Marsz Jedności Górnośląskiej był powiązany z coroczną pielgrzymką członków i sympatyków Ruchu Autonomii Śląska do duchowej stolicy regionu na Anaberg (Góra Św. Anny). Wielkim przeżyciem okazało się kazanie w języku śląskim. Było to pierwszy raz, kiedy usłyszałem w świątyni “język serca” w pozytywnym kontekście. Ksiądz Joachim Zok z Zakonu Werbistów mówił o najważniejszym elemencie w śląskim systemie wartości, jakim jest oczywiście rodzina. Ponadto podkreślał, że ślonsko godka stanowi podstawę pod zachowanie śląskiej tożsamości. Więcej na temat tej filozofii można przeczytać w artykule “Bóg poradzi godać” w Życiu Bytomskim.

Integral musician, actor and all-around hilarious guy Stuart Davis has just filmed a short commercial hawking the latest in potable ancient-future altered states of (higher) consciousness – Godka, or psilocybin-infused vodka.

!!!

Absinthe what?

I wonder if he’s met our pals John Crowder and Benjamin Dunn – or John Scotland and Emerge Wales and Red Letters crew, for that matter?

Have you missed John since my interview with him last year? He’s YouTubing up a storm…here’s one of the latest, on ’spiritual exercises’…

In a perfect world, John Crowder and Stuart Davis would get along like gangbusters. Stuart does for sex – on his bleeding-edge Sex, God, and Rock & Roll – what John does for drug culture.

If you missed it last year, here’s my six-parter looking at the Pentecostal/charismatic avant-garde, kicking off with Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction?

…and leading into a five-parter dialogue with Mr. John Crowder himself:

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Good times.

What do you think of spirituality and altered states of consciousness? What I’m thinking these days is inspired by and summed up nicely in a piece entitled Mystical Experience or Unitive Seeing? by integral Christian contemplative Cynthia Bourgeault, in Richard Rohr’s Radical Grace magazine. Money quote (though I could easily take the highlighter of my life and highest aspirations to the entire article):

The word “mystical” is almost always immediately coupled with the word “experience,” and a mystical experience becomes something that you have—or want to have, anyway. It becomes a sign of God’s special favor—a kind of spiritual “peak experience”—and circumstances promising to deliver that experience are eagerly sought after: from sacred chanting and Eucharistic devotion to Sufi whirling, solitude in the desert, or peyote. In the usual way of looking at things, it is an altered state of consciousness, ecstatic, something that takes you far beyond your usual self, a straight shot into divine consciousness.

What’s so bad about that?

Well, nothing, really. [Mike's note: And I'd want to emphasize that I agree 100% - there's nothing wrong with ecstasy and spiritual peak experiences! In fact, I could really use one right now...John, if you're reading this, could you email me a toke of the Holy Ghost? I'd like Jesus on the mainline, please!] But from the point of view of real spiritual growth, it’s an immature state— a “state” rather than a “stage,” in the helpful language of Ken Wilber. A state is a place you go to; a stage is a place you come from: integrated and mature spiritual experience. It’s true that a mystical experience can indeed be a sneak preview of how the universe looks from the point of view of non-dual consciousness. And it’s true that this consciousness does indeed operate at a higher level of vibrational intensity, which at first can overwhelm our normal cognitve systems. But the point is not to squander this infusion of energy on bliss trips, but to learn to contain it within a quiet and spacious consciousness and allow it to permanently bring about a shift in our operating system, so that unitive (or non-dual) perception becomes our ordinary, and completely normal mode of perception.

Amen and amen. I’ll drink to that.

Ktoś może pomyśleć po lekturze bloga, że uwziąłem się na panią Teresę Semik. Niestety owładnięta misją dziennikarka Dziennika Zachodniego kolejny raz trafiła na moją krótką listę:) Oczywiście nie mam zamiaru jej wykończyć, ani wyeliminować z życia publicznego, bo cenię pluralizm poglądów. Jednak zdecydowanie będę walczył z brakiem rzetelności oraz dobrej woli w pisaniu o Śląsku i Ślązakach. Przyjrzyjmy się jak Teresa Semik wprowadza do swoich tekstów elementy, które mają na celu dyskredytację ruchu regionalistów śląskich.

W ramach relacji z konkursu „Po naszymu, czyli po śląsku” pani redaktor przeprowadziła tendencyjny wywiad z eurodeputowanym Janem Olbrychtem.

Silne państwo, prężny region śląski. Autonomia nie na czasie
Rozmowa z Honorowym Ślązakiem Roku, eurodeputowanym Janem Olbrychtem

TS: Zna pan gwarę?
JO: Potrafię “godać”, ale w moim wykonaniu brzmi ona już sztucznie.

TS: Kto dziś jest Ślązakiem?
JO: I ten, kto pochodzi stąd z dziada pradziada, i ten, kto utożsamia się z tą ziemią.

TS: Jakie sukcesy Śląska widać z Brukseli?
JO: Sukcesy związane z restrukturyzacją. Śląsk jest dla Unii Europejskiej dobrym przykładem regionu, który te zmiany przeszedł szybko i boleśnie, ale dziś może się rozwijać dynamicznie.

TS: Autonomiści śląscy mówią, po co nam Warszawa, mamy stolicę w Brukseli. To dobrze?
JO: Dziś w Europie regiony nie są postrzegane bardzo silnie politycznie. Minął okres głębokiej wiary w to, że regiony będą niezależnymi jednostkami, a niektórzy mówili, że równie ważnymi jak państwa.

TS: Hasło “Europa regionów” już nie jest na czasie?
JO: Dla Unii Europejskiej głównymi partnerami są państwa, czyli rządy. Regiony powinny odgrywać ważną rolę wewnątrz tych państw. Tendencje do tworzenia nowych bytów są nie na czasie. Nie ma w całej Europie takiej woli. Zwraca się uwagę na integrację europejską poprzez integrację państw z bardzo silnym udziałem regionów. Dziś polityka Unii nastawiona jest na wzmocnienie państwowości. A więc silny samorząd – tak, ale nie tendencje autonomiczne czy separatystyczne.
źródło: T. Semik, “Wróbel najlepszy na Śląsku”, Polska Dziennik Zachodni, 27.10.2008

Teresa Semik ropoczyna rozmowę z Honorowym Ślązakiem Roku 2008 Janem Olbrychtem serią pytań o język śląski, by następnie zahaczyć o kwestię autonomii, która w ogóle nie była przedmiotem spotkania. W każdym bądź razie czytelnik ma zagwarantowany dodatek w postaci serii arbitralnych tez odnoszących się do ideii autonomii Górnego Śląska.
Pozostaje kwestia poprawnego sformułowania, czym autonomia jest, a czym nie jest. Zastanawiającym jest, dlaczego autonomia nie jest porównana właśnie do silnego samorządu, tylko kolejny raz zestawia się z nią tendencje separatystyczne.
Kolejny absurd, który zszokował mnie, jest utożsamianie wzmocnienia państwowości z silnym samorządem. Oczywistym jest, że silny samorząd (nowocześnie pojmowana autonomia) polega na oddaniu w ręce władz regionalnych maksymalnego zestawu kompetencji, których władza centralna nie potrzebuje. W przypadku państwa scentralizowanego, jakim jest Polska, mamy więc do czynienia z jego faktycznym osłabieniem. Jednak warto zauważyć, że dzięki temu rząd ogólnokrajowy za pośrednictwem władz regionalnych może sprawować władzę efektywniej i skuteczniej. W jaki sposób władze w Warszawie zapatrzone same w siebie, ogarnięte nieustannym konfliktem politycznym i instytucjonalnym (spór w obrębie dwuczłonowej egzekutywy), są w stanie dostrzec problemy Wielkopolski, Pomorza czy Górnego Śląska? Mimo że posiadają środki prawne i finansowe do ich rozwiązywania, nie robią tego.

Reasumując silny samorząd to autonomiczne regiony. Myślę, że Jan Olbrycht zgodziłby się z tak postawioną i uzasadnioną tezą. Jednak odpowiedź na pytanie dotyczące podziału terytorialnego nowoczesnego państwa, nie może być zawarta w trzech zdaniach. Eurodeputowany z PO za sprawą powziętej przez Teresę Semik misji bronienia anachronicznej wizji państwa stał się zwolennikiem centralizmu reprezentowanego przez PiS.

Pod koniec interesującego w rzeczy samej artykułu o uczestnikach konkursu „Po naszymu, czyli po śląsku” pani redaktor wtrąca od siebie swoje trzy grosze.

Żędowian znowu duma rozpiera. Chętnie wtedy przypominają, jak to pod koniec maja 1945 roku nieoczekiwanie zatrzymał się u nich wojewoda śląski Aleksander Zawadzki. Kobiety z Żędowic skarżyły się, że brakuje chleba, węgla, a ich chłopy w niewoli albo zabici. Generał słuchał cały czas, stojąc w swoim samochodzie. Wtedy odezwała się Rozalia Anlauf tymi słowy:
“A dyć zejdą, panocku, z tego auta i staną swymi nogami na naszej ziemi. Bo to przeca polsko ziemia”!
źródło: T. Semik, “Mówią albo godają”, Polska Dziennik Zachodni, 23.10.2008

Górnoślązak znający język śląski szybko wyłapie, że pani Rozalia nie mogła tego powiedzieć, bo to nie po śląsku. Natomiast uważny czytelnik zauważy nachalne wtrącanie do artykułu polonocentrycznych poglądów pani redaktor.

Tak jak możnaby się było tego spodziewać odzew medialny po konferencji krakowskiego Towarzystwa Obrony Kresów Zachodnich był znikomy: krótkie notki na Onecie oraz Gazeta.pl oraz szokujący swoją tendencyjnością artykuł w dzienniku Polska Dziennik Zachodni. Jego wersja elektroniczna znajduje się tu oraz w pierwszym komentarzu.

Dziennikarka Teresa Semik pisze, że celem pogadanki była:

polemika z organizacjami, które na swoje sztandary wpisują fakt istnienia narodu i języka śląskiego, zaś lansowana przez nie autonomia dla tego regionu w efekcie doprowadzić ma do zmian uderzających w Śląsk i w Polskę.
Polska Dziennik Zachodni, 23.09.2008

Na jakiej podstawie autorka tekstu doszła do tak uderzających wniosków, nie mam pojęcia. Z dalszej części artykułu można wynieść, że autonomia równa się secesji. Jest to oczywiście absolutne niechlujstwo semantyczne, które stosują przeciwnicy nowoczesnej decentralizacji. Nie dziwi mnie, że polscy nacjonaliści umyślnie przyrównują Ruch Autonomii Śląska do organizacji separatystycznej. Z punktu widzenia czystej gry politycznej stosują zabieg dość skuteczny, bo słowo secesja czy separacja jest bardzo chwytliwe. A jak wiadomo, „ciemny lud to kupi.”

Osobną kwestią jest obiektywizm dziennikarski. W kwesti problematyki ślaskiej dziennikarka Teresa Semik egzaminu z rzetelności dziennikarskiej nie zdała. Zacytujmy dalszy fragment artykułu:

Na widowni byli przedstawiciele organizacji związanych z autonomistami śląskimi. Nie reagowali na tak ostre sformułowania pod ich adresem, nie komentowali często przywoływanej ich dobrej kondycji finansowej, co pozwala im pisać dzieje Śląska za innych.
Polska Dziennik Zachodni, 23.09.2008

Czy tak trudno jest sprawdzić, że RAŚ raczej nie zrzesza krezusów. No cóż, lepiej powtarzać na łamach dziennika insynuacje grupki oszołomów, którzy fakty na temat ruchu regionalistów wysysają z palca. Dobra kondycja finansowa RAŚ to kolejny dziennikarski chwyt, który działa na prostego człowieka jak płachta na byka. Historia uczy, że straszenie tajemną i dobrze sytuowaną grupą, która ma na celu zniszczyć wszystko co dobre, jest bardzo skuteczne.

