Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Religious Fervor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Religious Fervor

    Nathaniel P. Morris (resident physician in psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine), wrote a blog entry for Scientific American a while back wherein he discusses some challenges in distinguishing religious fervor from mental illness.

    When interacting with believers displaying religious fervor, what criterion do you utilize to ensure that the individuals' religiosity is rooted in a genuine faith experience as opposed to mental illness? Please read the article and share your thoughts. Thank you.

  • #2
    I actually use an internal critique of their Worldview to see the consistency between their actions and and the faith they profess.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      Nathaniel P. Morris (resident physician in psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine), wrote a blog entry for Scientific American a while back wherein he discusses some challenges in distinguishing religious fervor from mental illness.

      When interacting with believers displaying religious fervor, what criterion do you utilize to ensure that the individuals' religiosity is rooted in a genuine faith experience as opposed to mental illness? Please read the article and share your thoughts. Thank you.
      I thought the article was rather brief and bland, and did not go into much depth.

      The topic is... unsettling, I guess. What constitutes "fervor"? In person, I'm a rather notoriously quiet person, but I prefer a church service with Psa. 149-150 ambience. That sort of thing is fairly common in some branches of Christianity, but I suspect someone who had never experienced anything but a traditional Lutheran or Presbyterian service might question the sanity.

      Johnny-Mac seems to consider all Pentecostals and Charismatics insane and/or demonized. Meanwhile, Craig Keener reports praying in tongues daily, sometimes for an hour or more, and affirms repeated positive personal experiences with holy laughter, while Ben Witherington recalls a concert at a Christian festival where occurred "cool" things such as people being slain in the Spirit. I'm a Pentecostal/Charismatic, and even as such, I'm a bit "iffy" about the "laughing" and "slaying" stuff.

      And then there's this. Today, even the vast majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics would consider most of this stuff bonkers. I know I would. But I don't have any good reason *why* I would.
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by NR
        Johnny-Mac seems to consider all Pentecostals and Charismatics insane and/or demonized.
        That is simply not true. I've been listening to him for 40 years and he has never said that. He fears that the WoF crowd, the NAR and other extreme types of Charismatics are mostly deceived, so they think they are believers when they are not, and that many in more mainstream Pentecostal groups are simply too focused on experience.

        He may think the leaders of the extreme groups have issues with demonic influences, but not the people who are deceive by those leaders.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EIrTS0vTyp8

        Justin Peters has excellent info on the extreme WoF and NAR type of groups.
        Last edited by mossrose; 06-02-2019, 10:50 AM.


        Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mossrose View Post
          That is simply not true. I've been listening to him for 40 years and he has never said that. He fears that the WoF crowd, the NAR and other extreme types of Charismatics are mostly deceived, so they think they are believers when they are not, and that many in more mainstream Pentecostal groups are simply too focused on experience.

          He may think the leaders of the extreme groups have issues with demonic influences, but not the people who are deceive by those leaders.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EIrTS0vTyp8

          Justin Peters has excellent info on the extreme WoF and NAR type of groups.
          We should probably just agree to disagree. However, if you want to fight about this, I'll oblige. Your clip falls firmly in the category of "damning with faint praise." Even in that marginally conciliatory clip, the only acceptable preachers he managed to mention by name were John Piper and Wayne Grudem -- both of them Calvinists and Patriarchalists.

          He is less charitable -- and IMO more honest about his actual attitudes in this one:

          While in your video he pretends to respect the traditional Pentecostal denominations, in mine he is more candid, noting that the "aberrant" theology had once been safely "contained" in those denominations, but then began to alarmingly "spread" to mainline evangelical churches.

          Take a look at this 2017 revisit of the 2013 "Strange Fire" Conference and book, and tell me honestly that he doesn't believe the vast majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics are unsaved. And incidentally, that goes way beyond what I said in my original post. I only said he considers us "insane or demonized"; I did not say he views us as infidels. But it is clear that he views our theology and practices as not only odd, but dangerously so, and considers it unlikely that many of us are genuine Christians.
          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

          Beige Federalist.

          Nationalist Christian.

          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

          Justice for Matthew Perna!

          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            We should probably just agree to disagree. However, if you want to fight about this, I'll oblige. Your clip falls firmly in the category of "damning with faint praise." Even in that marginally conciliatory clip, the only acceptable preachers he managed to mention by name were John Piper and Wayne Grudem -- both of them Calvinists and Patriarchalists.

            He is less charitable -- and IMO more honest about his actual attitudes in this one:

            While in your video he pretends to respect the traditional Pentecostal denominations, in mine he is more candid, noting that the "aberrant" theology had once been safely "contained" in those denominations, but then began to alarmingly "spread" to mainline evangelical churches.

            Take a look at this 2017 revisit of the 2013 "Strange Fire" Conference and book, and tell me honestly that he doesn't believe the vast majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics are unsaved. And incidentally, that goes way beyond what I said in my original post. I only said he considers us "insane or demonized"; I did not say he views us as infidels. But it is clear that he views our theology and practices as not only odd, but dangerously so, and considers it unlikely that many of us are genuine Christians.
            I'm not going to continue to argue with you. That clip is talking about the spread of abherrent theology out of the Pentecostal church into the mainstream. He is referring to extreme Charismatic behaviour, as is apparent in the Strange Fire messages. There are half a billion people involved in this movement worldwide, and you don't think the majority of them are unsaved? I have seen clips of some people in the movement who certainly appear demon possessed to me, and not because MacArthur said so.

