Frank's new kingdom book is out!
Join the Insurgence
The Insurgency Began and You Missed It
Frank Viola
Portal Site to Other Pages
Monday, June 4, 2018
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Friday, July 3, 2015
Don't Believe All That You Read or Hear
Several years ago, Michael Hyatt (former CEO of Thomas Nelson) responded to a rumor on his blog. In the post, Michael wrote,
“According to the most recent rumor—which I’ve now heard twice—we [Thomas Nelson] are planning a layoff for June 19th … We are scheduled to close the transaction on June 12th, so, supposedly, this will happen the week following. I want to assure you that this is indeed a baseless rumor. There is absolutely no truth to it … If you hear this rumor, I would be grateful if you would help me short-circuit it. You can tell ’em it’s not true, and you heard it directly from me.”
I recall when this rumor was circulating and was saddened (and surprised) at how many Christians believed it without going straight to Michael to see if it was true or false.
Another example that’s much more national.
Late last year, I came across a website alleging a sex scandal involving President Obama. The “story” first came out in 2008 just before the primary. It was shown to be baseless and quickly faded away. Then it resurfaced again in 2010. (The original story was removed by the source after staying online for 4 years.)
Another site purports alleged “proof” that Obama is a Muslim terrorist in disguise. Again, a baseless rumor.
And another alleges that Obama is gay, has sexually harassed males, and abuses drugs. Again, baseless.
Note: I don’t agree with many of Obama’s policies. But these accusations are scurrilous, vicious, outrageous, and just plain slimy. There’s no good evidence to support any of them. That’s why they’ve never gained traction.
Friday, March 13, 2015
The Day I Met Jesus
Frank Viola, author, releases "The Day I Met Jesus."
Visit the official book site at TheDayIMetJesus.com.
Visit the official book site at TheDayIMetJesus.com.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Sunday, June 8, 2014
The Charismatic Conversational Style
Those who use the Charismatic SCS tend to be associated
with the Charismatic/Pentecostal subculture of the Christian world. In
conversation, the Charismatic SCS appeals to personal revelation of the Bible
as the authority for interpretation and application. They often despise biblical
scholarship, paying little attention to the principles of hermeneutics and
sound exegesis, deeming them “human” and “man-made.” Statements like “the Lord
showed me” or “God revealed this to me” or “the Spirit told me” are peppered
throughout their conversations.
Those who do not use this particular SCS usually feel quite
uncomfortable with such phrases. While they may experience spiritual
illumination from the Holy Spirit, they believe it’s unbefitting to wield it as
a basis of authority.
They also find such claims to divine authority difficult to
analyze and inadequate to settle disputes. Not to mention that they believe
these declarations often convey the clear impression of “boasting in the flesh.”
In short, those who do not employ the Charismatic SCS feel that the mere appeal
to personal revelation makes the playing field unlevel in the arena of
theological discussion.
Here’s an example. Suppose that Bill and Chris are discussing a
theological issue. Chris uses the Charismatic SCS, while Bill doesn’t. After
Bill shares an interpretation of a biblical passage with Chris, Chris responds,
“The passage does not mean what you say. God showed me that it means thus and
so.”
In Bill’s mind, any attempt at biblical discourse now becomes inadequate, for “God has shown” Chris otherwise. When Bill challenges Chris’s position using the principles of exegesis (appealing to historical context, the original meaning of Greek words, etc.), Chris accuses Bill of being “unspiritual,” unable to comprehend the language of the Holy Spirit.
In Bill’s mind, any attempt at biblical discourse now becomes inadequate, for “God has shown” Chris otherwise. When Bill challenges Chris’s position using the principles of exegesis (appealing to historical context, the original meaning of Greek words, etc.), Chris accuses Bill of being “unspiritual,” unable to comprehend the language of the Holy Spirit.
In Bill’s mind, Chris cannot explain or defend his position
academically. He can only appeal to personal revelation. Therefore, Bill feels
that Chris has fallen into the subjective soup of mysticism and is lost in the
sauce.
From Bill’s vantage point, there’s no common ground for
communication. The source of authority is neither equal nor mutual. While Chris
verbally affirms that Scripture is the measure of all truth and may even push
the envelope of biblical authority, in Bill’s mind, Chris’s appeal to personal
revelation demonstrates otherwise.
To Chris, Bill is not a spiritual person because he cannot understand or accept the divine inspiration that he (Chris) has received.
To Chris, Bill is not a spiritual person because he cannot understand or accept the divine inspiration that he (Chris) has received.
In addition, because Bill does not use the mystical jargon that
fills Chris’s vocabulary, Chris concludes that Bill’s relationship with the
Holy Spirit is subnormal. Worse still, Chris may judge Bill to not have the
Holy Spirit at all, for if he did (he muses to himself), Bill would agree with
him.
In effect, Chris is frustrated because he fails to convince Bill
of his revelatory encounters (and he may even go so far as to accuse Bill of
having a “religious spirit”). Chris does not understand why Bill would question
his experience, because he is convinced that God speaks to him.
Bill is equally frustrated. He feels that he can’t communicate on
the same level as Chris. To Bill, Chris’s subjective appeals cloud the issue
and make the source of authority ambiguous. For Bill, Chris’s revelations by no
means secure the theological terrain. Chris’s discourse, which is cluttered
with verbal cues of mystical experiences (“God showed me”), is both
unimpressive and unconvincing to Bill.
Chris, on the other hand, is troubled with Bill’s “un-spirituality” simply because he doesn’t share these explicit verbal signals.
In the end, the person using the Charismatic SCS ends up feeling
frustrated and hurt because of his failure to convince those who embrace a
different SCS. Likewise, those who disagree with the Charismatic SCS find
themselves up against similar frustrations.
There’s also a subset of the Charismatic SCS, employed by those
who are more familiar with the Bible and the rules of logic. It’s marked by the
use of a double standard. Such ones invoke both logic and mysticism in their
theological communications.
When they attack someone else’s interpretation of Scripture, they
appeal to the rules of Aristotelian logic. When on the offensive, they say
things like, “This interpretation is inconsistent and does not follow. It doesn’t
mesh well with other scriptural passages.” Yet, when they are on the defensive
and their conversation partner uses logic to refute their claims, they shift
the argument, saying, “I cannot explain this to you … it transcends logic … you
must have a revelation … I cannot put the truth into words … only the Holy
Spirit can show this to you,” etc.
And the stalemate persists.
From Revise Us Again by Frank Viola, author
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)