. It is entirely possible for Charismatic Christians and leaders to understand and apply a Biblical text in a manner which is acceptable to a Structuralist approach (and thus meet the interpretive framework that many Evangelicals hold to). It is also entirely possible (in fact, it is probably very common) that many Evangelicals themselves are guilty of "faulty" exegesis. Evangelicals will argue, however, that this phenomenon is far more likely to occur within a Charismatic church than in an Evangelical church. On the other hand, Charismatics and Pentecostals hold that Evangelicals do injustice to the Scriptures by forcing interpretations that reinforce what might be called preconceived cessationist conclusions -- ideas based more on experience than on the message of the text.
Influences of the Latter Rain Movement
Main article: Latter Rain Movement
The Latter Rain Movement was a religious movement that was prevalent in American Pentecostal churches in the 1940s and 1950s. Led by William M. Branham and others, it taught that the Five-fold ministry would be returned (including prophets and apostles), that special Christians would arise who would have supernatural powers (the Manifest Sons of God), and that specially ordained "overcomers" would rise to political power and take over secular institutions in the name of God (Kingdom Now theology). This movement denied some of the more Fundamentalist teachings such as the Rapture, and also held to Jesus-only doctrines popularized by Oneness Pentecostalism.
The US Assemblies of God declared the movement heretical but its teachings remained influential for some years. [2]
There appears to be evidence that suggests that, since 1975, Charismatics have engaged in fellowship with all Christians who have had the same religious experiences as they had - which included both the traditional Pentecostals and the Latter Rain movement. As a result, both the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement presently share a great deal in common theologically, and this has come from a resurgence in Latter-rain teaching in both movements.
Evangelicals and traditional Pentecostals would still argue that the teachings of the Latter Rain movement were heretical. There is evidence to suggest that, while the term "Latter Rain" is not associated with modern Charismatic and Pentecostal theology, the teaching certainly is.
Oneness Pentecostals
Main article Oneness Pentecostal
An offshoot of the Pentecostal movement, Oneness Pentecostals believe that there is one God with no essential divisions in His nature (such as a trinity) . He is not a plurality of persons, but He does have a plurality of manifestations, roles, titles, attributes, or relationships to man. Furthermore, these are not limited to three. Whereas Trinitarian Christianity teaches that God is existent in three Persons, Oneness doctrine states that there is only one member of the Godhead, namely Jesus. He is the incarnation of the fullness of God. In His deity, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The rejection of the trinity has also been called Sabellianism, or modalism, and is considered heresy by most evangelicals and those within the Charismatic and Pentecostal Movement.
These churches are sometimes known as Pentacostal churches - the difference in spelling being an indicator.
Scripture, authority and guidance
See also: Sola scriptura
One of the issues that Evangelical Christians have with Charismatics and Pentecostals is the place of the Bible in terms of authority. Most Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians will agree that the Bible is divinely inspired and was written by men under the supervision of the Holy Spirit. This belief is also held by evangelicals and serves as one of the many points of agreement. However, many evangelicals see the Bible as not only divinely inspired, but also divinely sufficient - that the Bible is all the Christian needs to be guided by God and to live the Christian faith. The protestant reformers called this Sola scriptura. This point of view appears to be backed up by 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states that the scriptures are not only "God breathed" but "thoroughly equip" the believer for every good work - the idea here being that "thoroughly equip" is synonymous with sufficiency. Pentecostals and Charismatics, on the other hand, expect direct guidance from the Holy Spirit in the form of dreams, visions and various other subjective experiences. The fact that many biblical figures (such as Noah, Moses, King David, Jesus, Peter, Paul and so on) have been guided directly by God appears to back up their belief that God can and will use subjective experiences to guide his people.
Image:Bible old.jpg
Many Christians believe that the ultimate author of the Bible is God himself.
Evangelicals have criticised this approach to guidance because, firstly, just because direct guidance is described in the Bible does not mean it is prescribed for the Christian life and, secondly, because the individual relies upon subjective experiences for God to guide then there is a temptation to rely solely upon these for living the Christian life - a process which takes the believer away from the Bible as the means by which God speaks. Many evangelicals have been concerned with what they perceive as "misleading" or "false" teaching arising from the movement - with teachings such as Word of faith (prosperity), the Toronto blessing and Signs and Wonders as examples of this. Many evangelicals have labelled popular televangelists (such as Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey and Kenneth Copeland to name just three) as being, at best, seriously misguided and, at worst, satanically inspired. To be fair, many Pentecostals and Charismatics do not adhere to these teachings, which indicates the complexity of criticism in this area. For evangelicals, however, an over-reliance upon subjective experience as the means by which God guides will lead to lower levels of Biblical knowledge. This, they argue, will inevitably lead to the Christian being influenced by people and movements that teach and preach strange and misleading doctrines.
Although it may appear that there is a clear polarization between guidance by the Bible and guidance by experience, most evangelicals and pentecostals accept a combination of the two - with Evangelicals accepting some form of direct experience (so long as it does not contradict the Bible), and with Pentecostals accepting some level of Biblical authority (so long as it does not prevent God from guiding directly).
External links
* List of articles that defend Sola Scriptura
* Continuing Revelation: What's the big deal?
Speaking in Tongues
Some Pentecostals believe that Speaking in Tongues is a direct result of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and that believers who do not undergo this work of God are unable to experience the fullness of being Christian. By contrast, Charismatics accept that Tongue Speaking is a valid Christian experience, but, like other Pentecostals, do not always accept that the Baptism in the Spirit automatically leads to Tongue Speaking.
Evangelicals generally believe that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the point of conversion - in this sense all Christians have been baptised by the Holy Spirit, and there is no "dual-stage" in the Christian faith. They also question the validity of Tongue Speaking in two ways. The first is to argue that Tongues were for the first-century church only and that it, along with Prophecy, have "passed away" (1 Cor 13:8-10). The second is to identify Tongues as Xenoglossia (the supernatural speaking of another human language that is recorded in Acts 2:1-13) which is purportedly not what is manifested in Pentecostal or Charismatic Christians today.
However, the belief that prophecy and Tongues have "passed away" as some non-Charismatic Evangelicals state 1 Cor 13:8-10 says, is challenged by Charismatic Christians. They say that while Scripture is the infallible authority in our lives, man is not perfect, and therefore, man cannot know everything about God in his sinful state (I Cor. 13:8-10). This argument does not mean Charismatics believe the Holy Bible is not the sufficient, infallible Authority in the life of a Christian. They defend the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture fervantly. However, what is meant by this is that while on earth, man cannot know God in His Entirety. As a result of the infiniteness of God and the finiteness of mankind, this is not possible. The Charismatic Christian believes that when they are with God after sin is destroyed and all believers are raised up and their physical bodies are freed from the grip of sin and death, then "the perfect" will come and gifts of the Spirit will no longer be necessary. In short, Charismatics believe this passage is referring to the Christian, not Scripture. "The perfect" is interpreted as referring to the Christian's regenerated state in Heaven.
