Quote:
Originally Posted by bearbear
Like many other conservative evangelical groups of today, the LCs adopts a cessationist view concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit...I've attended a Charismatic church for a number of years now, and from direct experiences have come to accept a supernatural worldview as well as well as solid belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today...I just wanted to open up this thread to anyone who had other direct experiences with the Holy Spirit and has adopted a supernatural worldview after leaving the LCs.
Acts 4:29-30
And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.
|
Perhaps the reason that "signs and wonders" got set aside in mainstream, post-Reformation Christianity (tho revived in charismatic wings of RCC & Protestantism) can be found in the emergence of church history itself. We tell truncated tales of what happened (i.e. history) and perhaps miss important events along the way -- our view becomes, in a word, oversimplified. To make things simple, and easily grasped, we simplify the story; didn't Lee give us a simplified history? Lee's version: Jesus, then Paul, then a dark "interregnum" with a few mystics sprinkled here and there, then suddenly a "recovery" with Luther, Darby, Nee and Lee. Hallelujah for the Lord's recovery! Right!?! And this recovery story allowed the early 19th century European (Wales, Scotland) revivals, pre-Nee, with their "works of power" accompanying them, as part of it. But they ceased. Why? Because it was convenient to Lee's oversimplified history.
So let me give my own, admittedly brief history. The NT is full of works of power. Chock-a-block full. Angels ascending and descending, heavens opened, demons leaving people with foaming mouths and loud shrieks, miraculous healings, mysterious portents ("Go into Jerusalem, there you will see a man walking with a water jar. Follow him..."). This continued post-resurrection: Peter and Paul both evidenced "gifts of the Holy Spirit" and miraculous "works of power". The tales, post canonized scripture, in church history, continue, albeit sporadically, of the
"signs and wonders performed in the name of your holy servant Jesus" (Acts 4:30). But something happened, I believe, in the 4th through 10th centuries, a turn the narrative focus to "truth" instead of "power". (Like Lee switching his gears in the 1970s from "life" to "truth".) Somehow the idea of concretizing orthodoxy became paramount. That is what I see in the literature.
Thus set the stage for the Great Schism. The church fellowship was eventually broken asunder over issues of "truth", and proper organizational schemes, among other issues. The focus had gone from signs and wonders to the proper arrangement of words, and the proper arrangement of ecclesiastical structure. So when Luther "rebelled" against the RCC 500 years later, many of the Pre-Schism experiences, indeed the entire Orthodox testimonies (Greek, Syrian, Slavic, Ethiopian etc) were long forgotten, and the RCC was conceptually dominant as the "Great Harlot" astride the entire earth. Luther had a truncated view, and a truncated story of history and his place in it. (Unless someone can point out Luther recognizing the Orthodox churches, which I would like to see. Probably not, tho; they had just left the Middle Ages and the conceptual worldview was greatly reduced. To turn to the physical for analogy, the late Middle-Age focus, and argument, was over whether the sun revolved around the earth, or vice versa, and whether Asia lay to the east or west of Europe, and what if anything was between them.)
So the story of what lay in the past, to Luther and Calvin et al, was simplified, merely to recover salvation of grace, and by faith. Works, and angels ascending and descending, and "You simply speak the word and my servant will be healed" were bit players on the scene, showing that the pre-resurrection Jesus was clearly the Savior. But the rest of the textual record, and the reading of history, was minimized, even to non-existence.
Now to my point: I believe that just like Luther and Calvin, we all look at the text and tell ourselves simplified stories. And what stories we tell ourselves control what we see in the text. This is my point about orthodoxy: I understand its place and recognize its purpose, and I accept it, but pre-Nicene they were free to find meaning, and reality, where the text led them. Post Nicene they had to agree whether the Spirit came from the Son or from the Father. And they were willing to fight, and to separate, over their stories, their truths... never mind if nobody saw any works of power of the Holy Spirit again, beyond perhaps the miracle of faith and regeneration, and some amount of transformation.
So I think that Lee telling us that Nee read all the books worth reading, and sorted the conceptual wheat from the chaff, was really aggrandizing, self-serving nonsense. (like a 3rd grader telling the 1st graders that he is teaching post-graduate level studies: "There is simply nothing beyond my view, and my story of reality").That led to the idea of Nee, then Lee, being the "seer of the age", with his extremely simplified understanding of the text completely dominating the ecclesia. So instead of each one of us coming to the ecclesia and "each one has" a song, a story, a teaching, an interpretation, a testimony, we instead gathered and all talked about Lee's songs, stories, teachings, interpretations, and testimonies. So if Lee wasn't interested in works of power, which he wasn't, neither were we. If Lee couldn't see heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, then neither could we.
Today the door is open. Each one of us has a vision, an experience, a tongue, a gift, a healing. Each one has something to bring. So if
bearbear talks about miraculous healings and I follow and talk about John 1:51, how do you know if we are not talking about the same thing? Neither
bearbear or I is the sole "seer of the age" to dominate the conversation, but each of us has a part to play in the great unfolding. His experience hopefully illuminates mine, when we gather in Jesus' ecclesia, and vice versa.
Whenever you come together in His name, and are in agreement, the gates of Hades themselves cannot withstand your collective power. The dead will be raised, the prisoners freed, the eyes of the blind will be opened, the lame will walk, the mute will suddenly praise God for His mighty works among you. The name of Jesus has come, and we're gathered in this name, and in this name each receive his or her neighbor. By faith in this name we can respect the portion of each one who has. Even the agnostics and atheists are welcome; they can chatter on the fringes of the gathering. I was there once -- why should I refuse others? Let them continue their journey. If we are truly one and our voices are in harmony (even allowing multifarious voices, visions, experiences, understandings) in the Jesus meeting, then the unbeliever will perhaps be impressed and will fall down, exclaiming that God is working among us. If we simply gather to argue about the "truth", then the unbeliever will rightly go on, still looking for reality.