Na moim blogu chcę bronić śląskiej racji. Przypuszczałem, że będę odpowiadał na absurdy dotyczące Śląska i Ślązaków wprowadzane do opinii publicznej przez takie organizacje jak Towarzystwo Obrony Zachodnich Kresów Polski czy Ruch Obywatelski „Polski Śląsk”. Jak się okazuje oceniać muszę również dziennikarską rzetelność.

Wczoraj Towarzystwo Obrony Zachodnich Kresów Polski zorganizowało w Katowicach konferencję poświęconą separatyzmowi górnośląskiemu. Omówiono zagrożenia, jakie niesie przyznanie godce śląskiej statusu języka regionalnego. Jak wiadomo godzi to w żywotne interesy państwa polskiego, bo przynanie prawnej ochrony śląskiej mowie jest krokiem ku secesji tego regionu.

Jak niesamowita może być ludzka głupota! Czy Kaszubi, których mowie przyznano już status języka regionalnego, postulują za stworzeniem własnego państewka. Czy niecałe 100 tyś. Ślązaków, którym na sercu leży, aby język swoich przodków przetrwał, jest realnym zagrożeniem dla polskiej państwowości? Tak sądzą członkowie TOZKP. Większość to oczywiście działacze Prawa i Sprawiedliwości, którzy już nie raz swoimi pomysłami ujawniali kompletną ignorancję śląskiej specyfiki. Problem polskich nacjonalistów polega na tym, że kwestię Śląska i Ślązaków, widzą w perspektywie odwiecznej walki żywiołu niemieckiego i polskiego. W tej rozgrywce Ślązacy, ich zdaniem, są zawodnikami niepewnymi, bo jeżeli nie czują się Polakami, to muszą być Niemcami. Biorąc pod uwagę taki punkt widzenia, rzekomi obrońcy polskości Śląska dochodzą do absurdalnego w rzeczy samej wniosku, że Górnoślązacy na Górnym Śląsku są elementem obcym, który cytując klasyka trzeba wyeliminować.

Kolejnym kuriozum owej konferencji jest powołanie tzw. Instytutu Wojciecha Korfantego. Instytucja z siedzbą w Krakowie ma zająć się obroną polskich interesów na Górnym Śląsku. Proponowałbym jednak ze względów logistycznych umiejscowienie instytutu w Opolu, bo to w końcu stolica Górnego Śląska, albo w Katowicach. No chyba, że TOZKP to kolejne kanapowe ugrupowanie w stylu Ruchu Obywatelskiego Polski Śląsk. Wtedy nie warto byłoby się fatygować.

Abstrahując już od miejsca, w którym ta grupka oszołomów chce rozpocząć swoją mesjanistyczną działalność, należy przyjrzeć się patronowi tego instytutu Wojciechowi Korfantemu. Sądzę, że nie jest teraz zadowolony. W końcu to od polskich nacjonalistów dostał nieźle w kość, gdy domagał się egzekwowania Statusu Autonomicznego Województwa Śląskiego.

Reasumując konferencja Towarzystwa Obrony Zachodnich Kresów Polski jest tylko kolejnym przykładem wybiórczego podejścia do dziejów Górnego Śląska oraz nieznajomości słów regionalizm i autonomia.

When the Brownsville Florida revival broke out nearly 15 years ago the Internet was barely a glimmer in most people’s eyes. Even then it had some effect on getting the word out about – and critiquing – the happening. Well, lightning has apparently struck twice in Florida – there has been a veritable bit-torrent written about the “Lakeland Outpouring” expressing both unqualified support and what sounds to me like witch-hunting (knocking the guy for getting tattoos? C’mon.) Amid all of this din, I’ve found a handful of pretty insightful pieces on it from across the spectrum. Here they are.

Lakeland, Florida, Barack Obama & Burma: A Call to Respond to The Signs of the Times by Pete Grieg

Rumours of Revival by Billy Kennedy

(Another) Rumours of Revival by David Derbyshire

The Lakeland Outpouring and Todd Bentley By Robert Holmes and Brian Medway in Storm Harvest (Australia)

Leaders Commission Todd Bentley at ‘Lakeland Outpouring’ – from Charisma Magazine

Biblical Reasons To Receive God’s Glory and Give It Away in Power Evangelism by Dr. Gary S. Greig

Rick Joyner on Lakeland (and Question/Response)

Chuck Pierce and C. Peter Wagner on Lakeland

Leaving Lakeland in TheOoze: Part One, Part Two, and Part Three

Lifting Jesus High! Bringing Biblical Light to Your Questions about the Lakeland Outpouring & Todd Bentley by Todd Bentley – the Man Himself speaks out!

So what do I think? I wouldn’t venture to say unless I go to Lakeland. I’ll be in Florida this next week, but alas: here rather than here. But I’ll continue to pray that God’s good dreams find hands, feet, and ecosystem to manifest, in as much diversity as God so delights in. Until next time, friends…

Meet Todd Post. At the height of my interaction with John Crowder, Post & I had a brief exchange of our own. He’s posted many of the videos of Crowder that are on YouTube, including this original music of his:

So when I saw this video, we started corresponding, and it turned out he was passing through Raleigh on a Greyhound, on his way to (or is it from? I can’t quite recall) Virginia where he was hosting an outdoor “Holy Ghost House Party.” We met and he gave me review copies of his two albums, New Wine Party and Chill & Refill.

They’re fascinating albums – electronica overlaid with sampling from the preaching of this fella, John Scotland, a definite “new wine” enthusiast. I think this is how charismatic preaching should be heard all the time – better to be felt than telt.

As best as I can tell, Todd doesn’t have a “day job;” he is in many ways the embodiment of the ‘Spirit-filled’ ideal. He goes to conferences, then goes out onto the streets, evangelizing, passing out shots of Godka, and taping/podcasting the conversions. He doesn’t have a high-profile ‘ministry’ in this world, but faithfully walks out in (as our Quaker brethren would say) the Light he has been given. I have absolutely no idea how he earns a living – could be the life of faith!

Here’s a little about Todd from his website, Signs & Wonders:

“Born in Fargo, North Dakota and raised in the bordering city of Moorhead, Minnesota, Todd Richard Post attended a traditional Lutheran church where he was confirmed at the age of 15. Two years later at a Young Life meeting, T. R. asked Jesus Christ to come into his heart. But an intense love for secular music caused T. R. to back away from Christianity and move to Minneapolis to pursue a career in the recording industry. During that time he supported himself doing disc jockey work in roller rinks, nightclubs and at wedding dances.

In 1991, T. R. had a powerful experience with the Lord while visiting family members in Fargo. He recommitted his life to Jesus and later accepted the call to preach. T. R. was employed at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and also served as an evangelism leader at Living Word Christian Center before stepping out to become a full-time missionary. During that time, the Lord led T. R. to start writing “Signs & Wonders”, a newsletter that is now read by Christians all over the world.

In 2006, T. R. resumed using his recording and DJ skills by launching the

Signs & Wonders Radio Network. The following year, T. R. produced “New Wine Party”, an album combining electronic music with the preaching of Liverpool, England native John Scotland. A follow-up album “Chill & Refill” was released in March 2008. Samples from both albums may be heard on T. R.’s MySpace page.”

So there you have it! Check out his tunes on his Myspace page.

Of course, speaking of off-the-beaten path Spirit-filled tunage, I’m looking forward to my copy of Toking The Ghost… : )

źródło: Tomasz Żak, http://www.silesia-region.pl

Dziś w sali Sejmu Śląskiego odbyła się konferencja rozpoczynająca pracę nad kodyfikacją śląskiej godki. Spotkaniu przewodniczyła wicemarszałek Senatu RP Krystyna Bochenek, która powitała licznie zebranych gości: Wojewodę Śląskiego Zygmunta Łukaszczyka, rektora Uniwersytetu Śląskiego prof. Wiesława Banysia, prof. Walerego Pisarka, honorowego przewodniczącego Rady Języka Polskiego, posłów i senatorów RP, samorządowców, naukowców z Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, Uniwersytetu Jagielońskiego, Uniwersytetu Ostrawskiego, Uniwersytetu Technicznego w Dreźnie oraz wszystkich zebranych, którym zależy na rozwoju śląskiej godki.

Wojewoda Śląski, Zygmunt Łukaszczyk, powitał zebranych słowami: „Witom Wos roztomili!” i wyraził radość z faktu, że o sprawach śląskiej godki możemy już publicznie bez problemu rozmawiać. Rektor UŚ, prof. Banyś odniósł się do kontekstu europejskiego i życzył owocnych obrad. Natomiast Dyrektor Instytutu Języka Polskiego UŚ, dr Jacek Warchali zapowiedział, że tym spotkaniem rozpoczyna się cykl spotkań dotyczących kodyfikacji śląskiego. Następna konferencja odbędzie się na przełomie listopada i grudnia.

Po serii wystąpień przedstawiciele organizacji Pro Loquela Silesiana – Towarzystwo Kultywowania i Promowania Śląskiej Mowy, Rafał Adamus i Mirosław Syniawa wręczyli na ręce Wicemarszałek Senatu, Wojewody Śląskiego i posła Lucjana Karasiewicza (najbardziej zaangażowanego parlamentarzysty w kwestii śląskiej mowy) rezolucję, podpartą opiniami naukowymi, która wzywa do nadania śląskiemu statusu języka regionalnego.

Dr hab. Jolanta Tambor (UŚ): „Śląski językiem jeszcze nie jest, ale może być.”
Badaczka zaznaczyła, że otwiera się dyskusję bardzo ważną dla Ślązaków, ale również kontrowersyjną. Opowiedziała się za kodyfikacją tj. spisaniem, usankcjonowaniem i zestawieniem dialektów śląskich. Wzbraniała się przed normalizacją, bo „gwary są różnorodne” i ta różnorodność decyduje ich bogactwie. Zaznaczyła, że z punktu widzenia lingwistyki termin gwara jest synonimem dialektu. Póki co śląski traktuje jako etnolekt, czyli zbior znaków komunikacyjnych, które są używane przez daną grupę etniczną. Natomiast otrzymanie statusu języka regionalnego zależy, wg pani doktor, od decyzji politycznej. Pokrótce przestawiła swoje pomysły na kodyfikację grafii śląskiej. Lingwistka podkreśliła, że to co niezapisane może zniknąć, dlatego niezwykle istotne dla śląskiej godki jest jej kodyfikacja.

Prof. dr hab. Bogusław Wyderka (UO): „Nie ma mowy o śląskim jako odrębnym języku słowiańskim.”
W swojej prelekcji prof. Wyderka, autor „Słownika gwar śląskich”, odniósł się do kodyfikacji leksyki. Podkreślił, że to  czym decyduje o wyznaczeniu granicy pomiędzy językami jest występowanie dużych różnic systemowych. Choć zaznaczył, że śląski nie stanie się odrębnym językiem słowiańskim, uznał , że ten dialekt wykazuje dość duże różnice w porównaniu z standardową polszczyzną, co prowadzi często do wzajemnego niezrozumienia ich użytkowników. Wg profesora Wyderki należy koniecznie rozpocząć badania nad śląskim językiem literackim, śląskim językiem regionalnym, by w ten sposób uchronić go przed zapomnieniem.

Dr Tomasz Kamusella (UO): „Nieuznawanie języka śląskiego to akt polityczny.”
Badacz podjął dyskusję z punktu widzenia socjolingwistyki. Zauważył, że wedle językoznawstwa polskiego nie ma podstaw do uznania śląskiego za język. Jednak przeciwnego zdania są lingwiści nie polsko języczni. Wskazał m. in. na definicję językoznawcy amerykańskiego, Bloomfielda, który traktował gwary jako wzajemnie zrozumiałe formy języka. Dlatego czy można traktować śląski za gwarę skoro często nie ma mowy o wzajemnym zrozumieniu się osób, które de facto powinny używać tego samego języka. Z punktu widzenia tego socjolingwisty decyzja o tym czy coś jest językiem zależy od użytkowników. Podawał przykłady języków skandynawskich, nowo powstałych języków w państwach byłej Jugosławii. Chorwacki, serbski, macedoński, czarnogórski uznane zostały za odrębne języki mimo iż dla językoznawców nie różnią się. Pod tym względem różnice pomiędzy językiem polskim a śląskim są zdecydowanie większe.
Badacz odniósł się do absurdów przyjętej w 2005 ustawy o mniejszościach narodowych i etnicznych oraz o języku regionalnym, która uznaje język romski, choć nie jest on usystematyzowany lub język tatarski nigdy nie występujący w Polsce.
W demokratycznym państwie wola 60 tyś. obywateli, którzy zadeklarowali używanie śląskiego na co dzień, nie może być ignorowana.