Theology of worship
Public expressions of Worship in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches can generally be described as energetic and intensely personal, often accompanied by a specific style of music that can include Gospel music in Black Pentecostal churches and the contemporary worship music of Hillsong Church.
Many Charismatic churches in the early 21st century have adopted a contemporary worship style that focuses heavily upon "uplifting" music and repetitive and simple lyrics. Charismatic churches that have embraced Transformationalism are likely to have a worship style that reflects this theological stance.
Pentecostal Worship is often spontaneous, emotional, uninhibited and honest.
Enlarge
Pentecostal Worship is often spontaneous, emotional, uninhibited and honest.
Evangelicals have levelled a number of criticisms of Charismatic worship.
One major criticism is that there is an over-emphasis upon the subjective experience of worship rather than upon any objective experience that finds its basis in the Bible. Evangelicals, particularly those from a Reformed background, argue that Worship should be regulated by what God has revealed in Scripture. Meanwhile, the Pentecostal or Charismatic believer would most likely point out that focussing on one's subjective experience of God's biblical nature is quite valid.
Additionally, many Reformed Evangelicals place a great emphasis upon the centrality of the Gospel and the Word of God throughout public worship. This means that the Bible is publicly read during worship, that the congregation is exposed to carefully researched Expository preaching on a regular basis, and that all songs and hymns are clearly biblical and Christ-focused. By doing this, Reformed Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit will be working in the lives of all people present - and that such a work of the Spirit cannot necessarily be recognised by a subjective feeling or any visible, measurable occurrence.
By contrast, Charismatic worship does not necessarily involve a public reading of scripture, nor would the preaching be based upon a systematic explanation of a Biblical text. Evangelicals have often criticised Charismatic preaching for misunderstanding the Bible, with many preachers allegedly guilty of inaccurate exegesis. Since Charismatics have a higher regard for personal experience, preachers can often use their own subjective experiences, or even what they consider to be direct guidance from God, as the basis of their teaching. Since many Evangelicals see Scripture as divinely sufficient, they find such Charismatic teaching problematic.
Charismatic song lyrics, although simple and honest, may not necessarily be Biblical in their content. Some evangelicals have even (either fairly or unfairly) labelled such songs as having "Jesus is my boyfriend" lyrics. Evangelicals argue that any Christian hymn or song should be explicitly Biblical in nature, and focus upon what God has done rather than on what we feel about God. For the Evangelical, "Declaring God's praise" involves singing and preaching about God's divine characteristics, such as his omnipotence, omnipresence, providence as well as his love for his people in sending Jesus Christ to die on the Cross as a sin substitute. Hymns and Songs that explain the person and work of Jesus Christ are also important to Evangelicals.
A simple (but not always accurate) assertion that Charismatics make about differences between themselves and Evangelicals is that they focus on worship while Evangelicals focus on teaching. While this assertion has some truth in it, it fails to recognise that, for the Evangelical, bible teaching forms an integral part of true worship. In his book Engaging with God,[3] Evangelical author David Peterson[4] asserts that true worship involves the church approaching God in worship on God's terms, and that God himself is engaging with his people during the ekklesia (gathering) as his Word is read and explained, and as the Gospel is proclaimed.
But while Evangelicals will criticise Charismatic worship as being too subjective and shallow, Charismatics will criticise evangelical worship as being too impersonal, unemotional and intellectual.
Criticisms from Catholic and/or Orthodox Christians
The Catholic and Orthodox churches would agree with the basic belief that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian Church, such as glossalalia, healing and miracles, are available to contemporary Christians and ought to be experienced and practiced today. Many stories of the saints include examples of these things occurring throughout the history of Christianity. It is often believed that God can and does work such miracles both through the normal exercise of the sacraments of the Church, and at times in unexpected ways. However, they also believe that such miracles would not and should not generally be disruptive to the prayers of the assembled church, believing instead that all things should be done "decently and in order."
Criticisms from other religions
Criticisms from society generally
Faith Healing
The following articles are useful in examining the possible reasons why Faith Healing in Charismatic churches continues to be popular.
* Faith Healing
* Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy)
* Post hoc ergo propter hoc
* Regressive fallacy
Prosperity and Faith
Many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches champion the idea that God will materially bless those who love and serve him. In order to prove this assertion, many examples and testimonies exist within these churches that appear to validate this belief.
Since Charismatic and Pentecostal churches exist within growing market economies, the belief that God will bless you if you "go out" in faith simply produces an environment of entreprenurial risk-taking. If this environment develops enough, the church community will eventually produce successful businessmen and -women (not to mention a number of business failures). The presence of these people within the church therefore only validates the assumption. Thus the belief that God blesses certain people materially could actually be a logical fallacy.
Religious ecstasy as a psychological phenomenon
See also: Ecstasy (state)
The stereotypical worship service that is prevalent amongst many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches involves repetitious phrases uttered during emotionally uplifting music, the raising of hands and the closing of eyes, an open and willing attitude to the "presence of God", a dependence and focus upon the preacher or worship leader who himself/herself is acting and speaking in an emotionally charged way. This sort of experience is common amongst many non-Christian religious adherents and has been described as Religious ecstasy.
Therefore, it could be argumed that Charismatic and Pentecostal churches that exhibit these features are only reproducing a psychological phenomena that is common to humanity regardless of their religion, rather than engaging in an entirely unique Christian activity where a supernatural force is present in the gathering. That this phenomena can be exhibited in a group of people engaging in a common religious activity actually makes this explanation more likely.
Charismatic and Pentecostal manifestations such as Speaking in Tongues, being Slain in the Spirit, the laughing and crying caused by the Toronto blessing and the placebo effect of Faith healing can all be explained by the prevalence of Religious ecstasy in these gatherings.
Word of Faith theology
An examination of Word-Faith theology seems to match the experience of those who advocate Neuro-linguistic programming as a form of behaviour modification. Thus Charismatics and Pentecostals who "succeed in life" due to this brand of theology may only be replicating the efforts of secular proponents like Anthony Robbins.
