|
|
|||||
|
Saturday, May 19
by
Mike McLoughlin
on Sat 19 May 2007 10:21 PM PDT
I have life matters that occupy my time right now. Please stay tuned. I will be back at writing this blog soon. more »
Tuesday, March 13
by
Mike McLoughlin
on Tue 13 Mar 2007 12:01 PM PDT
Watch for the book mentioned in this article. There is such a thing as a text for Pentecostal Theology after all!
The StarPhoenix 10 Mar 2007 Ecstatic spirit of Pentecostalism gaining strength in Canada CanWest News Service OTTAWA — The first time Michael Wilkinson saw Pentecostals at worship, he was a teenager, dragged along by his parents. “These people are all crazy,” he came away thinking. “I’m not ever going back.” But then the kids in the youth group asked him to some concerts. The music was terrific and the teens were fun, not losers or hopeless squares. “You can be cool and go to church,” he thought. Now 41, he is both Pentecostal and associate professor of sociology specializing in Pentecostalism at Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C. He maintains the Canadian Pentecostal Research Network and is compiling a study of Canadian Pentecostals, one of the first books of its kind. His colleagues are pressing him to finish so their graduate students can use it to undertake studies of their own. Canada has about 4.4 million renewalists — some 500,000 classical Pentecostals, members of churches developed in the early 1900s; 2.5 million charismatics, people who are “spirit filled” but stay within their denomination; and about 1.3 million neocharismatics, or neo-Pentecostals, a movement that began 10 to 20 years ago among people who want to steer clear of some of the strictures of traditional churches. Renewalists don’t all share the same beliefs or worship practices, but they are united by their experience of God — “an intense, direct and overwhelming spiritual experience centred in the Holy Spirit,” says Wilkinson, quoting from Frank Macchia’s Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology, one of several new books coming out on the subject. The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements says Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity is characterized by “exuberant worship; an emphasis on subjective religious experience and spiritual gifts; claims of supernatural miracles, signs and wonders — including a language of spirituality (as it is experienced), rather than a theology; and a mystical ‘life in the Spirit’ by which they daily live out the will of God.” Psychology might describe it as magical thinking. Political science or sociology might see it as “enchantment,” a worldview that embraces wonder, belittled in western civilization but very much alive in other countries. Renewal resides at the mystical end of the religious spectrum and much of it is an outright mystery, which is just fine with its adherents. For them, reason has its limits. As one renewalist minister describes it, “When philosophers and theologians get to do enough thinking or talking, they eventually run themselves in a circle. . . . They’ve bumped their brains on the ceiling of a mystery, but don’t want to admit it, so they keep talking.” Probably the most mysterious are the “gifts” of speaking in tongues, prophecy, deliverance and healing, and the signs and wonders, or modern-day miracles, “a foretaste of the coming kingdom of God,” according to Wilkinson. Evangelicals are also turbo-charged in their worship but they believe the miracles in the Bible were intended simply to help the Apostles get the church started. Most don’t believe they are available to believers today. Pentecostals do. Since Pentecostals take their name from a passage in the Bible in which the Holy Spirit imbues the apostles with special gifts and powers, their outlook is hardly surprising. Tags: Pentecostalism, worship, Pentecostal, sociology, Canadian, renewal, charismatic, spirit+filled, Holy+Spirit, Christianity, supernatural, miracles, signs, wonders, tongues, healing, kingdom, God, Evangelicals more »Tuesday, February 20
by
Mike McLoughlin
on Tue 20 Feb 2007 12:29 PM PST
Is it the Truth?That is the question my pastor would always ask me whenever I spoke publicly to our congregation. It was his concern that those who would presume to be teachers of God's people, be so acquainted with God's word that what they said was the truth, and nothing but the truth! This concern for truth was engrained into me when I enrolled along with some other young men for a preaching course taught by our pastor at our church in 1992. We were to craft a sermon and deliver it to the rest of the group. My message was entitled, "How Then Should We Give?" My main point was that giving was a sacred duty for Christians and a measure of their spiritual maturity, so we had a spiritual obligation to give. In my application, I concluded that since God's gift of salvation is offered us without the condition of our doing anything to deserve it, we should offer salvation likewise, we should give to the undeserving. I found support in a proof text from Matthew 5.42: "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." A prooftext is a verse taken out of its context to support an assertion. In case my audience did not understand my point, I concluded with the application that if a drunk on the street corner asks you for money for more booze you have a sacred obligation to give it to him! I backed that up with a proof text from Matthew 7:1: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." After coming to that conclusion, you may well imagine what my pastor's response was! Also, the group was somewhat aghast at my application, since our church was located downtown and one often passed by panhandlers on the way into the building. My pastor had some questions for me. Is that the truth, Mike? Is it really true that we ought not to judge when it comes to giving? Does the Scripture