Dr Artur Czesak (UJ): „Mitem jest niemożność wyrażania wartości abstrakcyjnych po śląsku.”
Określony przez p. Krystynę Bochenek, jako znawca śląska, czyli silezjolog zaznaczył iż określanie gwara nie może odnosić się do śląskiego, gdyż nie występuje już niepiśmienna ludność wiejska. Cytował najwybitniejszego językoznawcę polskiego, Kazimierza Nicza, który zwalczał pogardę dla języków ludowych. Gardzenie, wyśmiewanie się z osób, które nie potrafią posługiwać się standardową polszczyzną świadczy o braku inteligencji wyśmiewacza:D Zróżnicowanie w obrębie danego języka świadczy tylko i wyłącznie o jego bogactwie.
W okresie narodowego komunizmu traktowano śląski czy kaszubski jako coś gorszego. Taka postawa mogła budzić tylko uprzedzenia. W wolnej Polsce nastał czas walki z mitami. „Teraz już wreszcie można być sobą u siebie.” Mimo to trzeba walczyć ze stereotypami Ślązaka, jako elementu prymitywnego, niemieckiego, niepolskiego. Innym mitem jest niemożność wyrażania wartości abstrakcyjnych po śląsku.
Konkludując zauważył, iż poważnym przeciwnikiem jest defetyzm niektórych grup Ślązaków. „Poco wymyślać alfabet, byle się dogodomy.” W związku z tym istotnym jest wykształcenie własnych elit, co już się dokonuje.

Po pół godzinnej przerwie rozpoczęły się kolejne prelekcje.

Łukasz Grzędzicki, wiceprezes Zarządu Głównego Zrzeszenia Kaszubsko-Pomorskiego, przedstawił historię kodyfikacji języka kaszubskiego i perspektywy jego rozwoju. Andrzej Roczniok odniósł się do walki z językiem śląskim przez władze komunistyczne, które sprowadziły go do pejoratywnego określenia, gwara. Zaproponował swoją standaryzację śląskiego wedle wariantu gliwicko-toszewskiego. Bogdan Kallus zaproponował własną rozbudowaną wersję przykładowej kodyfikacji. Natomiast Grzegorz Wieczorek ze stowarzyszenia „Danga” zauważył, że dziś poprawne mówienie po Śląsku jest przejawem wykształcenia, gdyż dobre poznanie śląskiego  wymaga dużego wysiłku intelektualnego.

Następnie rozpoczęła się dyskusja. Zakończył ją prof. Pisarek apelując do śląskich parlamentarzystów, aby wypowiadali się w Sejmie i Senacie tą piękną odmianą polszczyzny.

Już jutro odbędzie się konferencja w Urzędzie Wojewódzkim dotycząca statusu śląskiej godki. Teraz zamieszczam tylko plan imprezy. Jednak wieczorem na blogu znajdziecie szczegółowe informacje z przebiegu konferencji.

PROGRAM:
Otwarcie konferencji: Wicemarszałek Senatu RP ­– Krystyna Bochenek
Wystąpienie Wojewody Śląskiego – Zygmunta Łukaszczyka

0.15 – 11.15 Część I
dr hab. Jolanta Tambor (UŚ, Katowice): Czuć pismo nosem. O potrzebie kodyfikacji grafii śląskiej
prof. dr hab. Bogusław Wyderka (UO): O kodyfikacji śląskiej leksyki
dr Tomasz Kamusella (UO): Czy śląszczyzna jest językiem? Spojrzenie socjolingwistyczne
dr Artur Czesak (UJ): Mowa Górnoślązaków – nowe otwarcie?

11.15 – 11.45 Przerwa na kawę

11.45 – 12.30 Część II:
Łukasz Grzędzicki (Wiceprezes ZG Zrzeszenia Kaszubsko-Pomorskiego): Kaszubszczyzna – droga do języka
Andrzej Roczniok: Gwara nierówna językowi, ale zapis ten sam
Bogdan Kallus: Propozycja normatywizacji pisowni regionalnego języka śląskiego
Grzegorz Wieczorek: Pomiędzy konwencją a dowolnością, czyli jak świadomie przeciwdziałać rozpływaniu się śląszczyzny w języku ogólnopolskim? Kilka słów o potrzebie edukacji językowej Ślązaków

12.30 – 14.00 DYSKUSJA

14.00 – 15.30 Poczęstunek i rozmowy kuluarowe

Konferencję poprowadzi: Krystyna Bochenek

Podsumowanie i wnioski: prof. dr hab. Walery Pisarek (Honorowy Przewodniczący Rady Języka Polskiego PAN), dr hab. Jolanta Tambor (Instytut Języka Polskiego UŚ)

So this is John Crowder and I’s final dialogue, for now at least. It’s here where we talk something near and dear to our hearts. It’s precisely here where I fear we’re going to alienate many of you dear readers. Why? Because if there’s one thing that most middle-of-the-road Christian moderates distrust more than ‘extreme’ charismatic experiences, it’s mysticism – Christian or otherwise. The word ‘mystic’ is heavily freighted for many people, synonymous with ‘heretical,’ ‘apostate,’ ‘unbiblical,’ etc.. To add insult to injury, John & I don’t spend even a second justifying our use of the term, or indeed explaining any of the terms, dates, movements, and spiritualities we discuss – it’s a kind of conversational machine-gun fire. This isn’t intentional; it’s simply an exchange where we hit the ground running, sharing the mystical lingua franca between us. I apologize in advance for this – ’cause there simply wouldn’t be space in this post if we backed up and defined everything…it’s a blog entry, not a dissertation! For this reason, I’ve tried to link to anything that might be unfamiliar territory – thank God for Wikipedia!

Mike: Thanks so much for your time here this past week, John. You’ve given me and my blog-readers much to digest. My final questions have to do with developmental-transformational growth in God – what Protestants typically call sanctification, what Catholic mystics call union with God, and what East Orthodox call theosis or divinization. Wesleyan and holiness preachers – who laid the seed-bed for Pentecostal theology and praxis – advocated what they called a ‘second work’ of ‘entire sanctification,’ known variously in those days as ‘Spirit baptism’ or ‘fire baptism.’ The charismatic and ‘third wave’ movements, as best as I can tell, hold onto a ‘Spirit baptism’ point but stress the continuing in-filling of Holy Spirit, moving from ‘glory to glory’ as it were in increasing supernatural experiences. I guess my first question for you here on this, our final post (for now!), is where do you see this present move of the Spirit you’re involved in going? Where is it heading?

John: I see full-blown transformation of every human paradigm of reality itself. A generation completely raptured in the overwhelming love of God. I don’t care about pioneering new theology, cultural movements or witty new ways of delivering the gospel. I want to love and to experience the love of God more. I think this is the corporate goal of the Holy Spirit. This is true mysticism.

Mike: The great mystical/contemplative writers of ages past talked in great detail about manifestations of the Spirit (they usually called them ‘consolations’), but they had a complex relationship with them: The mystics usually discouraged dwelling too much on the consolations, or trying to keep them coming. To give you a contemporary example, Contemplative Outreach cofounder Thomas Keating says:

“At this crucial period in one’s spiritual development, it is important to realize the sharp distinction between charismatic gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healing, etc., and the Seven Gifts of the Spirit. According to Paul, the charismatic gifts (with the exception of tongues) are designed for the building up of the local community. They do not necessarily indicate that those who possess them are either holy or becoming holy through their exercise. If one is attached to them, they are an obstacle to genuine spiritual growth. For those who have received one or more of these gifts, this is clearly part of God’s plan for their sanctification and a cause for gratitude. But they must learn to exercise these gifts with detachment and not take pride in themselves because they happen to be the recipients of a special grace. Generally God provides sufficient external trials to take care of this human tendency. Prophets, healers, and administrators can greatly benefit from opposition, because it tends to free them from the fascination of their gifts and to keep them humble.

Paul himself emphasizes the distinction between charismatic gifts that are given to build up the body of Christ and the substantial gift of divine love. According to him, one possessing the charismatic gifts is still nothing unless one also possesses divine love (see I Cor. 13:1-3). Hence, the basic thrust of charismatic prayer and the exercise of the charismatic gifts should be ordered to the growth of faith, hope, and charity. To remain faithful to the clear invitation to divine union extended by God through the grace of baptism of the Spirit, one must not be diverted by secondary manifestations of spiritual development. Moreover, there is need for discernment with even the most genuine charismatic gifts. It is the duty of the community…to discern these gifts and to determine whether they spring from grace or from the natural energies of the unconscious. Those who possess them should willingly submit to this discernment for the good of the community Otherwise, the exercise of the gifts may be destructive of the common good rather than a means of building up the body of Christ.

Along with the charismatic gifts, which may be given to anyone without a corresponding level of personal spiritual development, so-called “mystical” phenomena, such as clairvoyance, locutions, visions, levitation, trance states, and many others, may accompany spiritual development as one accesses the divine emerging from the ontological unconscious. These also are of little significance compared to the graces of interior transformation set in motion by the Seven Gifts of the Spirit. The unusual and sometimes showy character of “mystical” phenomena makes them a hazard for immature mystics. It is difficult for even advanced persons to avoid taking a certain self-satisfaction in them.

The Charismatic Renewal needs spiritual guides who are thoroughly qualified through knowledge and personal experience of contemplative prayer to distinguish what is essential from what is accidental in the spiritual path. They should be able to recognize when someone is being called by God to interior silence and solitude and when someone is being called out of solitude into some particular ministry or service. People must be encouraged to follow the attraction to interior silence in prayer even if this means not attending prayer meetings for a time. This is especially necessary if, because of the duties of one’s state in life, one cannot attend prayer meetings and still have time to practice contemplative prayer. Periods of silence in the liturgy and during prayer meetings are essential for groups whose members are growing in prayer. To allow one another space in which to develop the contemplative dimension of the gospel is an integral part of commitment to a Christian community.” [Full piece here.]

It’s clear from your book The New Mystics that you value the Christian mystics. What do you make of their contemplative caution of the charisms?

John: We must remember also in scripture that Paul tells us to “lust” after the gifts. How can we do this, unless certain gifts and manifestations should be considered “extensions” of Christ in some way, rather than competitors for His affections? We think of these things in too linear a fashion, through a veil of modernistic hierarchy and competition. We’ve all heard this type of wet blanket statement: seek God’s face & not His hand. It’s been used to keep us from chasing miracles, manifestations, etc. The phrase sounds noble and holy, but it is very unscriptural. We need ALL of God: hands, feet, fingernails and even His serotonin gland. Otherwise we’re screwed. I love my wife’s face, but I’m also very thankful that she has hands as well. They are quite helpful. We’ve been told not to seek manifestations, but the apostles did so in Acts 4 (“Lord, stretch forth your hand to heal the sick and work wonders,” etc.). Cessationists tell us not to seek after signs and miracles, but the apostles did so, for a greater end, that God would be glorified.

Mike: So is there any line to be drawn between seeking the things of God and simply seeking God?

John: Is there some sort of subjective rubber ruler here? Or is it possible that we are splitting hairs that weren’t meant to be split? Jesus is the ultimate manifestation of God’s Glory. 1 John 4:9 says, “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.” If Jesus is a “manifestation” of God’s love, a “consolation” if you will, could one make the argument that all Christians are called to worship a manifestation of the unseen God, which happens to be God Himself?

The perceived need to clinically separate God from the experience itself is a two-dimensional, linear way of thinking. Since biblical times, trances have been marked by visions and spiritual encounters, as well as frenzied physical manifestations and miracles. The lines between everyday lifestyle and divine encounter are going to be blurred in these days. Manifestations, ecstasies, consolations – these are not just a form of prayer, but a comprehensive way of living. Dwelling in unbroken pleasure. Letting our days become a fragrant song where Heaven and Earth continually collide. We will not be counting beans and trying to figure out if we are enjoying the worship service too much. We will be overwhelmed. We must worship God to excess in body, soul and spirit. With ALL of our mind, heart, soul and strength.