See also
* Autosuggestion
* Suggestibility
* Visualization
Criticisms from within the Pentecostal / Charismatic movement
Authoritative leadership
Some people tend to follow the leaders within these movements from a motivation of either loyalty or a belief the leaders are anointed (chosen by God to be a spiritual leader). This could create problems as many will often believe what the leaders say and tend not think critically through these issues. Objective biblical and theological research may quite often be discouraged. The leaders may often wield enormous power within their churches and often try to harness this power for good; Many former Charismatics would argue, however, that this power has no Biblical basis.
At an even deeper level, the issue becomes goes back to authority and guidance. Charismatic and Pentecostal leaders will often claim the bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and life. Many former Charismatics would argue, however, that when these leaders believe the Holy Spirit is speaking directly to them, this often becomes the final authority. It really comes down to which view of God's guidance has greater emphasis - personal experience or the Bible.
Psychological Abuse
See also: Psychological abuse
Many former Charismatics and Pentecostals have complained that they have experienced undue psyschological pressure and abuse from their former churches. Church members who openly complain about the church or the leadership, or dispute decisions, have been subjected to this abuse because they pose a threat to the church's leadership and stability.
Some organizations argue that this abuse is endemic to the movement, and is a result of a combined number of issues. These include rapid numerical growth; uneducated pastors; an anti-intellectual attitude; the need for order and strong leadership; the belief that God is dealing with the church in a special way; a lack of accountability; and the need to suppress dissention.
It needs to be pointed out, however, that many people are attracted to the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement by the genuine love and care exhibited by individuals in these churches. It is erroneous to assume, therefore, that all churches in the movement are naturally abusive. It is also erroneous to assume that psychlogical abuse is unique to these churches, and that other churches, including evangelical ones, are immune from it.
While this love and care may be genuine, it does not necessarily mean that the church is not abusive in some way. Many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches exhibit the phenomenon of Communal reinforcement whereby community belief in someone or something is so strong that even empirical evidence to the contrary is discounted. A dissenter may therefore be ostracized by the church community despite having a reasonable and objective point of view. Alternatively, the dissenter may choose to keep their reservations to themselves, thus creating a spiral of silence.
While there have been cases akin to Brainwashing within these churches, such extreme activity is actually quite rare. Nevertheless, The Children of God developed out of the Jesus Movement in the 1960s, which was closely linked to the Charismatic movement, and The People's Temple was heavily influenced by the Pentecostal Movement in the 1950s. [5]
Theological scholarship
Some former Charismatics are of the opinion that recognised Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians are very difficult to find and that the movement is highly dependent upon scholars from Evangelical or Reformed backgrounds to formulate any rudimentary beliefs. In the early years of the Pentecostal movement, this assessment may have been true, for in the formative years of the movement Pentecostals were given more to the practice of their faith and engagement in their mission than to theological reflection. However, in recent years Pentecostals have become much more adept in reflecting upon and articulating their theology. More information related to Pentecostal, Charismatic and Neocharismatic theologians is covered under Renewal Theologians.
See also
* Consensus reality
* Group-serving bias
* Groupthink
* Herd behavior
* Informational cascade
* Love bombing
* Mind control
External links
* An Evangelical laments over how he feels Pentecostal and Charismatic beliefs are now dividing the body of Christ
* Ex Pentecostal forums - a forum for those leaving Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations (formerly ex-pentecostals.org)
* "I was a Flaky Preacher" - how a pastor gave up on the Charismatic movement but retained his faith and ministry.
* A Charismatic Apologetics Directory - scholarly articles defending Charismatic doctrine
This text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
Charismatic is an umbrella term used to describe those Christians who believe that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian Church, such as glossalalia, healing and miracles, are available to contemporary Christians and ought to be experienced and practised today.
The word charismatic is derived from the Greek word charis (meaning a grace or a gift) which is the term used in the Bible to describe a wide range of supernatural experiences (especially in 1 Corinthians 12-14). [1]
Often confused with Pentecostalism (which it was inspired by), Charismatic Christianity tends to differ in key aspects: many Charismatics reject the preeminence given by Pentecostalism to glossolalia, reject the legalism often associated with some sectors of Pentecostalism, and tend to stay in their existing denominations instead of forming new groups (although this is no longer as true as it once was, and most house churches freely use charismatic gifts).
Charismatic expressions are not exclusive to any single denomination, nor is Charismatic theology uniquely Protestant. There is a burgeoning Charismatic movement within the Catholic Church.
Pentecostalism is a specific movement within evangelical Christianity that began in the early 20th century. It is typified by enthusiastic religious gatherings and the firm belief that God can empower the Christian for victorious life and service via the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - proof of which is found in part in the external evidence of tongue speaking. Historic Pentecostalism has its roots in the Holiness Movement and the Revivalism of the Second Great Awakening in America during the early 19th century.
More recently, the term Neocharismatic has been used to designate those groups with pentecostal-like experiences that have no traditional connection with either the Pentecostal or Charismatic movements. The Third Wave, a term coined by American theologian C. Peter Wagner, is regarded as part of the larger Neocharismatic movement, and it is typified by the growth of churches in the Vineyard Movement, among others. For the purposes of this article, this new movement will exist under the Charismatic terminology. More detailed information on these movements and what they believe can be found in their respective articles.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 The nature of criticism
* 2 Criticisms from Evangelical Christians
o 2.1 Blessings, money and prosperity
o 2.2 Exegesis
o 2.3 Influences of the Latter Rain Movement
o 2.4 Oneness Pentecostals
o 2.5 Scripture, authority and guidance
o 2.6 Speaking in Tongues
o 2.7 Theology of worship
* 3 Criticisms from Catholic and/or Orthodox Christians
* 4 Criticisms from other religions
* 5 Criticisms from society generally
o 5.1 Faith Healing
o 5.2 Prosperity and Faith
o 5.3 Religious ecstasy as a psychological phenomenon
o 5.4 Word of Faith theology
o 5.5 See also
* 6 Criticisms from within the Pentecostal / Charismatic movement
o 6.1 Authoritative leadership
o 6.2 Psychological Abuse
o 6.3 Theological scholarship
o 6.4 See also
* 7 External links
The nature of criticism
Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians and organisations have, either fairly or unfairly, been subjected to numerous criticisms by both those within the Christian faith, as well as by those in the wider world.
The debate between Charismatic and non-Charismatic Christians occurs at several levels. One fundamendal theological question is usually whether the charismata described in the New Testament and apparently widely used by Jesus, the Apostles and early church leaders were a special dispensation for New Testament times only, or whether the gifts were for the Christian church down the ages.
At one time (1958) Pentecostals made up two-thirds of the membership of the National Association of Evangelicals, and by some estimates they still comprise the largest segment of Evangelicalism. Nevertheless, today many Evangelicals are not sympathetic to the beliefs and practices of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. Evangelical critics hold that the movement has departed from the Bible and is teaching unbiblical ideas. The Cambridge Declaration, written in 1996 by Reformed Evangelicals, is an expression of resistance against modern trends within the evangelical movement, as well as some of the issues raised by Charismatic and Pentecostal belief.