really teach that? Is it really true that Christians must give to anyone who asks them? Is that what Jesus was really saying? These are very important questions to say the least. My simple reading of the text had led me to a rather strange conclusion. While it is true that giving is a spiritual discipline for Christians, if I had taken the time to research the rest of Scripture, I would have discovered that God loves a cheerful giver who gives voluntarily and not under obligation. (2 Corinthians 9:7) So here I was standing before the group, preaching from the Bible and laying down an authoritative application that was simply wrong! Perhaps it was fine for me to do it, to empty my pockets to every passer-by who holds out his hand, but for me to preach that to our congregation and lay that burden on them as a matter of gospel truth was inappropriate. In my naïve desire to read out of the text its proper application, I had read into the text something that was not there. I could not be faulted for bringing to the text a compassionate heart for the poor, an understanding about our duty to love our neighbors unconditionally, a spirit of extravagant generosity and a zealous desire to hear God's voice and obey it implicitly. However, I was wrong to discern that my Biblical interpretation was a universal principle and sacred obligation put on all Christians by their Lord. I believe there are universal truths in the Bible that require our acceptance and obedient application, but giving money every time someone asks was not one of them! How did I get mixed up like this? What happened in my reading and thinking that led me to such a conclusion? Since I was so sincere, zealous and prayerful and thought I was following the leading of the Holy Spirit, how could I have gone so wrong? These are questions every believer must face at one point in their spiritual journey when they are confronted with the fact that they have not only erred in their interpretation of Scripture, but have also erred in its application. Sincere believers will inevitably get it wrong when it comes to biblical interpretation as I did. Instead of giving up on it altogether, we ought to pick ourselves up from the dust of confusion and learn how to interpret the Bible better because it is an important responsibility of every Christian to "rightly handle the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). So, let me share with you what I have learned over the years concerning the interpretation of Scripture. I call this my ten lessons in Biblical Interpretation for Dummies. I. Evangelicals believe that The Bible is the final authority for faith and practice. (See National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith). Everything needs to be judged by the standard of Scripture as found in the Christian Bible. In no way can we sit over top of Scripture and pass judgment on it, selecting passages that we approve of and ignoring others that we do not approve of. We must always sit under it and allow it to "read us" as we read it, otherwise we become the authority and not the Bible. So we interpret our experience in the light of Scripture and not the other way around. The reason it is our authority is that it is God's truth. That is, what Scripture says, God says. It is God's revelation of his mind and heart to humankind. It comes to us through a written text which is 'God breathed' as Pauls says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. -- ... more » Tuesday, January 16
by
Mike McLoughlin
on Tue 16 Jan 2007 12:55 AM PST
The Faith at Work Blog has moved to Blog Harbor. Click here to visit the new location. I will continue to publish my personal blog here. Faith at work articles will appear at the new location. Please resubscribe at the new location if you are interested in receiving notification of new faith at work articles. Thank you for supporting both my personal blog and the new Faith at Work Blog. Friday, January 5
by
Mike McLoughlin
on Fri 05 Jan 2007 01:40 PM PST
No one likes a back seat driver least of all one criticizes your driving style loudly and in public. I confess I am guilty of backseat driving. In my last post (Establishing Trust Through Emotionally Healthy Leadership), I started out by speaking up about being an emotionally healthy church but I ended it with back seat driving comments for church leadership. That was not appropriate. I am grateful to those on the Leadership team who gently pointed it out to me. I apologize and ask for forgiveness. Leadership has a hard enough job sorting through all the pastoral and governance concerns to worry about me telling them how they ought to run the church. They are the ones with the responsibility not me, so it was fair for a number of them to express their concerns and feelings about my directive comments. I should have addressed these comments directly to them rather than posting them at the end of my blog. The problem with doing that in a blog on the Internet is that once you say something it immediately becomes public property and you can't really undo what you did. So I need to make it a part of the public record that I was wrong to be critical or directive in my writing about transitions at our church. I stand behind and pray for the leadership and I wish them well as they navigate through some difficult waters. Apologizing publicly when you have screwed up is actually one of the things recommended by Peter Scazzero in his book The Emotionally Healthy Church. It is a part of his chapter on Living in Brokenness and Vulnerability. However, I don't recommend screwing up just so you can learn to be broken about it. Better to avoid the screw up! So one of my new year's resolution for 2007 is no more back seat driving! Feel free to point it out when you think I am doing it! more » |
Recent Photos
For First Time Visitors
My Personal & Professional Pages
My Important Links
|
||||