Mike: I agree with you in principle, but…those YouTube videos of you and your friends still seem pretty weird!

John: While ecstatic experience is biblically orthodox, it is far from tame or ordinary in its practical application. Ecstatics have always produced the most bizarre physical manifestations: falling over, fainting, shaking, trembling, uncontrollable laughter, running, shouting and convulsing. Not to mention the signs, wonders and miraculous phenomena. Such strange outward behavior has marked the lives of many great saints and prophets, past and present. And these wild ecstatic contortions have been evident in every great revival – at the birth of every mainstream denominational movement in church history. The inward working of God’s goodness tends to produce an uncontrollable wildfire when He takes the helm of clinical, religious sobriety – when He turns our water into wine.

Mike: I’ll drink to that!

John: God’s sheer goodness is so great that it is uncontainable. Maybe the “self control” God desires is for us to control the old dead, dry, boring, sober self – so that we can demonstrate His true happiness. This goes far deeper than a surface manifestation of laughter, shaking or bodily demonstration.

Mike: Do you think some of the worshippers at your meetings are faking it?

John: Are some manifestations feigned? Of course. In churches that are experiencing renewal, I often see people “fake” their joy in order to look spiritual – as if their laughter is a supernatural manifestation when it is not. This usually comes out of insecurity, as people seek to find their identity behind a particular manifestation. Of course, there is no need to over-analyze every laugh, twitch, crunch or yelp. We need to keep it real, but who am I to intervene into their communion with the Lord? Besides, I see people faking smiles and laughter in many mainline churches as well.

Mike: Ouch! But what about the peer pressure to conform to what your neighbors are doing – y’know, to look more spiritual?

John: There is no need to recreate a past experience, fake a manifestation or feign your happiness. But I don’t think this is a grievous sin that is going to ruin us all. Ultimately, God wants to give true joy that is thorough and lasting. Manifestations are valid, and I am a proponent for daily encounter. But truly encountering God should cause you to be changed. Don’t tell me you’ve seen an angel, but you still look like hell! When God really shows up, you are not just twitching to look spiritual in front of your friends. You are undone. One cannot stir up the soul with emotion, in order to gain a spiritual experience. But the crazy thing about the gospel is this: you are already having a spiritual experience! Whether you feel it or not, you are already united with Christ and seated with Him in heavenly places. As these spiritual realities impact your soul, there is no limit to the excess of emotions that are ignited.

Mike: So much of what you’re saying here an “old mystic” or contemplative could agree to. The main difference, I think, is that they’d say some of the most flamboyant emotional displays would last a season ‘till they were purged, leaving a more whole and balanced person in their aftermath. But you seem to see this as an ongoing, normative stage of theosis.

John: Physical manifestations of ecstasy have been termed “fits”, “enthusiasms”, “the jerks”, “convulsions” and many other names in various revivals. But the similar thread of losing control to the Spirit of God has always been present.

It is humorous to consider the writings of great 18^th and 19^th century revivalists and missionaries of the past, when they spoke of gathering together to be “refreshed” in the Holy Spirit. Ever wonder what that looked like? We’ve stereotyped so many of our forerunners as stiff-necked, starch-collared holy rollers. But many of them were complete Holy Ghost drunks. Ecstatic trances and manifestations of spiritual intoxication did not end with the days of Samuel, David and Elijah.

Mike: Humor some of my more skeptical readers. When has this happened with the safe reivivals? Y’know, the ones far enough away from us in the present that they’re okay to talk about, even among cessationist types?

John: The First Great Awakening is a classic example. In Jonathan Edwards’ meetings, people swooned and fell over and entered trances under the weighty hand of God.

Mike: Fire-baptized Calvinists? Get out of town!

John: Describing the revival of 1740-1742, Edwards notes, “It was a very frequent thing to see a house full of outcries, faintings, convulsions, and such like, both with distress, and also with admiration and joy.” Remember, this guy is the founder of Princeton University. And the early Methodist meetings were deemed to be “more like a drunken rabble than the worshipers of God.”

Mike: Well then, it must have been that pernicious Arminian Methodist influence. : )

John: One of Edwards’ present-day disciples, John Piper, is known for his theology of Christian Hedonism. He purports that our enjoyment of God is the very essence of true worship. Are we to draw a line between our enjoyment of God and God Himself?

Mike: I can hear my Calvinist friends’ jaws hitting the floor that you’re invoking Edwards and even Piper in service of your genre of divine enjoyment. If you’re game, I will personally accompany you to Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis to interrupt one of Mr. Piper’s sermons with blowback from a Holy Spirit Spliff. We’ll pray and see what happens to the Christian Hedonist himself.

John: Consider this view: rather than pitting the manifestation against God (i.e. worship God vs. worship the experience), we must see the experiences as means of worshipping God, to which there is no limit. For in the experience, I am partaking in the pleasure of God – the very thing I was created for – to be interdependent upon Him, enjoying Him forever.

I will make another analogy: as a married man, I am not continually comparing the love I have for my wife to the love I have for God. My wife will never be an idol who threatens to steal my devotion to the Lord. This is because I understand that in loving my wife, this is somehow a mystical extension of my love for Christ. By caring for her, I am worshiping Him. In the same way, when I give a cold cup of water to the poorest of poor, I am also doing this to Christ. I am not worshiping the beggar, but I am worshiping Christ through the beggar. It is foolish to draw lines of competition between God and experience that were never intended to be dissected in such fashion.

Let me also say that manifestations can be quite “extreme” if not outright fanatical, yet still be divine in origin. The radical nature of the manifestation is not in itself a determining factor of its source. I have considered myself nearly on the brink of insanity at times when God swept over me for hours of uncontrollable drunken behavior, yet the corresponding fruit was altogether tremendous, miraculous and life changing. I am always filled with joy and expectancy in these encounters.

Mike: I am all for diversity in the ways we love, enjoy, and worship God. Like I said when we were discussing charis-missional last post, I think that one of the ways we can love God is by loving others. I have no problem adding ecstatic worship and divine manifestations to the mix. But back to the mystics: They argue for a kind of divine detachment, from both people and manifestations. They encourage Christians to hold people, manifestations and all things subordinate to the indwelling Trinity and our deepening communion with God. People never go away, of course – but manifestations are seen as a transitory stage leading to greater (even if more subtle) intimacy with God.

John: Is it possible that this type of activity (manifestations/consolations) is a valid form of dwelling on the Trinity? That in allowing God to sing through us – body, soul and spirit – in all this craziness, we are somehow practicing His presence? Forget the loud and crazy orthopraxy for a moment, in all its various forms – is God’s tangible presence apparent in the midst of it all, and if so, how would you know? Do some propose to conjecture, who have never actually tasted? I believe that the more we taste and practice His presence, the more we individuate from the consensus orthodoxy of society, and grow into what Kierkegaard called the true “religious” sphere of life (religious meaning truly “spiritual”). We stop swimming with the pack, and we start to make waves.

Mike: God’s tangible presence, tasting God for oneself, individuating from consensus orthodoxy to actualized religious life…I like it! I’ll buy it. But I have to keep going back to these pesky mystics, whom we both love. They usually warn folks not to get ’stuck’ at the level of manifestation but press on to the level of fully recognized Union.

John: But did they always practice what they preached? Teresa of Avila was continuously in ecstasies with documented eye-witness accounts of her levitating in mid-ecstasy, along with her own numerous admissions of this stuff (read her Life ch. 18 and onward). She sure impacted mystical theology, and didn’t seem to ever tone it down. Joseph of Cupertino was whacked all the time, and often struck mute. Catherine of Sienna and Catherine Emmerich literally spent years of their life in ecstatic states, with wild manifestations happening continually. Your readers wouldn’t believe some of the supernatural things that happened to them. This happened not because they focused on manifestations, but because they contemplated Christ.

Teresa, a doctor of the church, also acknowledged that all the levels of manifestation overlapped (recollection, union, ecstasy, prayer of quiet, etc.), but she also stated that full-blown ecstasy, the highest level of mystical prayer, is actually where all these manifestations were \the craziest (ligature, inability to move, drunken stupor, levitations, etc.) She said that this was a level wherein the will almost ceased to function entirely because of the heavy pleasure of her inward raptures. I freely surrender my free will to the pleasures of Christ!

Others like John of the Cross and some of the darker mystics were absolutely depressed, so you have to take what they say about this with a big fat grain of salt. Anything that smacked of enjoyment was on the naughty list for them. You may note that we have coined a term “the new mystics” because we can now filter their theology through 500 years of rich, post-reformation grace theology. I am not into the morbid self-mortifications and false humility that many of the older mystics espoused, because it simply contradicts the finished works of the gospel of Jesus Christ – the good news that only God can save us, and that He did so with one fantastic checkmate of love on the cross. If you want a dark night of the soul for the romance of it, then go for it. You’re not going to earn any extra points with God. Depression is not a fruit of the Spirit, but joy is. I choose the free gift of grace.

Mike: I think the ‘dark night’ might be a bit more complex than that. Since neither of us are even close to 40, I’ll refrain from commenting for at least a decade. But I agree that the Reformation had valuable contributions to Christian spirituality. Grace informs mysticism by making it less a striving to attain union with God, and more a letting go to consciously awaken to the union that was always there.

John: Yes, the mystics all had their seven-step programs of spiritual advancement. Call me a Calvinist [There he goes again! – ed.] (you’ll only find a few charismatic ones), but I’m of the opinion that there is a one-step program called conversion. I believe that grace has to be drunk straight. No additives. What if God wanted to blow the whole “stages” and “levels” and “Christian growth curve” theology right out of the water, and somehow made us all pure and holy and perfect and obtaining all of Heaven’s goodies through one simple event: the spilling of Christ’s blood? What if just maybe, this whole religious mortification issue was put to death in one fell swoop, when we died together with Christ (Rom. 6, Gal. 2:20)? That would mean the craziest non-stop Holy Ghost party has just begun, and we’re all invited!

Many theologies have been built around an idea that manifestations are the lowest rung on the spirituality ladder. I just don’t see any scriptural support for it. Why would God take me from a fun experience to a boring one? I think this Christian journey is about getting progressively better, “from Glory to Glory.” You can try to mortify the soul, but it will never happen. Your best bet is to plug the soul’s desire for pleasure into socket it was created for. The only answer to counteract the pleasures of sin is not to kill yourself. The answer is to find a greater pleasure. He never gives us a lesser covenant in place of a better one. This is the whole “Galatian bewitchment” that Paul addressed. We think that after God gives us a treat, it is then up to us to suffer, work and earn our way through the rest of life. God would not grace us with consolations, just to bait us into a morbid, suffering-centered religion.

Mike: I think one of the blog commentors the other day said, helpfully, that boredom isn’t the ultimately enemy. And I’d beg to differ that silence and stillness is boring and a step down – it can be of course, but it all depends on one’s consent to God’s loving presence with you in the moment. I sit still, I center, I speak quietly in tongues – it’s kind of nice actually. But I digress…

Thank you again for all the time and energy you put into this dialogue. Hopefully we can do it again sometime. Since you’re like the only charismatic-oriented Christians I’m aware of who have a clue as to the mystics and their teachings, I guess I’m asking you what I’d like to ask the charismatic/prophetic movement on the whole: Do you see a day where the average ‘Spirit-filled Christian’ becomes a full contemplative in the classic sense? If not, what do you see?

John: Will everybody get this? I don’t know. This is Christianity 101. It’s just the gospel. The good news that God cracked open Heaven’s wine barrel for us. But for some reason, not everybody is thirsty. They just want to sit around, debate about the menu and scoff at the drunk guy in the corner.

Peace – Oinga Oinga Oinga!

John Crowder

And there you have it, folks. Your thoughts?

Note: If you’re just tuning in, this post is part of a series exploring new-pneumatology and emerging expressions of church. Here are the rest:

(Holy) Ghosts of Revivals Past

Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction?