Since the Roman Catholic Church has been influenced by Charismatic teaching since the late 1960s, there are also critics within the movement that argue that Catholic Charismatics have departed from the church's traditions and teaching, and have replaced the authority of the church with a subjective way of guidance.
Both Charismatic and Pentecostal churches aggressively evangelise "non-believers", and although intentional proselytizing from other evangelical groups is discouraged, the recruiting of members from other religions does occur. Adherents of these other religions may also find the movement's tenets to be offensive to their belief system in a way that is unique and not simply part of the general offensiveness they might find in all forms of Christian belief.
Society generally is beginning to experience the movement as well, and have critiqued it according to psychological and behavioral norms, finding in the movement expressions of human behaviour that they might find offensive.
The movement itself has also spawned its own critics. Many of the fiercest critics of Charismatics and Pentecostals are those who have either "given up" the Christian faith altogether, or have moderated their beliefs somewhat to bring balance to what they see as offensive.
Criticisms from Evangelical Christians
See also: Cambridge Declaration
A number of critics of Pentecostal / Charismatic beliefs have established themselves in Discernment Ministries to promote their theological viewpoints. The main areas of criticism are outlined below. Please note that the use of the term Evangelical here refers to those Christians who claim to be Born-again but do not hold to many Pentecostal or Charismatic beliefs, rather than the broader common definition. These Evangelicals are likely to come from a Reformed or Dispensationalist point of view.
Blessings, money and prosperity
See also: Word of faith, You Need More Money (Book)
A significant portion of the Charismatic movement and a number of Pentecostals believe that the Christian life is lived in a better way than a non-Christian one, and that, as a result of this better life, God will bless them and make them prosperous. Many Charismatics believe that their faith will lead to better health (physical, mental and emotional), more money and worldly possessions, and a much happier and joyous lifestyle. Although this belief in health, wealth and happiness is common throughout some of the Charismatic movement, there are different degrees and emphases throughout.
Many Charismatic and Pentecostal teachers believe that God will reward us in this life with riches and health.
Enlarge
Many Charismatic and Pentecostal teachers believe that God will reward us in this life with riches and health.
There is no doubt that many new converts give up common worldly vices, such as smoking and gambling, and, as a result of this change of spending habits, end up with more money in their bank accounts and a healthier body. There is also no doubt that conversions to any religion will often lead to a subjective sense of peace and happiness in those involved. Furthermore, a religious conversion almost always leads to the individual subjecting themselves to external rules and ways of thinking, which allows a different perespective on their lives and the ability to make relatively objective choices that will lead to greater levels of prosperity. What all this indicates is that there is some truth in the claim that the Christian faith can lead to greater health, wealth and happiness - at least from a behavioural point of view.
The difference between Evangelicals and Charismatics on this issue is that Evangelicals, while agreeing that some level of worldly prosperity may result, will contend that God is not really interested in worldly possessions. For many evangelicals, the Christian faith is not about worldly prosperity at all, but about heavenly riches especially those given freely through the death and resurrection of Christ. For Evangelicals, it does not therefore follow that the Christian faith will automatically lead to health, wealth and prosperity, and nor should a Christian expect it or ask for it.
Evangelicals have, however, argued that such an emphasis in the Charismatic movement has led people away from the heavenly riches that are promised in Christ. Rather than focus upon Christ and the Cross, Evangelicals argue that, when Charismatics focus upon worldly prosperity, they are both teaching serious theological error and failing to teach the true Gospel. Additionally, many Evangelicals believe that Christians have every Spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1:3), a position that precludes any demand or promise for further blessings from God. For the Evangelical, Christ is all the blessing a Christian needs. Many Pentecostals and Neocharismatics are in agreement with this aspect of the Evangelical argument.
A problem therefore arises when Charismatics claim that God is offering Christians more blessings than the gift of Christ. Since they are not given automatically to Christians, Charismatics hold to the idea that these blessings can be appropriated by obedience in the Scriptures, specifically, faithfully tithing 10 percent of one's income to his or her local church. However, Charismatic Christians believe that the mere act of the giving of tithes and offerings does not automatically return blessings. Giving must be done in faith and out of a heart of worship. The beliver must have the motivation of advancing the Gospel, not the accumulation of wealth. Many Evangelicals believe that this idea seriously undermines the biblical teaching on God's grace. Evangelicals would pose such questions as Why would God give a Christian salvation and eternal life as a free gift, but offer worldly blessings only to those who perform better than others? For the Evangelical, if God specially rewards greater faith in Christians by giving them worldly prosperity, then it is one step away from saying that all of God's blessings, including salvation, are based upon works. The Charismatic response would be that faith is not a work; rather, it is a trust in and reliance upon that which God has revealed in His Word regarding these matters.
Teaching on prosperity, while common throughout some of the Charismatic movement, differs in emphasis from church to church. As in the Evangelical Christian world, Charismatics themselves can be wary of false teaching and will often self-regulate against any obvious excesses. Evangelicals would argue, however, that such self-regulation is not enough.
Several leading Pentecostal denominations, including the Church of God (Cleveland), openly renounce the hyper-prosperity message. To the credit of Pentecostals, many have been confronting this error for a number of years. Recent efforts of the Center for Pentecostal Leadership and Care, directed by Dr. James P. Bowers, have resulted in the publication of a document entitled, You Can Have What You Say: A Pastoral Response to the Prosperity Gospel. This volume evaluates the threat posed to the faith and practice of Pentecostal believers by the “prosperity gospel” and provides a practical analysis of its roots and appeal. The book (1) considers how prosperity theology is affecting local congregations, (2) examines the philosophical and theological roots of prosperity teaching against the backdrop of classical Pentecostal doctrine, (3) addresses how Pentecostal pastors can strategize a response within the context of the local church and (4) offers resources, exercises, and activities that will assist the pastor in implementing an effective and faithful approach to this concern.
Exegesis
Exegesis is the way in which Biblical passages are examined and interpreted. Although Charismatics and Evangelicals alike believe that the Bible can be understood and applied by all believers, Evangelicals are often critical of the way in which Charismatics (and Pentecostals) interpret and apply scripture.
This issue is a much larger one in modern society because it has to take into account modern ways and methods of interpreting written text. Evangelicals tend to take a Structuralist view of interpreting the Bible. This means that Biblical texts should be interpreted according to their literary type and takes into account the text's purpose, its audience and its historical and philosophical context. Moreover, an Evangelical will argue that a Biblical text can only be understood and applied in this manner, and that any departure from this will lead to a misinterpretation of Scripture. In this sense, Evangelicals believe that the Bible is like any other text in the manner in which you read it, but unlike any other text because its ultimate authorship is divine.