What Is the Future of the Prophetic?

Guest Blog – John Crowder Speaks!

Crowder & Morrell Dialogue: What About the Fam? (Or, ‘Sex-Crazed Charismatics?’)

Crowder & Morrell: Kids & Cocaine Jesus?

Crowder & Morrell: Charismissional – What About The Poor?

I’m penning my prelude to today’s Crowder & Morrell piece while listening to Newwine Party, an album TR Post handed me today when I rendezvoused with him at the Raleigh Greyhound station. It seems that this week’s blogging series is making me new friends – and (in some cases) possibly straining old friendships! I hope new friends and would-be foes alike hear this dialogue out ’till it’s conclusion tomorrow. We’ve saved my most urgent two matters ’till last, both looking at the fruit of ministry in ‘bizarre, creative miracles’ and experiencing Spiritual inebriation.

Please note: All hyperlinks in the interview below are my fault doing.

Mike: Today we talk about something that a ton
of folks have asked in the comments section – what do new-pneumatics have to say (and more importantly, do) about justice issues, compassion for the poor and widow and stranger? How does basking in the glory of God’s manifest presence enable us to live into the beloved community, as embodied in Jesus’ beatitudes?

Now before I give you the floor, let me say that I’m actually aware of a ton of ‘Spirit-filled’ folks out there whose life-paradigm seems to be soaking in prayer and worship, then expending their lives in the service of society’s least wanted. Jackie Pullinger comes to mind, as does Heidi and Roland Baker. Blood-N-Fire is a former Vineyard church movement focusing on ‘the youth, the poor and the nations;’ YWAM has manyPete Grieg and Andy Freeman’s initiatives involving 24/7 Prayer and Boiler Rooms and missional monastic orders in the UK and US. So maybe the charge of navel-gazing is unfair. But let me put two things in your court, John – chapters focusing on lives of embodied service, as does

1.) Even with all these wonderful initiatives going on, how does the charismatic movement evolve beyond a ‘let’s give to charity’ mindset? What kind of involvement is encouraged of the average ‘pew-warmer’ beyond financial support to other people to do the work of ministry? and,

2.) What are you guys up to in this arena?

John: People who are not directly involved in prophetic/supernatural-focused ministries are rarely aware of the vast amounts of time, effort and resources being invested around the globe to improve society.

I am a strong advocate of presenting a holistic gospel. Even before we started construction of our India children’s home (this is hopefully the first of many, by the way), we were always traveling to developing nations and investing in other ministries which had a focus on orphans, widows, etc. But as you said, the vision for societal change must be embraced by the “rank and file” pew warmer. It is not enough for a few high-profile ministries to do a few projects within their own respective budgets. The average believer, by herself, could easily raise $15,000 to house a widow and 10 orphans in Africa or Asia, just by taking up collections from “secular” people at their office place. It does not take much for a citizen in the Western world to literally save lives around the globe. But most people are clueless on issues of global poverty, the sex slave trade, the AIDS crisis, etc.

Mike: Ain’t that the truth. I’ve been working with some amazing people both nationally and locally on transcending the slave trade in particular. It’s a daunting ‘issue’ with real lives at stake daily, and so much public ignorance on the matter even now.

Is this lethal apathy an epidemic found solely in an inward-focused charismatic stream? Is the continual desire (by Spirit-filled believers) for the next “spiritual fix” the real enemy of distraction here? Forgive me if I am blunt, but that is sheer stupidity. There are sluggards and nominalists in every denomination of Christianity, along with every sect and cult on the face of the planet. The apathy of the church is clearly not selective to the charismatic stream alone. If we are going to have a witch hunt, I think we could blame Western materialism, television idolatry or Sudoku addiction for distracting our focus. Why blame an emotional attraction to Jesus (or a distaste for sober, boring services) for the problems of a fallen world?

The root issue here is deeper. The question posed by many – “What does all this hyper-spiritual extravagance do for the poor?” – is eerily reminiscent of Judas’ question, when Mary “wasted” the costly spikenard on Jesus, “Why was this fragrant oil not sold … and given to the poor?” Jesus said “Leave her alone. … you will always have the poor among you.” Was Jesus inward and self-focused? Was He unconcerned for the poor? Was Mary wasting her time and money on a pointless “spiritual fix?”

[Editor's note: John 12 should never be read without Deuteronomy 15 squarely in mind]

Jesus cares about the poor more than any of us. But He also understood priorities. God knows that He alone is the Source from which all of society’s problems find their resolution. I think that what Jesus says here in John 12 is this: if ever posed with the uncanny and difficult choice between feeding the poor and worshipping Him, choose rightly – you should worship Him.

As much as we may like to strike at the perceived “inwardness” of the charismatic stream (and yes, I see this with many individuals), none of us can deny that the first commandment (Love God) is still the first. And the second (Love your neighbor), is still the second. The second is like the first (and not to be forgotten! Remember the poor) – but it is still only secondary. Otherwise, what differentiates us from the pagans (just a figure of speech, emergent world – sort of)? The world is full of do-gooding do-gooders, but Christ is interested in relationship above service. I may sound fundamental here, but actions alone are not going to save the planet. Only the Glory of God is going to do that. It’s a supernatural thing (and I’m not talking about some eschatological rapture crap). What I mean is that this problem is too big for us. We need more of His presence above all. Do we sit by and twiddle our thumbs while we pray? No. But our number one priority should be to continually focus on the answer, not focus on the problem. Jesus is the answer. The more I inject Him in my veins, the more I want to go spill His love into the garbage dumps of the world, kissing lepers, feeding the hungry and bringing joy and hope to the depressed and downtrodden.

Mike: I hear you. But do you really mean to pit loving God against loving neighbor? I don’t know if Jesus’ two commandments can be prioritized; John’s gospel has Jesus conflating the two. Or as my friend Kevin Beck likes to say, “Love God by loving your neighbor.” (For more on this perspective see Kevin’s piece on Agapetheism)

John: Before I am pinned as being uncaring or enabling the problem of Christian passivity, let me make something very clear. I believe that to feed the poor is true religion and is a viable means of worshipping Jesus. But there is more. Christianity is not a moral club. The gospel is not a community ethics program. It is the “power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.” The Holy Spirit is not just a tool that inspires us with a goosebump so that we can get to the REAL work of the Kingdom, which is to go do a bunch of stuff. That is the Galatian bewitchment. Ideally, our service to humanity comes in great gobs and heaps as an overflow of God’s love working through us. When the priorities are right, we are no longer workers who happen to love God. Rather, we are lovers who do stuff. Find your primary identity as a lover, continually fixated on Him, and your heart will burn to heal the brokenness of the world more than ever was humanly possible. The work of societal transformation is an overflow, not the main focus. But the main thing has to be the main thing. Otherwise, our efforts become idolatrous grounds for boasting. The more I get tanked up on the wine of Heaven, the more love I have for the things God loves. The more I give.

In all fairness, I would also like to add that I know very many “rank and file” folks who are extremely generous, going above and beyond the call of duty. I know people who will spend weeks trashed out in an ecstatic trance on their couch [Where can I get a job that lets me do that??], apparently doing nothing for the poor, but then they will go drop $10,000 in one fell swoop into orphanage projects [I guess the same vocation that lets people do that. Sigh.]. We simply can’t judge by appearances, can we? Just because someone does not appear to be concerned for the world’s problems does not mean they aren’t part of the solution. I do not walk around depressed all day, thinking of the planet’s woes. I do my part, but not out of an anxiousness that it all relies on me. I’m just convinced that God is going to pull through on the human experiment.

Mike: I am too, John! I think God is indeed pulling through right now. Thanks for your perspective.

Ever since the milieu of the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament), there has been tension between the ‘priests’ and the ‘prophets.’ (Don’t be confused by how we might be using ‘prophetic’ in these contemporary blog posts, ’cause I’m about to make the opposite point about ancient Hebrew prophets) The priests were concerned with temple plans and instruments and extravagant worship, whereas prophets were likely to rail against the worship-preoccupations of the priests. And yet there is a mystery present: God spoke in and through both. Apparently, God both inhabits the praises of his people, and yet desires mercy (justice) above sacrifice (worship). And this is precisely the tension we’re called to inhabit, living an integrated life loving God and neighbor, friend, stranger and enemy.

Note: If you’re just tuning in, this post is part of a series exploring new-pneumatology and emerging expressions of church. Here are the rest:

(Holy) Ghosts of Revivals Past

Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction?

What Is the Future of the Prophetic?

Guest Blog – John Crowder Speaks!

Crowder & Morrell Dialogue: What About the Fam? (Or, ‘Sex-Crazed Charismatics?’)

Crowder & Morrell: Kids & Cocaine Jesus?

Crowder & Morrell Final: Sweet Mystical Communion

Mike: I totally get the idea of redeeming drug culture for Jesus and ministering to those within it with a ‘tokin’ the Ghost’ motif. And I’m *also* fine with consenting adults – whether they have such a drug background or not – participating in worship celebrations where Jehovah-juana and Godka are in fresh supply. We’re free in Christ, y’know? But I have a question: What about the children? On the YouTube videos I see kids participating in your meetings, which is great as far as it goes – as we’vd discussed. But when you pass spiritual joints to little kids (like I saw on one of Ben’s India videos), don’t you think that *could* be sending them the wrong messages, like that it’s a good idea to start smoking stuff?

John: This is a valid question, Mike, and has been asked before. I think the example you gave (re: Ben in India) is a bit moot though: the person in the video simply looked like a child, but it was actually a crippled person with no legs, who really did need a toke of the Ghost considering the circumstances!

Mike: I’m not sure we’re talking about the same video, John. I mean this one, at around 5 minutes in. It sure looks like a little girl to me [Note: I just noticed this, so John hasn't had the opportunity to respond yet. I'll get the right/additional YouTube on here if he does.]:

John: You first have to understand something about what we are doing here before we tackle the subject of children. To the pure all things are pure. I am not “pretending” to smoke marijuana, I am REALLY getting blasted on the Holy Spirit by faith. I am not “pretending” to inject heroine, I am REALLY being infused by God’s presence. Obviously, I know the package is offensive, and to say this is not entirely intentional would be a lie. But you see, we are not trying to copy a worldly experience. We are offering the “real thing” which are the supernatural pleasures of Jesus Christ. Joy unspeakable (not humanly utterable).

One of your bloggers (Micah) made a great point with which I fully agree, and in fact I preach this very point vehemently:

“What disturbs me is the repackaging of the world, and it’s way as Christ in order to keep youth interested. I guess my question is, What did Christ have to offer? Did he offer the same culture and “ways of the world” repackaged and relabeled? Or did he offer an entirely new way of life, and an entirely new way of looking at and interacting with the world around us?

I also offer a challenge to the idea that there is anything wrong with going out dancing, or enjoying a glass of wine, and wonder why we would feel the need to try and co-opt and replace those things with a “Get high on Jesus” T-Shirt? If we cease to look at the world around us as something that we need to flee, and the Church as a way to cloister ourselves, but look at everything and everyone as an opportunity to experience and express Christ.. well I wonder if this would even happen?”

I think we are all sick of this repackaging nonsense. This is why I can’t stand Christian bookstores with all their duplicated Jesus paraphernalia knock-offs. We are on the same side on this one, so hold the friendly fire. I’ve had enough of “Let’s make our worship band sound like Nirvana” – rather than “Let’s create a whole new genre of music because the Creator lives inside of us!” We need to create, rather than to repackage. We need to set the standard, rather than duplicate. But is it possible that drug culture has simply “repackaged” something that originally belonged to the church? I am talking about recovering true, authentic experience – not imitating the counterfeit. Drugs imitate and copy the trance experiences of the apostles and the ecstasies of the mystics. They attempt to substitute deep spiritual and emotional needs for interior (and exterior) pleasure. John Piper is completely right that we are “created for holy pleasure.” In getting “whacked up,” am simply living out his theology to the furthest possible extreme. Holy joy is not a “repackaged” version of Prozak. The opposite is true. The issue here is precedence. Prozac is counterfeiting divine joy. Crack is already counterfeiting the bliss of the cross. Jesus is not the duplicator. It is satan/the world/the bad guys who are already trying to repackage the spiritual experience with their naughty schemes (shame on them). If you taste the real deal, you will not want the artificial substitute. Furthermore, we are not comparing God to drugs. The world has already made this comparison by presuming that a drugged lifestyle has more immediate pleasure than what is afforded by the Living God. I am simply recovering what was stolen.

Mike: I can follow what you’re saying here…I think…even though I’d still prefer to speak from the relatively original language & matrix developed for divine intoxication by the Christian mystical tradition rather than the drug culture – how un-missional of me? But hey, we’ll talk about that more on Wednesday, our final slated discussion day. For now I’ll bring it back to the children.

I mean, adults with discernment can tell the difference between the real and the counterfeit, right, but I’m a little worried that little kids (especially ones in other countries) might not know any better and get the wrong idea and start drinking and doing drugs and stuff, at an even earlier age than they normally might. Please give me your take on this – especially if you think I’m way off-base.

John: Let’s talk the issue of children. Kids are going to learn about drugs sooner than later; better at home than on the streets. But furthermore, what if we give them the “real deal” first, so that they are not tempted by the substitute? What if our kids learn to have an interior satisfaction on the pleasures of God, before drugs ever become a shadowy temptation? What if kids taste the presence of the real Holy Spirit before the duplicate ever comes along? What if they learn about visionary experiences before they are ever tempted by hallucinogens?

Whaddaya think parents, would-be Dr. Phils, Dr. Spocks, Dr. Dobsons? Will teaching your kids to savor the shekinah keep ‘em away from coke and meth? And what does it mean to be a divine original in a world of spiritual copycats? More tomorrow!

Note: If you’re just tuning in, this post is part of a series exploring new-pneumatology and emerging expressions of church. Here are the rest:

(Holy) Ghosts of Revivals Past

Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction?

What Is the Future of the Prophetic?

Guest Blog – John Crowder Speaks!

Crowder & Morrell Dialogue: What About the Fam? (Or, ‘Sex-Crazed Charismatics?’)

Crowder & Morrell: Charismissional – What About The Poor?

Crowder & Morrell Final: Sweet Mystical Communion

No new Crowder-Morrell post today – enjoy the Lord’s Day. If you must read my blog (God bless you!), let’s catch you up on the nu-pneumatic/emerging church dialogue we’ve been having this week, as well as some classic posts from the ‘ol archives that you might not be aware of.

First off for our new readers, some tie-ins I did last year looking at this whole phenomenon we describe as worship:

‘Atheist’ Worship

Restoring Worship: An Example

New Worship for a New Covenant

All this discussion about letting go and letting God be God in the more visceral, intuitive, and gut-levels of our beings elicited a phone-in comment from a friend at The Bridge in Portland. I don’t want to steal his thunder should he decide to comment, but in essence he’s been really, really into my initial post on Spirit-led deconstruction and John Crowder’s subsequent responses. To paraphrase, he said “What if the emergent movement could be known not just for our deep, insightful rethinking of theology and praxis; what if we could have fun, get silly, and let go in a way that modernity couldn’t? What if we’re missing out on some of God’s own re-thinking of our lives and agendas?”

This was funny to me, coming from a guy in The Bridge PDX, which is one of the most emotionally healthy and expressive emerging churches I’m aware of. Maybe the Sons of Thunder could thunder under The Bridge, bringing their heavy drunken glory to Brewtopia? I might fly out for that!

I haven’t danced in the aisles at worship in years and years, but I totally could – head and heart in rhythm – treated to a spirit and vibrancy and heartfelt integrity like this:

Their roving freeform worship band is Agents of Future. Their YouTube playlist can be found here; even better sound-quality songs can be found on their Myspace page – I particularly recommend “Nothing in the Way” and “I’ve Tasted You.”

Update: Here’s the complete post directory:

(Holy) Ghosts of Revivals Past

Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction?

What Is the Future of the Prophetic?

Guest Blog – John Crowder Speaks!

Crowder & Morrell Dialogue: What About the Fam? (Or, ‘Sex-Crazed Charismatics?’)

Crowder & Morrell: Kids & Cocaine Jesus?

Crowder & Morrell: Charismissional – What About The Poor?

Crowder & Morrell Final: Sweet Mystical Communion

Maybe today, wherever we are, and whatever we believe about pneumatology, we can sing our hearts out to the One who makes our hearts beat, saying ‘namaste‘ to the Sacred Pneuma in our midst, preferably inhabiting some near and dear people we just can’t live without.

Namaste, friends. Selah. And shalom.

Over the next several days, John and I will have a 3-4 part dialogue about some questions and concerns that occurred to me about their lives and ministry. Some are specific for them in their unique ministry, and others are general questions I’d have if I was talking to any itinerant prophetic minister or revivalist in this Spirit-saturated stream of faith. I learned a ton; read on…

Mike: So John, what do you’re your and Ben’s wives think about all this recent ministry? Particularly yours, John! I mean, with four kids and all, being out all the time at Holy Ghost House Parties with beautiful sisters in Christ all around…itinerant ministry of any kind can be tough, but poured out in this fun ‘party’ manifestation, I’ll bet it’s extra challenging. Too often we only hear from the ‘alpha-male’ front-line ministers (when the ministers happen to be male)…what do the wimmin think??

John: Not sure why you ask this, but I have a hunch … Of course, my wife can speak for herself [Ooh! Can we have her do a guest blog?], but she loves the wildness of God. She often gets more plastered in the love of God than I do. She has seen me dry, bored and performance oriented. And she very much prefers the joyful, whacked, spiritually inebriated John much better. It does wonders for a marriage when the two of you are actually happy all the time (not just pretending to be so). Understand for starters that we are NOT Pentecostal, just because we interact with Holy Spirit. So you have to do away with all those old AG/holy roller mindsets of dominating women and forcing them to play the part of pastor’s wife (Pentecostal churches on the whole don’t like us very much, by the way). By this, I mean we are not chauvinistic abusers who keep our wives’ heads covered, barefoot and pregnant. We do not take the Mars Hill approach at all in this regard. The first person I ever ordained was a woman. We think the entire family needs to be integrated into the things of the Spirit.

Mike: Very cool. The family that drinks together…It’s nice to know she’s ‘with you’ in this adventure.

John: I would like to say that in terms of healthy families, marriages, sexual purity and other similar issues (if this is what you are hinting at), then there is a tremendous misconception (lie) among non-charismatics that all Spirit-filled persons somehow lack character and integrity in these areas. I would like to see a statistic on this, because it is simply not fact. I would contend that the opposite is true. It is not a common thread that spiritually gifted/charismatic people are shallow in the area of personal integrity, character and taking care of their families. This has been a common, baseless judgment coined off the back of a few televangelist scandals in the ‘80s. This “character argument” is really just an excuse for many non-charismatics NOT to pursue the Holy Spirit. I’ve even heard people say “I don’t need the anointing, I just want to have good character.” How silly is that? The anointing is the very unction of God the Holy Spirit Himself! How arrogant to think we can muster up good character on our own, without the help of God. Only the Spirit of God can sustain a healthy marriage.

Mike: Ah, geez. Now I feel like a tool. I’m sorry for how my questions about your wives seemed. (And by ‘your wives’ I mean ‘yours and Ben’s’ – I’m not adding a fresh accusation of polygamy!) I was not insinuating unfaithfulness on your part – far more mundane than that, I just wondered if it’d be tough for your wife if you were on the road and she was home with the kids – especially since you’re so handsome and are bringing the Rave Anointing!

No problem. I didn’t take it personally, just thought you may be addressing the whole assumption that charismatics all have a fornication hobby. Not that many don’t, it’s just that the problem probably cuts across denominational lines.

Incidentally, Christianity Today agrees with your assessment of the Charismatic Playboy myth. Attempting to remove foot firmly from mouth, tell me more about the kiddies…

John: As for the kids, we think it is a grievous sin for them ever to be bored in church. The last thing we want is to give them the wrong impression that God is not an eternal source of excitement and holy pleasure. Children are a great indicator of whether the Spirit of God is really moving in your midst. If the kids are engaged – if they want to be in the services and they are demonstrating a real hunger for God on their own initiative – I think that something is happening right. If they are bored, then so is God. You can brainwash a kid to believe a theology, but you cannot brainwash them enough to enjoy God. We try to learn from our children. We listen to them, because they are continually saying prophetic things. There is really no age difference in the Kingdom. All of us will live for millions of years, so why is it difficult to learn from someone who is just 25 years younger than us? Everyone plays an integral part. We do not view the children as tag-a-longs. Every itinerate minister you see throughout history burned their family out because they could not find ways to engage the entire family in the ministry.

Mike: Yeah, I was that a lot with visiting ministers growing up in Assemblies of God churches. I even sometimes wonder how my emerging public-speaker friends do it. Any practical tips on keeping your family and your ministry?

John: I turn down many conferences and ministry opportunities in order to pace my schedule for the family. For us, family is a priority over ministry. In fact, I really don’t give much of a rip about “building ministry” in general anyway. I just stay whacked up, and somehow I get invitations to speak. If I cared about building a ministry empire, I would sure do things a lot differently and tone things down a lot more. I don’t care about making things palatable, I just want to experience the Lord and help others to do so.

Mike: Alrighty John. Tomorrow we get to talk about all that whacked-out druggie anointing that’s ticking so many people off!

Note: If you’re just tuning in, this post is part of a series exploring new-pneumatology and emerging expressions of church. Here are the rest:

(Holy) Ghosts of Revivals Past

Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction?

What Is the Future of the Prophetic?

Guest Blog – John Crowder Speaks!

Crowder & Morrell: Kids & Cocaine Jesus?

Crowder & Morrell: Charismissional – What About The Poor?

Crowder & Morrell Final: Sweet Mystical Communion

See below for complete directory of Crowder – Morrell conversation! 

And this is why I value talking to people and not just about their ideas, beliefs, and actions. Dialogue opens up so many doors of mutual understanding, respect, and maybe even partnership in common endeavor, despite (or because of!) the real differences that exist at the end of the day. When I posted Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction? I emailed John Crowder and Ben Dunn privately to a.) Let them know about the post and b.) Let them know that in addition to my cautious and idiosyncratic support for what they were doing, I had some questions and concerns. John quite graciously took time from his busy schedule to write me a novel in response – something I’ve not often seen any challenged people in ministry do, from any stream of the family of faith. I’m quite taken with the breadth, depth, and tone of John’s response, even while some differences of spirituality and praxis remain. So without further ado, I’m going to hand today’s blog entry over [with only the barest occasional interspersions-and hyperlinks-from me]. Ladies and gentlemen, Brother John Crowder!

Hi Mike – Thanks for writing and thanks for what you do. Enjoyed your blog and we would love to contribute something for you. Feel free to use any of these rambling thoughts for the site. [Thank you, John! I shall use them all. And if this is how you ramble, I'd hate to see you focused!]

I am normally quite busy for something like this (doing my circus road show in church basements all over the world! : ) ) but I appreciate your honest questions and know that you reach a lot of people who have a clear hunger for the things of the Spirit. We are quite familiar with the emergent church, and while not actively involved in Emergent as an “entity” we are having a lot of fun watching the fur fly, as we seem to have inadvertently broken a few sacred paradigms over the past few weeks. It’s an entertaining ride. It was exciting to garner a full expose in the Wittenburg Door – a magazine I have secretly loved for years! I feel like I need to buy a white suit now and preach from a golden throne to live up to all this notoriety. We also got an indirect slap on the wrist from Charisma this month in the editorial (for smoking Jehovah-wanna and Baby Jesus). When it rains it pours!

You hit the nail on the head in discussing the deconstruction of Pentecostalism – and kudos for addressing the topic of “emergent snobbery,” something the emergent camp has long winked at, if not openly coddled (especially toward “Spirit-filled” ministries – how dare those charismatics have a brain!)