A Pentecostal preacher. The content of preaching is often determined by Biblical interpretation (exegesis)
Enlarge
A Pentecostal preacher. The content of preaching is often determined by Biblical interpretation (exegesis)
Charismatics, however, are less likely to follow a Structuralist approach to interpreting scripture. While they may not discard the Evangelical approach, many Charismatics believe that the Bible's divine authorship allows it to be interpreted in a more subjective and reader-centred manner. In many ways, it could be argued that Charismatics are more likely to take a Post-structuralist or even Post-modernist way of interpreting Scripture. Thus a Charismatic will be able to take a verse of Scripture out of its literary context and apply it in a subjective manner. Such an approach could be defended by arguing that God's power to guide cannot be limited by human conventions such as textual structure. Furthermore, since it is God who is guiding the individual through this interpretive process, it could be argued that it is a superior way of interpretation since it assumes that God is able to give the Christian immediate and clear guidance. The Evangelical approach to interpretation, however, could therefore be seen as a limiting of God and has an overly intellectual and transcendent view of God, rather than a personal and immanent view of God that typifies Charismatic interpretation.
Evangelicals argue, however, that many modern day Charismatic leaders have gone beyond this subjective interpretive model and are actually teaching things that are contrary to orthodox Christian belief. The fact that there is such a diverse range of beliefs within the Charismatic movement (beliefs which are often contrary) is proof, according to Evangelicals, that such an interpretive model is flawed. After all, the Evangelical would say, why is God not guiding his people in a consistent manner?
An example of the difference between a Charismatic and an Evangelical interpretation of Scripture can be seen in a quick examination of 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, which says My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power (NIV).
One way that this verse could be interpreted by Charismatics is that it backs up the belief that God is acting in our world to produce miracles. Therefore, it could be argued, church meetings should include times when God can work miracles. On the other hand, preaching conducted solely on the basis of the human understanding could be classed as the “wise and persuasive words” mentioned in this verse, and such preaching should not be the focus of the Christian meeting. This interpretation basically assumes that Paul's ministry in Corinth was both a preaching ministry and a ministry that involved supernatural manifestations. The implication for Charismatics is that since Paul did this, so should the modern-day church.
Another way this verse could be interpreted by Charismatics focuses on the phrase “so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power”. What this could prove is that the Christian should trust not in various arguments or in intellectual knowledge alone, but upon a more experiential knowledge of God. On the basis on this rationale, some Charismatics conclude that it should not matter, therefore, if someone disagrees with them or challenges them in their faith – they can trust in their personal experience. However, many Charismatics and Pentecostals alike hold that all subjective experience is subject to the authority of the objective Word of God.
The Evangelical interprets these verses in a very different way. The verse needs to be taken in context with the rest of what Paul says, especially chapter 1:22-23 which says Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. Critics of the Charismatic understanding of the supernatural would say that these verses contradict the idea that Paul's ministry was primarily one of performing miracles. 2:2 is also important to the Evangelical because it states that I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. Thus the demonstration of the Spirit's power found in 2:4 could in fact be the conversion experience of the Corinthian readers, and “God's power” in 2:5 is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals argue that this way of interpreting the text fits into a structuralist model because it takes the verses in its historical and grammatical context. Charismatics and even Pentecostals would counter-argue that such an interpretation reads more into the text than is clearly stated and ignores the historical context -- a context that was characterized by the dynamic of the Holy Spirit manifested through supernatural signs and wonders. Furthermore, if 1:22-23 is a condemnation of reliance upon signs and wonders, then it is equally a condemnation of an overly intellectualized approach to the Gospel.
It needs to be pointed out that claims of "faulty" exegesis are not a criticism that can be applied solely to Charismatics. It is entirely possible for Charismatic Christians and leaders to understand and apply a Biblical text in a manner which is acceptable to a Structuralist approach (and thus meet the interpretive framework that many Evangelicals hold to). It is also entirely possible (in fact, it is probably very common) that many Evangelicals themselves are guilty of "faulty" exegesis. Evangelicals will argue, however, that this phenomenon is far more likely to occur within a Charismatic church than in an Evangelical church. On the other hand, Charismatics and Pentecostals hold that Evangelicals do injustice to the Scriptures by forcing interpretations that reinforce what might be called preconceived cessationist conclusions -- ideas based more on experience than on the message of the text.
Influences of the Latter Rain Movement
Main article: Latter Rain Movement
The Latter Rain Movement was a religious movement that was prevalent in American Pentecostal churches in the 1940s and 1950s. Led by William M. Branham and others, it taught that the Five-fold ministry would be returned (including prophets and apostles), that special Christians would arise who would have supernatural powers (the Manifest Sons of God), and that specially ordained "overcomers" would rise to political power and take over secular institutions in the name of God (Kingdom Now theology). This movement denied some of the more Fundamentalist teachings such as the Rapture, and also held to Jesus-only doctrines popularized by Oneness Pentecostalism.
The US Assemblies of God declared the movement heretical but its teachings remained influential for some years. [2]
There appears to be evidence that suggests that, since 1975, Charismatics have engaged in fellowship with all Christians who have had the same religious experiences as they had - which included both the traditional Pentecostals and the Latter Rain movement. As a result, both the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement presently share a great deal in common theologically, and this has come from a resurgence in Latter-rain teaching in both movements.
Evangelicals and traditional Pentecostals would still argue that the teachings of the Latter Rain movement were heretical. There is evidence to suggest that, while the term "Latter Rain" is not associated with modern Charismatic and Pentecostal theology, the teaching certainly is.
Oneness Pentecostals
Main article Oneness Pentecostal
An offshoot of the Pentecostal movement, Oneness Pentecostals believe that there is one God with no essential divisions in His nature (such as a trinity) . He is not a plurality of persons, but He does have a plurality of manifestations, roles, titles, attributes, or relationships to man. Furthermore, these are not limited to three. Whereas Trinitarian Christianity teaches that God is existent in three Persons, Oneness doctrine states that there is only one member of the Godhead, namely Jesus. He is the incarnation of the fullness of God. In His deity, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The rejection of the trinity has also been called Sabellianism, or modalism, and is considered heresy by most evangelicals and those within the Charismatic and Pentecostal Movement.
These churches are sometimes known as Pentacostal churches - the difference in spelling being an indicator.