[Mike: I think this is actually a little more complex than that - of course, wouldn't I, being emergent and all? ; ) But really. A whole term has been coined, 'post-charismatic,' (not 'anti') to describe many 'emergers' who love the Holy Spirit but who feel down-and-out about many aspects of Pentecostal and charismatic culture. In our own efforts at deconstruction, we've tried very hard not to throw the - ahem - baby out with the bathwater, but I know we've fallen short in many areas.]

I would love to talk about this just a little, as well as to give a brief anti-apologetic on the ongoing blogger fray, before getting to your questions.

[Yes! Please do.]

Apologia

Obviously, there are many bloggers better educated than I, who have an edge on what God Almighty is doing, who will never be able to acknowledge His movements outside their own personal experience (Bless their hearts). I would not waste time trying to convince someone who already has all the answers. For this reason, we do not engage in defensive diatribes (not trying to be negative, just honest). But I do love constructive (& deconstructive) controversy in the name of our Lord. Rather than offer up an apology to anyone who has a beef with us, we have just chosen never to defend ourselves. A form of radical pacifism I suppose, or else its just too much work to keep track of it all, considering the trail of carnage we leave behind us. Our nonresponsiveness on the blog circuit should not be mistaken as elitism – we do not assume ourselves too posh to combat these rampant strikes at our good names (My favorite are those blogs which end with the classic pomo courtesy tag at the end: After viciously lashing out at us, they say … “Or maybe I’m missing something and Crowder is right after all.” True Christian humility, I am sure).

[Aww, Steve's not so bad. Next time you're in C-Town hanging out with Ricky J and Company, look him up. He'll have a drink with you - though spirits or Holy Spirit on tap, that y'all will have to work out!]

Anyway Mike, you are the first person to approach us directly, so we appreciate the chance to talk.

[And I appreciate that you're talking!]

Of course, nasty emails are common for us, but I know where the delete button is. We’ve found the freedom in not caring about reputation or having to spend ourselves on the already satiated. I’m too addicted to the Wine Room to care about that stuff. And there are so many thousands of hungry people who want to experience God in fresh new ways, why get sidetracked by a few resilient critics? Other than this forum, folks should know we won’t be scrambling to correct every inaccuracy that floats around about us on the web. In fact, we like to intentionally chuck rocks at the hornet’s nest, just to stir things up all the more, then run away snickering at the mess we’ve made.

Just wanted to clear that up, so that readers know our motives in writing this. We want to be available to the thirsty, but this is not a knee-jerk reaction to some cyber-persecution. Whenever we get defensive, we cease to be on the offense. Life is too short to continually be explaining yourself.

I honestly believe that the age of apologetics is over, and the age of activation has come. Experience is more important than explanation. Not that explanation is irrelevant, but it is subsidiary. When we look at the ministry of Jesus, He rarely gave an explanation, prior to the experience. Mystery must be embraced before it is explicated. Jesus only explained Himself to the inner circle who were truly hungry. To those on the outside, he always spoke in parables and enigmas. It is almost as if he put up an intentional roadblock to the minds of men, offending their thoughtwork in order to reveal their hearts. Consider when He told the multitudes to essentially “Eat Me.” He knew that half of them would walk away, but He said it anyway.

What we see today is a lot of people looking for a Pneumatology without the Pneuma. They want the package without the Toy. What if God is intentionally making the package raw and offensive to these, in order to reveal their true colors? Maybe the package is irrelevant, as long as we’ve got the Toy.

It’s Hubris but it Makes Me Feel Cool!

Let me say something quickly about the emergent movement, while I’ve got your ear:

[Please do. You've got it! The emergoblogosphere is listening.]

While I have long acknowledged the existence of postmodernity as a reality of the age, this very intellectual elitism on which you have commented is one of the chief reasons I have been hesitant to dive headlong into the trendy “fad” aspect of the emergent discussion. I should add at the onset that I would not consider myself “emergent” anymore than I would consider myself “charismatic.” But both camps try to pin me down into the other. In the same way, you could say I am neither catholic nor protestant (I am not protesting anything; I am pursuing Someone). Like most emergents, I reject labels. Without the restraints of such labels, we are more apt to truthfully address the sacred cows in every respective camp. My orthodoxy may not be as generous as McLaren’s, but I am not ignorant of the discussion and appreciate the influx of new ideas. This openness is a God-given dispensation, but it must be guarded in the context of true humility. Whether they like to admit it or not, many emergents are entrenched in a religious package of trying to look cool and trying to impress a select audience with their perceived edginess of theological progression. The melee of anti-charisma these past few weeks is an indicator of a deeper problem. It surfaces clearly, for example, when they do not have a grid for someone who comes along with an outlandish orthopraxy.

[I'm not gonna say much here...but...most of those who came out strongest in response to some YouTubes they saw of you, actually are charismatic folks who would consider themselves 'moderate' and also in some way 'emerging.' I hope to be hearing from some of youse in the comments below...]

To many emergents, some of my colleagues and myself will always be a challenge to the “new” intellect-based models of Christianity. I believe the intellectual pursuit of mystery is intrinsically modern in nature, by the way. It is an old hag carried over from the Age of Reason/Enlightenment, or shall we say further back – it is gnostic in origin (the idea that we are saved by knowledge is perhaps the very antithesis of the gospels, which say we are saved by the finished work of Jesus Christ). Gnosis is not the gateway that reveals mystery – faith is. And so for all the talk of pressing into terra nova, I believe there is inherent danger of building an intellectual religion of non-religion that is rooted in “ideas” and “discussion-only” without true, tangible interaction with the divine. I love the emergent notion of pulling outside the ecclesiastical boundaries of dead formality. But without radical possession by the Holy Spirit, we are simply “moving out” of something, and never “entering into” Someone. I do not see a majority of emergents discussing personal, supernatural experiences with this God we so glibly talk about, though many are quick to lay charges of charlatanry on anyone who does (by supernatural experiences I mean far more than the simple, goose-bumped quiet time, as beautiful as they may be. What is so far-fetched about healings, dead-raisings and even more extreme miracles, if we claim to know Big Pappa Himself?). I do not say this of ALL emergents, only those who are quick to shoot with their religiously non-religious anti-bullets. This criticism of what we do not understand (or have maybe never experienced firsthand) can be the most detrimental element to our spiritual walk. It is the very essence of hubris.

A Lack of Discernment

According to the recent blogstorm surrounding us, we are accused of being anti-intellectual, if not throwing our “discernment” right out the window (love the graphic, Robby Mac. God still loves you). I’ve previously made the point that I am rubber and the critics are glue, but nevertheless, allow me to respond to this topic. Let me say for one that “discernment” is not an intellectual tool made up of theological principles and opinions. I would die for good theology, and we all need sound doctrine. But discernment comes not from the head, but from the belly. If I may be so fundamental as to use a scriptural example, consider Luke 1 when Zechariah (a priest highly educated in theology) encounters an angel. Zack’s discernment of this encounter was so poor that he essentially asked the angel to “prove himself.” Zechariah, a well-studied priest, should have comprehended that this experience was from God. Because of his spiritual dullness, doubt, fears or all of the above, he was struck mute. He should have been on the cutting edge, but he missed it.

But hold the phone! In this very same chapter, a young, simple, likely uneducated girl named Mary had a similar angelic encounter. She lacked the theological armory and Princeton training of Zechariah, but she could taste something of Heaven on this experience. Mary was given a much more far-fetched word: you will give birth not merely to a prophet, but to the Son of God Himself! How crazy! Yet somehow, because of her intimate relationship with the Lord, her hunger or her faith – she instinctively discerned that this encounter was legitimate. She did not say “prove it to me.” She said “tell me more.” She said “let it be according to your word.” Her discernment was greater, because she intimately knew God enough to recognize how He felt, tasted and smelled. She had been with Him, not merely read about him. She could smell the cassia and aloes of Heaven on this encounter, and she jumped right in without having to process it. She discerned correctly. Not from her head or her theology. From her belly.

Intellectual discernment is a holdover from modernism. Moreover, it is paranoia-based (always focused on keeping the devil out, but never recognizing God when He is trying to come in). This spirit of fear is the bread and butter of the heresy hunter pages. The greatest discernment you will ever have is to be able to recognize God, not the devil. Anyone, the most depraved sinner, can point out the devil. But will we recognize God when He is trying to come in? We should embrace Him, even at the cost of our present level of understanding. I want to intimately experience Him. And I trust Him enough to explain later, if an explanation is even necessary. I would rather my spirit and heart to fully engage in experiential interaction, and allow my mental paradigms to catch up later. Is this anti-intellectual? Far from it. It is simply putting the mind and its Greco-rationalistic structures in their place, secondary to heart. What many consider “intellectual” is actually mental insanity (1 Cor. 2:14-15). True sanity only comes through conscious-altering epiphanies with God.

God wants the intellect to bloom and flourish. He does want a renaissance of fresh ideas and creativity to revolutionize not just the face of Christianity, but to transform all of society in a holistic fashion. But how arrogant to think our minds can be supernaturally renewed at such a colossal fashion apart from the very Spirit of God Himself! Who are we to limit God to the academic diagnoses of the seminary, or to the reading of books? I know Who I have experienced. I have seen His power. I have tasted His freedom. I’m done trying to make sense of it all. I am in for the ride.

If I am a nutbar for shaking on the floor – and yet I am experiencing the love of Jesus – then count me with the crazies. I am tired of running endless mental circles and playing religious games. The time for playing games is over. The time has now come to play games.

And there you have it, friends! Not quite the staggering HolyGhostDrunk response many anticipated, eh? So whaddaya think? Keep it respectful, please, but be free. And yes – there’s more! Over the next week, John and I will be discussing, one at a time, all the “Yeah, but…” ’s that occurred to me as I dipped into my past and their present concerning the Holy Spirit’s wild side.

Note: If you’re just tuning in, this post is part of a series exploring new-pneumatology and emerging expressions of church. Here are the rest:

(Holy) Ghosts of Revivals Past

Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction?

What Is the Future of the Prophetic?

Crowder & Morrell Dialogue: What About the Fam? (Or, ‘Sex-Crazed Charismatics?’)

Crowder & Morrell: Kids & Cocaine Jesus?

Crowder & Morrell: Charismissional – What About The Poor?

Crowder & Morrell Final: Sweet Mystical Communion

]]> http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/prophetic-movement-futures-wheres-it-headed/ Thu, 29 May 2008 03:59:07 +0000 zoecarnate http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/prophetic-movement-futures-wheres-it-headed/

What great interaction on Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction! I will be interacting with all of your thoughtful replies soon. And while that post outlined my affirmations of this new bacchanal of the Spirit, I still have a few caveats, which I will be airing this week. But in the spirit of filial kindness or what have you, I’ve emailed Ben and John personally in hopes of getting them to give me some feedback first. I want to hear from them in their own words – whether in the tongues of men or angels.

I know they’re probably busy, so I’m giving them a coupla more days; they can even have a guest blog if they want.

In the meantime I wanted to share with you something my friend/professor/mentor Jay Gary wrote, reflecting on the US & European pneumatic prophetic movement. In studying Strategic Foresight, I interact with future possibilities through a variety of lenses: human, ecological, technological, economic, political and – yes – spiritual futures. I’m often asked by my charismatic and Pentecostal friends how my studies relate to the revelatory spiritual gifts of prophecy, words of wisdom, knowledge, etc…

I have yet to articulate a fully satisfying response. But the good Professor Gary – scholar, consultant, and futurist extraordinaire – sheds some light. Read on!

Do You Hear Voices in Your Head? – Jay Gary

It is not normal to hear voices in your head, at least in my culture. Yet many of my friends claim to. If you confessed to ‘auditory hallucinations’ you would normally be diagnosed as borderline schizophrenia by your psychiatrist.

Among psychologists there is little agreement as to why people hear voices. Most relate the experience to our unconscious minds, which presumably aims to resolve our past troubles. Today there are dozens of support networks to help people learn to cope with their voices and the problems that may lie behind them. Not every one who hears voices is mentally ill, nor do they drown their children, like Andrea Yates.