Scripture, authority and guidance
See also: Sola scriptura
One of the issues that Evangelical Christians have with Charismatics and Pentecostals is the place of the Bible in terms of authority. Most Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians will agree that the Bible is divinely inspired and was written by men under the supervision of the Holy Spirit. This belief is also held by evangelicals and serves as one of the many points of agreement. However, many evangelicals see the Bible as not only divinely inspired, but also divinely sufficient - that the Bible is all the Christian needs to be guided by God and to live the Christian faith. The protestant reformers called this Sola scriptura. This point of view appears to be backed up by 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states that the scriptures are not only "God breathed" but "thoroughly equip" the believer for every good work - the idea here being that "thoroughly equip" is synonymous with sufficiency. Pentecostals and Charismatics, on the other hand, expect direct guidance from the Holy Spirit in the form of dreams, visions and various other subjective experiences. The fact that many biblical figures (such as Noah, Moses, King David, Jesus, Peter, Paul and so on) have been guided directly by God appears to back up their belief that God can and will use subjective experiences to guide his people.
Image:Bible old.jpg
Many Christians believe that the ultimate author of the Bible is God himself.
Evangelicals have criticised this approach to guidance because, firstly, just because direct guidance is described in the Bible does not mean it is prescribed for the Christian life and, secondly, because the individual relies upon subjective experiences for God to guide then there is a temptation to rely solely upon these for living the Christian life - a process which takes the believer away from the Bible as the means by which God speaks. Many evangelicals have been concerned with what they perceive as "misleading" or "false" teaching arising from the movement - with teachings such as Word of faith (prosperity), the Toronto blessing and Signs and Wonders as examples of this. Many evangelicals have labelled popular televangelists (such as Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey and Kenneth Copeland to name just three) as being, at best, seriously misguided and, at worst, satanically inspired. To be fair, many Pentecostals and Charismatics do not adhere to these teachings, which indicates the complexity of criticism in this area. For evangelicals, however, an over-reliance upon subjective experience as the means by which God guides will lead to lower levels of Biblical knowledge. This, they argue, will inevitably lead to the Christian being influenced by people and movements that teach and preach strange and misleading doctrines.
Although it may appear that there is a clear polarization between guidance by the Bible and guidance by experience, most evangelicals and pentecostals accept a combination of the two - with Evangelicals accepting some form of direct experience (so long as it does not contradict the Bible), and with Pentecostals accepting some level of Biblical authority (so long as it does not prevent God from guiding directly).
External links
* List of articles that defend Sola Scriptura
* Continuing Revelation: What's the big deal?
Speaking in Tongues
Some Pentecostals believe that Speaking in Tongues is a direct result of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and that believers who do not undergo this work of God are unable to experience the fullness of being Christian. By contrast, Charismatics accept that Tongue Speaking is a valid Christian experience, but, like other Pentecostals, do not always accept that the Baptism in the Spirit automatically leads to Tongue Speaking.
Evangelicals generally believe that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the point of conversion - in this sense all Christians have been baptised by the Holy Spirit, and there is no "dual-stage" in the Christian faith. They also question the validity of Tongue Speaking in two ways. The first is to argue that Tongues were for the first-century church only and that it, along with Prophecy, have "passed away" (1 Cor 13:8-10). The second is to identify Tongues as Xenoglossia (the supernatural speaking of another human language that is recorded in Acts 2:1-13) which is purportedly not what is manifested in Pentecostal or Charismatic Christians today.
However, the belief that prophecy and Tongues have "passed away" as some non-Charismatic Evangelicals state 1 Cor 13:8-10 says, is challenged by Charismatic Christians. They say that while Scripture is the infallible authority in our lives, man is not perfect, and therefore, man cannot know everything about God in his sinful state (I Cor. 13:8-10). This argument does not mean Charismatics believe the Holy Bible is not the sufficient, infallible Authority in the life of a Christian. They defend the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture fervantly. However, what is meant by this is that while on earth, man cannot know God in His Entirety. As a result of the infiniteness of God and the finiteness of mankind, this is not possible. The Charismatic Christian believes that when they are with God after sin is destroyed and all believers are raised up and their physical bodies are freed from the grip of sin and death, then "the perfect" will come and gifts of the Spirit will no longer be necessary. In short, Charismatics believe this passage is referring to the Christian, not Scripture. "The perfect" is interpreted as referring to the Christian's regenerated state in Heaven.
Theology of worship
Public expressions of Worship in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches can generally be described as energetic and intensely personal, often accompanied by a specific style of music that can include Gospel music in Black Pentecostal churches and the contemporary worship music of Hillsong Church.
Many Charismatic churches in the early 21st century have adopted a contemporary worship style that focuses heavily upon "uplifting" music and repetitive and simple lyrics. Charismatic churches that have embraced Transformationalism are likely to have a worship style that reflects this theological stance.
Pentecostal Worship is often spontaneous, emotional, uninhibited and honest.
Enlarge
Pentecostal Worship is often spontaneous, emotional, uninhibited and honest.
Evangelicals have levelled a number of criticisms of Charismatic worship.
One major criticism is that there is an over-emphasis upon the subjective experience of worship rather than upon any objective experience that finds its basis in the Bible. Evangelicals, particularly those from a Reformed background, argue that Worship should be regulated by what God has revealed in Scripture. Meanwhile, the Pentecostal or Charismatic believer would most likely point out that focussing on one's subjective experience of God's biblical nature is quite valid.
Additionally, many Reformed Evangelicals place a great emphasis upon the centrality of the Gospel and the Word of God throughout public worship. This means that the Bible is publicly read during worship, that the congregation is exposed to carefully researched Expository preaching on a regular basis, and that all songs and hymns are clearly biblical and Christ-focused. By doing this, Reformed Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit will be working in the lives of all people present - and that such a work of the Spirit cannot necessarily be recognised by a subjective feeling or any visible, measurable occurrence.
By contrast, Charismatic worship does not necessarily involve a public reading of scripture, nor would the preaching be based upon a systematic explanation of a Biblical text. Evangelicals have often criticised Charismatic preaching for misunderstanding the Bible, with many preachers allegedly guilty of inaccurate exegesis. Since Charismatics have a higher regard for personal experience, preachers can often use their own subjective experiences, or even what they consider to be direct guidance from God, as the basis of their teaching. Since many Evangelicals see Scripture as divinely sufficient, they find such Charismatic teaching problematic.
Charismatic song lyrics, although simple and honest, may not necessarily be Biblical in their content. Some evangelicals have even (either fairly or unfairly) labelled such songs as having "Jesus is my boyfriend" lyrics. Evangelicals argue that any Christian hymn or song should be explicitly Biblical in nature, and focus upon what God has done rather than on what we feel about God. For the Evangelical, "Declaring God's praise" involves singing and preaching about God's divine characteristics, such as his omnipotence, omnipresence, providence as well as his love for his people in sending Jesus Christ to die on the Cross as a sin substitute. Hymns and Songs that explain the person and work of Jesus Christ are also important to Evangelicals.
A simple (but not always accurate) assertion that Charismatics make about differences between themselves and Evangelicals is that they focus on worship while Evangelicals focus on teaching. While this assertion has some truth in it, it fails to recognise that, for the Evangelical, bible teaching forms an integral part of true worship. In his book Engaging with God,[3] Evangelical author David Peterson[4] asserts that true worship involves the church approaching God in worship on God's terms, and that God himself is engaging with his people during the ekklesia (gathering) as his Word is read and explained, and as the Gospel is proclaimed.
But while Evangelicals will criticise Charismatic worship as being too subjective and shallow, Charismatics will criticise evangelical worship as being too impersonal, unemotional and intellectual.
Criticisms from Catholic and/or Orthodox Christians
The Catholic and Orthodox churches would agree with the basic belief that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian Church, such as glossalalia, healing and miracles, are available to contemporary Christians and ought to be experienced and practiced today. Many stories of the saints include examples of these things occurring throughout the history of Christianity. It is often believed that God can and does work such miracles both through the normal exercise of the sacraments of the Church, and at times in unexpected ways. However, they also believe that such miracles would not and should not generally be disruptive to the prayers of the assembled church, believing instead that all things should be done "decently and in order."
Criticisms from other religions
Criticisms from society generally
Faith Healing
The following articles are useful in examining the possible reasons why Faith Healing in Charismatic churches continues to be popular.
* Faith Healing
* Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy)
* Post hoc ergo propter hoc
* Regressive fallacy
Prosperity and Faith
Many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches champion the idea that God will materially bless those who love and serve him. In order to prove this assertion, many examples and testimonies exist within these churches that appear to validate this belief.
Since Charismatic and Pentecostal churches exist within growing market economies, the belief that God will bless you if you "go out" in faith simply produces an environment of entreprenurial risk-taking. If this environment develops enough, the church community will eventually produce successful businessmen and -women (not to mention a number of business failures). The presence of these people within the church therefore only validates the assumption. Thus the belief that God blesses certain people materially could actually be a logical fallacy.
Religious ecstasy as a psychological phenomenon
See also: Ecstasy (state)
The stereotypical worship service that is prevalent amongst many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches involves repetitious phrases uttered during emotionally uplifting music, the raising of hands and the closing of eyes, an open and willing attitude to the "presence of God", a dependence and focus upon the preacher or worship leader who himself/herself is acting and speaking in an emotionally charged way. This sort of experience is common amongst many non-Christian religious adherents and has been described as Religious ecstasy.
Therefore, it could be argumed that Charismatic and Pentecostal churches that exhibit these features are only reproducing a psychological phenomena that is common to humanity regardless of their religion, rather than engaging in an entirely unique Christian activity where a supernatural force is present in the gathering. That this phenomena can be exhibited in a group of people engaging in a common religious activity actually makes this explanation more likely.
Charismatic and Pentecostal manifestations such as Speaking in Tongues, being Slain in the Spirit, the laughing and crying caused by the Toronto blessing and the placebo effect of Faith healing can all be explained by the prevalence of Religious ecstasy in these gatherings.
Word of Faith theology
An examination of Word-Faith theology seems to match the experience of those who advocate Neuro-linguistic programming as a form of behaviour modification. Thus Charismatics and Pentecostals who "succeed in life" due to this brand of theology may only be replicating the efforts of secular proponents like Anthony Robbins.
See also
* Autosuggestion
* Suggestibility
* Visualization
Criticisms from within the Pentecostal / Charismatic movement
Authoritative leadership
Some people tend to follow the leaders within these movements from a motivation of either loyalty or a belief the leaders are anointed (chosen by God to be a spiritual leader). This could create problems as many will often believe what the leaders say and tend not think critically through these issues. Objective biblical and theological research may quite often be discouraged. The leaders may often wield enormous power within their churches and often try to harness this power for good; Many former Charismatics would argue, however, that this power has no Biblical basis.
At an even deeper level, the issue becomes goes back to authority and guidance. Charismatic and Pentecostal leaders will often claim the bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and life. Many former Charismatics would argue, however, that when these leaders believe the Holy Spirit is speaking directly to them, this often becomes the final authority. It really comes down to which view of God's guidance has greater emphasis - personal experience or the Bible.
Psychological Abuse
See also: Psychological abuse
Many former Charismatics and Pentecostals have complained that they have experienced undue psyschological pressure and abuse from their former churches. Church members who openly complain about the church or the leadership, or dispute decisions, have been subjected to this abuse because they pose a threat to the church's leadership and stability.
Some organizations argue that this abuse is endemic to the movement, and is a result of a combined number of issues. These include rapid numerical growth; uneducated pastors; an anti-intellectual attitude; the need for order and strong leadership; the belief that God is dealing with the church in a special way; a lack of accountability; and the need to suppress dissention.
It needs to be pointed out, however, that many people are attracted to the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement by the genuine love and care exhibited by individuals in these churches. It is erroneous to assume, therefore, that all churches in the movement are naturally abusive. It is also erroneous to assume that psychlogical abuse is unique to these churches, and that other churches, including evangelical ones, are immune from it.
While this love and care may be genuine, it does not necessarily mean that the church is not abusive in some way. Many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches exhibit the phenomenon of Communal reinforcement whereby community belief in someone or something is so strong that even empirical evidence to the contrary is discounted. A dissenter may therefore be ostracized by the church community despite having a reasonable and objective point of view. Alternatively, the dissenter may choose to keep their reservations to themselves, thus creating a spiral of silence.
While there have been cases akin to Brainwashing within these churches, such extreme activity is actually quite rare. Nevertheless, The Children of God developed out of the Jesus Movement in the 1960s, which was closely linked to the Charismatic movement, and The People's Temple was heavily influenced by the Pentecostal Movement in the 1950s. [5]
Theological scholarship
Some former Charismatics are of the opinion that recognised Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians are very difficult to find and that the movement is highly dependent upon scholars from Evangelical or Reformed backgrounds to formulate any rudimentary beliefs. In the early years of the Pentecostal movement, this assessment may have been true, for in the formative years of the movement Pentecostals were given more to the practice of their faith and engagement in their mission than to theological reflection. However, in recent years Pentecostals have become much more adept in reflecting upon and articulating their theology. More information related to Pentecostal, Charismatic and Neocharismatic theologians is covered under Renewal Theologians.