Recently I spent two days with a growing number of true believers who aim to induce each other into ‘hearing voices.’ They are part of what Pentecostal Christians call “prophetic ministry.” They claim the practice of listening to the Holy Spirit goes back centuries to biblical prophets such as Elijah, Daniel, or even Jesus. Granted, few claim to “hear voices” in the literal sense, but they do claim to hear God through the “inner voice” of their spirit.

While receiving personal guidance has been widely practiced in Christianity, especially among Quakers or Friends through the “inner light,” the modern day prophetic claims it receives guidance far beyond personal matters. A contemporary web site, the “Elijah List” aggregates daily prophetic “words” to a subscription base of over 130,000, about matters ranging from church sloth to U.S. foreign policy crises.

Few books offer an objective view of the prophetic movement. Most are written to the choir, like Pytches and Buckingham’s 1991 account, “Some said it thundered: A personal encounter with the Kansas City prophets.” As an insider to this sub-culture, Clifford Hill has written a fairly balanced overview entitled “Prophecy past and present” (Vine, 1989).

Some boast the 21st century prophetic is part of a new breed of believer, who is spiritual charged to take back what’s been lost to a secular culture. While the warfare motif is strong across the prophetic, which some number up to 500,000 in the U.S., there is a modulating bridal dynamic at work, calling believers to recapture a new innocence with their Lord.

Few demonstrate this self-reflective, “bride of Christ” focus better than Graham Cooke. Recently I went to hear Cooke, after being prodded by a friend for nearly four years. The conference was packed wall to wall with 600 people, mostly suburban 40- and 50-somethings.

Following an extended session of worship the first morning, Cooke gave a 100-minute talk. His British manner was very disarming. His conversational style and anti-institutional rhetoric was the polar opposite of a TV evangelist. In taking about upgrading one’s life, he spoke in street-language as appropriate to an Irish pub, as much to a church. I was surprised also, that unlike other prophetic superstars, he did not engage in any “called-out” prophecy to his audience, made famous by psychic medium John Edward, in a parallel world to Christian fundamentalism.

To me Cooke’s message was surprisingly refreshing–and future-oriented. He spoke about living out out of our dreams, nurtured by God’s love. He talked about “suddenlies” or encounters with life that re-orient us to who we can become, not just who we have been.

Perhaps taking a cue from Reggie McNeal’s book, “The Present-Future Church,” Cooke labeled these as “present-future” experiences, rather than “present-past” fixations. To deal with our baggage, the Holy Spirit must speak to us from the future. The Word renews our identity, and makes way for us to inherit a larger work and service. In turn we are called to relate to our spouses or relatives as emerging, in their present-future potential, rather than present-past stereotype.

While the main sessions went from dawn to dusk, the real action was in the back room…

Continue Reading “Do You Hear Voices In Your Head?” …

Update: John Crowder responds!

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V – Final

What in the name of Pete & Kester is going on? Avant-garde “Holy Ghost house parties” filled with dancing, drinking shots of blessed holy water, and getting “stoned in the Spirit.” Pop cultural references – both muted and obvious – to Cheech & Chong, and Talladega Nights from the pulpit…er, the dance floor in which the speakers convert staid sanctuaries into the threshing floor for something quite different.

So what am I describing? A bleeding-edge European emerging church, like iKon or Moot or Vaux? An alt.worship collective? Perhaps the postmodern revivalist Church Basement Road Show?

Nope.

It’s John Crowder, occasionally joined by his friend Ben Dunn, provoking their native charismatic milieu and (it would seem) making more than a few emerging types squirm while they’re at it.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. See how a couple of these strike you. The first one, from a meeting with John and Ben:

Now this one, which I think they would see as a ‘prophetic satire’:

Whaddaya think? Steve Knight, in his post The New Charismatics? sums up what I think is a typical (and for him as a non-charismatic, quite generous) take on all this:

“I’d like to introduce you to John Crowder. I’m tempted to describe this guy as an “Emergent” pentecostal…[he] represent[s] a stream of Christianity that I, frankly, have very little experience or contact with: the charismatic, speaking in tongues, no-holds-barred, barking like a dog “in the Spirit” stream…The Crowders’ tagline, “a postmodern prophetic ministry,” is another emergent connection that I find intriguing (although I’m not exactly sure what is “postmodern” about the Crowders’ ministry)…John Crowder literally acts “high on Jesus,” laughing awkwardly and squinting as if his eyes have become dilated, etc. At one point, he says he’s “possessed by joy.” One has to wonder if he isn’t “possessed” indeed…As an emergent Christian, the last thing I want to do is put God in a box and say, “God can’t operate this way.” So instead, I’m simply asking some questions (as good emergents do): “Does God really operate this way?” Or rather, “Why would God operate this way?”

Excellent question, Steve! And I’ll confess: The videos made me – a long-time (post?)charismatic – a little uncomfortable too. But more on that next post. Today, I want to examine what I think could be a bit of unintentional emergent snobbery, as well as put out a (de)constructive way to look at the ‘bizarre creative miracles’ of Crowder & Dunn.

First let me say that I’ve never met John Crowder before, though my friends at Destiny Image published his 2006 book The New Mystics. As a wannabe contemplative, I agree with Carl McColman that this book is an intriguing offering by a fiery charismatic guy looking at a sweep of church history oft-ignored by many Protestant and Evangelical types: the mystics of the church, and their contribution to vibrant Christian spirituality. (He also spends considerable time with Pentecostal/charismatic history, including the controversial Voice of Healing revivals of the 1950s and 60s, whose mantle folks like Crowder and Bentley claim) Crowder’s sweeping, journalistic style makes The New Mystics a good read. And though it might seem to some who read this book that Crowder has strayed far from the contemplative/discernment insights that he expounded in his own book (ie, his saying “I used to have a teaching gift. Now I have a good gift of being struck mute in the middle of a service.”), I think that’s too simplistic a read on him. He still believes in mystical maturity, and coherent teaching, as this segment attests:

So what do we make of ‘tokin’ the Ghost’ and ‘redeeming drug culture for Jesus’? Personally, I think that we emergent types could very easily look down our noses at all this unfairly. In other words, if something this bizarre happened at iKon with a note of irony, we’d be applauding it. But if it happens with our (by our lights) theologically un-enlightened cousins, with apparent seriousness, we’re up in arms. Not that we shouldn’t be curious and express concern if that’s our honest reaction–but what if we’re not giving God enough credit as an actor in this Vaudevillian drama?

As my buddy Spencer likes to ask, what if (that’s really the only part of this sentence that’s a Burke quote) this is actually the Holy Spirit deconstructing Pentecostalism?!

Think of it this way: At its most rancorous, the “Spirit-filled” world has been comprised of sideshow entertainers and hucksters, memorialized in pop culture by everything from The Grapes of Wrath to Robert Duvall’s The Apostle to this:

But even The Apostle is from the 1990s; because this big-tent-revival worship style is from a bygone era, it’s recently attained its own level of collective non-scrutiny (read: polite boredom) by the culture at large. And among the faithful, once-controversial styles and practices have gained the respectability (and the accompanying non-reflection) that comes with time.

So enter the 21st century, when twenty-something DIY charismatics (and the charismatic movement is always its most luminescent when it’s DIY) start appropriating a 1990s “drunk in the Spirit” Toronto-esque spirituality with aspects of contemporary culture (as opposed to early 20th-century culture) thrown in for good measure! So instead of the circus and the theater being the cultural scaffolding on which a move of the Spirit is built, we have Punk’d, SNL, party culture and Talladehga Nights. The result is a praxis of the intoxicating beauty and presence of God being available via an interaction of holy imagination, in which one tokes a baby Jesus figurine, does shots of “Godka,” or drops (invisible, but apparently potent) “‘taste & see’ tabs” on your tongue.

Absurdity? Blasphemy? Charlatanry? Maybe. But people who operate in ‘the prophetic’ are sometimes inspired to do bizarre, demonstrative, symbolic gestures to become living parables, are they not? Ezekiel was called to cook meals over human feces (he managed to bargain God down to animal dung to be a tad more kosher) Getting naked was the order of the day for Isaiah, Micah, and Saul–how would that fly in church? Jeremiah yoked himself up to a cart like a mule. Hosea married a sex worker to make a point. Even Jesus would engage in behavior that gave him the rep of being “a prophet like one of the old prophets.” (Mark 6:15) While I’m not ready to say “Pass the Jehovah-juana” yet (I’m not the only one), Dunn & Crowder’s outré style doesn’t inherently short circuit my spirituality or my praxis.

To look at the ‘emergent snobbery’ idea from another lens: Most emerging folks I know are all about creativity and the arts in worship gatherings. But while for us it might look like something carefully planned – or at least a stage set – charismatics are masters of the impromptu (even if it becomes a learned impromptu over time, and is always poured into a certain cultural wineskin). Further, a staple of radical charismatic culture from way back (at least from the ’90s, maybe before, I dunno) is “offending the religious spirit,” at least in rhetoric if not reality. So Dunn and Crowder, they seem actually creative, and actually offensive.

But does the emporer have any clothes, you ask? Perhaps you didn’t think that speaking in tongues could involve inonations ob-la-dee, ob-la-da. Well, here’s where deliberate creativity and spontaneity could be playing with each other in the Spirit. I have no argument for the idea that some of their altered states are put-ons. But if we’re honest, isn’t much of our spirituality ‘fake it ’till you make it’? They could be pre-empting being ’stoned in the Spirit,’ but that could be the catalyst to truly enter into that state. I think intention creates actuality many times. It might be too postmodern of me, but I think that, when it comes to spiritual manifestations, what we expect/act out of ends up being made real in our midst–for better or worse. It’s how spirituality is activated.

I have a genuine affection for the charismatic church of my youth. And I long to see a de-cultured, re-cultured (post)charismatic expression firmly situated in the web of emergent spirituality. I care very little for the culture, but along with Jamie Smith I love the core theopraxis assertion: That God the Spirit is integrally involved in all reality, and is intimately stirring in our midst, here and now, in each unfolding moment. I think that even as we are entering a milieu beyond classical theism and its untenable dictates, we are simultaneously plunged into the powers of God’s new covenant world, spiritual enablings that the first-century sign-gifts were but a foretaste of. (Yes, this is an eschatological assertion) Not only am I not a cessationist, but I think we’re in an era of unparalleled possibility with regards to co-creating a new world with God, based on God’s good dream for the cosmos enabled by the amazing grace radiated from Christ.

But before we get to working with God’s 4-D Renaissance paintbrushes, we need to grow tired of the tinker-toys and the paint-by-numbers kits. To this end of (wholly) spirited deconstruction, I think that Ruah Hakodesh might well be using the John Crowders and Ben Dunns (and who knows? Lakelands and Todd Bentleys) of the world to explore, in a playful way, the potentials and limitations of the Pentecostal/charismatic experience.

At least, these are my thoughts at the moment, subject to change. But lest you think that I’ve chucked True Discernment™ and common sense for some undergrad literary-criticism approach to the spiritual health and vitality of roughly half of the planet’s Christians (yeah, about 1 billion globally are either charismatic or Pentecostal or both), I will air three concerns I have about Holy Ghost House Parties, next post. But for now, what do you make of all this?

I leave you with this final music video, from nu-charismatic artist T.R. Post, his new album “Chill & Refill.” I have to confess I love it:

Related blog roundup spanning the gamut of opinion:

Our Tall Skinny Kiwi Goes into it thrice, invoking yours truly on this last one. (Thanx for the love, Andrew!)

Be A Forerunner

Lyle B. Phillips – Heaven’s Snozberry Juice

Available Light thinks we shouldn’t even watch the stuff

Jesse Kade gets stoned in the Spirit

The Wittenburg Door is not pleased, and self-identifies as the “non-emergent Old Fart church.”

Robby Mac Mr. Post-Charismatic himself

Ed Cyzewski favorably explores the Biblical roots of revival

Oregon Mountaineer makes hay about El-Shaddai’s alleged breasts

Kingdom Grace is gracious as always

Brother Maynard Asks But Is It Revival?

Steve Knight, who kicked all this off, offers some additional thoughts via Emergent Village

…and Cynthia Clack reminisces from her Holy Spirit glory days but also raises some interesting questions regarding the power of suggestion, something I might get into next post.