See also
* Consensus reality
* Group-serving bias
* Groupthink
* Herd behavior
* Informational cascade
* Love bombing
* Mind control
External links
* An Evangelical laments over how he feels Pentecostal and Charismatic beliefs are now dividing the body of Christ
* Ex Pentecostal forums - a forum for those leaving Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations (formerly ex-pentecostals.org)
* "I was a Flaky Preacher" - how a pastor gave up on the Charismatic movement but retained his faith and ministry.
* A Charismatic Apologetics Directory - scholarly articles defending Charismatic doctrine
This text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
2005-12-02
Wikipedia to take over the world?
In February 2004 I discovered Wikipedia. Within a few months I realised that Wikipedia was going to be "the next big thing".
About a year ago I tried to convince a number of Christian leaders in Sydney - including those involved in the media - that funding needed to be set aside for a full-time writer to write Christian articles on Wikipedia. I had already contributed a lot already, and had begun some very important articles, especially on the Charismatic movement. Of course, I was also arguing that I would be that particular writer.
It was my assertion 12 months ago that, within 5 years, Wikipedia would be the "centre" of the internet. I plucked facts and figures from Alexa.com to show the exponential growth that Wikipedia was experiencing as evidence.
It was hard to convince people. No one saw the real potential there. Despite the fact that between 10-20 of my articles were finding themselves on the first page of Google searches even back then did not convince people. One person even chided me for spending too much time on the computer and that money spent on such a project would not be "good stewardship".
The Gospel can be found in Wikipedia, as can very complex explanations of biblical theology. It is the starting point for many people in their research into different topics. Christian articles were, and still are, quite undeveloped compared to the scientific/technology based articles that can be found there.
Now it appears as though many people now see Wikipedia as being "The next Google". The argument goes that the 'net was initially controlled by Microsoft, but has lost to Google's increasing influence. Now it appears as though even Google is threatened, with people now turning to Wikipedia to find information rather than typing it into a Google search.
Moreover, since the time I spent 12 months ago trying to convince people, Wikipedia has probably grown 3-4 times its original size. It is now one the top 40 websites, and is increasingly used by journalists and other parts of the media to check facts.
And yet the Christian articles are still relatively undeveloped. This is one of the reasons why I see myself as a "Cassandra" - I can "see" the future but can't convince anyone in the present time.
If you want to look at my Wikipedia contributions, click on my user page.
From the Department of Frustration
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
About a year ago I tried to convince a number of Christian leaders in Sydney - including those involved in the media - that funding needed to be set aside for a full-time writer to write Christian articles on Wikipedia. I had already contributed a lot already, and had begun some very important articles, especially on the Charismatic movement. Of course, I was also arguing that I would be that particular writer.
It was my assertion 12 months ago that, within 5 years, Wikipedia would be the "centre" of the internet. I plucked facts and figures from Alexa.com to show the exponential growth that Wikipedia was experiencing as evidence.
It was hard to convince people. No one saw the real potential there. Despite the fact that between 10-20 of my articles were finding themselves on the first page of Google searches even back then did not convince people. One person even chided me for spending too much time on the computer and that money spent on such a project would not be "good stewardship".
The Gospel can be found in Wikipedia, as can very complex explanations of biblical theology. It is the starting point for many people in their research into different topics. Christian articles were, and still are, quite undeveloped compared to the scientific/technology based articles that can be found there.
Now it appears as though many people now see Wikipedia as being "The next Google". The argument goes that the 'net was initially controlled by Microsoft, but has lost to Google's increasing influence. Now it appears as though even Google is threatened, with people now turning to Wikipedia to find information rather than typing it into a Google search.
Moreover, since the time I spent 12 months ago trying to convince people, Wikipedia has probably grown 3-4 times its original size. It is now one the top 40 websites, and is increasingly used by journalists and other parts of the media to check facts.
And yet the Christian articles are still relatively undeveloped. This is one of the reasons why I see myself as a "Cassandra" - I can "see" the future but can't convince anyone in the present time.
If you want to look at my Wikipedia contributions, click on my user page.
From the Department of Frustration
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2005-08-22
A list of interesting Wikipedia articles
- Wikipedia:Unusual articles - One of Wikipedia's best pages.
- Synaesthesia - Pick which shape is named Booba, and which shape is named Kiki.
- Snowball Earth - It was very cold once.
- Noctilucent cloud - Clouds that inhabit the mesosphere at an altitude of around 85km.
- Yellowstone Caldera - Kaboom! One way of getting rid of America.
- Cumbre Vieja - A Volcano in the Canary Islands. Another way of getting rid of America.
- Storegga Slide - Caused a megatsunami that occurred in 6100 BC off Norway.
- Siberian Traps - Siberia created by lava flows.
- Tunguska event - A comet hits Siberia in 1908. 10 - 15 megatons!
- Vitim event - A meteorite hits Siberia in 2002. Only 4-5 kilotons.
- Avro Arrow - A Canadian Jet Fighter that was scrapped despite being one of the best designed planes in the world at the time.
- New Coke - Never made it to Australia. I would've liked to have tasted it.
- Adventure (Atari 2600) - Created by Warren Robinett
- Silverpit crater, Shiva crater, Boltysh crater and Chicxulub crater all formed about 65 million years ago.
- The Star Wars Holiday Special - I saw this as a kid and it has been burned into my memory like overcooked marshmallows.
- Intercontinental Peace Bridge - A proposed bridge between Siberia and Alaska across the Bering Strait.
- Amartya Sen - My type of Economist.
- Strange matter - "The ruptures ripped through the planet at hundreds of kilometres per second rather than fracturing only near the surface, as typical earthquakes do. One event occurred on 22 October 1993, when, according to the researchers, something entered the Earth off Antarctica and left it south of India 0.73 of a second later."[5]
- Hans Guido Mutke - German fighter pilot who claimed to have gone through the sound barrier during the Second World War.
- Polymath - I see myself as one.
- Black Sea deluge theory - A theory that proposes that the Mediterranean Sea spilled over the Bosporus around 5600 BC, and connected the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.
- Tollmann's hypothetical bolide - Earth hit by meterorites about 10000 years ago that killed off lots of plants and animals.
- Passenger Pigeon - An extinct bird that went from 2 Billion to zero in just over 100 years.
- Alan Bean - The fourth man on the moon. No one remembers him.
2005-07-21
Remember 1986-87
Australia has been whipping England for 16 years. I remember when it was the other way around. I've written the Wikipedia article about the 1986-87 tour - it's not finished but check it out anyway.
From the This Salient Sporting Life Department
From the This Salient Sporting Life Department
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)