            There are theological issues in the Charismatic Movement, always have been. He is calling them on it. And scripturally, he is right.

            Carry on.


            Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mossrose View Post
              I'm not going to continue to argue with you. That clip is talking about the spread of abherrent theology out of the Pentecostal church into the mainstream. He is referring to extreme Charismatic behaviour, as is apparent in the Strange Fire messages. There are half a billion people involved in this movement worldwide, and you don't think the majority of them are unsaved? I have seen clips of some people in the movement who certainly appear demon possessed to me, and not because MacArthur said so.

              There are theological issues in the Charismatic Movement, always have been. He is calling them on it. And scripturally, he is right.

              Carry on.
              I love you, mossy, but MacArthur is in no way confining his remarks to "extreme" charismatics, as the 2017 transcript NorrinRadd linked to makes clear. He points out Arminianism as an example of pernicious doctrine.
              Source: MacArthur

              I had problems with the charismatic movement as a student. I was relentless about adherence to Scripture; I felt everything had to be measured against the Word of God. And I saw even in the early forms of Pentecostalism, I saw some serious issues. It was Arminian in its theology. It put salvation in the hands of the sinner. It had a weak view of human depravity. It had a weak view of salvation, because you could be saved and be lost, and be saved and be lost; and it was the kind of theological milieu in which more error could easily rise. And then there was the Charles Finney thing and all of the excesses there.

              © Copyright Original Source



              For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

              Perhaps he's unaware that Arminians find scriptural support for their position.



              I know you like him, but what he's saying is quite broad-brush. Insinuating that Arminians are cavalier about lining up with scripture is shaving rather close to bearing false witness.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                I love you, mossy, but MacArthur is in no way confining his remarks to "extreme" charismatics, as the 2017 transcript NorrinRadd linked to makes clear. He points out Arminianism as an example of pernicious doctrine.
                Source: MacArthur

                I had problems with the charismatic movement as a student. I was relentless about adherence to Scripture; I felt everything had to be measured against the Word of God. And I saw even in the early forms of Pentecostalism, I saw some serious issues. It was Arminian in its theology. It put salvation in the hands of the sinner. It had a weak view of human depravity. It had a weak view of salvation, because you could be saved and be lost, and be saved and be lost; and it was the kind of theological milieu in which more error could easily rise. And then there was the Charles Finney thing and all of the excesses there.

                © Copyright Original Source



                For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                Perhaps he's unaware that Arminians find scriptural support for their position.



                I know you like him, but what he's saying is quite broad-brush. Insinuating that Arminians are cavalier about lining up with scripture is shaving rather close to bearing false witness.

                Dear friend, I grew up in an Arminian denomination, and I KNOW there are issues with their doctrine and scripture. It was after I started studying scripture on my own, before I started listening to MacArthur, that I realized there were problems.

                Anyway, I'm not going to argue anymore with anyone about this. I have no doubt of Norrin's faith, to the extent that I've seen on these boards.

                So, he and others may carry on as desired.

                Unsubscribing.


                Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                  I thought the article was rather brief and bland, and did not go into much depth.

                  The topic is... unsettling, I guess. What constitutes "fervor"? In person, I'm a rather notoriously quiet person, but I prefer a church service with Psa. 149-150 ambience. That sort of thing is fairly common in some branches of Christianity, but I suspect someone who had never experienced anything but a traditional Lutheran or Presbyterian service might question the sanity.

                  Johnny-Mac seems to consider all Pentecostals and Charismatics insane and/or demonized. Meanwhile, Craig Keener reports praying in tongues daily, sometimes for an hour or more, and affirms repeated positive personal experiences with holy laughter, while Ben Witherington recalls a concert at a Christian festival where occurred "cool" things such as people being slain in the Spirit. I'm a Pentecostal/Charismatic, and even as such, I'm a bit "iffy" about the "laughing" and "slaying" stuff.

                  And then there's this. Today, even the vast majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics would consider most of this stuff bonkers. I know I would. But I don't have any good reason *why* I would.
                  I agree it is unsettling. What with an invisible world more important than the physical -- chock full of invisible entities -- encouragement to use spiritual gifts, and the complexity of the human condition. I suppose treating one another with love and care is a good starting (and ending) point.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    I love you, mossy, but MacArthur is in no way confining his remarks to "extreme" charismatics, as the 2017 transcript NorrinRadd linked to makes clear. He points out Arminianism as an example of pernicious doctrine.
                    Source: MacArthur

                    I had problems with the charismatic movement as a student. I was relentless about adherence to Scripture; I felt everything had to be measured against the Word of God. And I saw even in the early forms of Pentecostalism, I saw some serious issues. It was Arminian in its theology. It put salvation in the hands of the sinner. It had a weak view of human depravity. It had a weak view of salvation, because you could be saved and be lost, and be saved and be lost; and it was the kind of theological milieu in which more error could easily rise. And then there was the Charles Finney thing and all of the excesses there.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                    Perhaps he's unaware that Arminians find scriptural support for their position.



                    I know you like him, but what he's saying is quite broad-brush. Insinuating that Arminians are cavalier about lining up with scripture is shaving rather close to bearing false witness.
                    I know I should be mature and forgiving, but frankly I am unwilling to let go of the fact that Sproul said Arminians are "barely" Christians, and only by a "felicitous inconsistency." (From the introduction to Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will.) If pressed, I wonder if JM would be even *that* charitable. It's one thing to disagree with a particular theological view, but take the position that Sproul showed there or that JM showed in those citations, one would have to say that scholars like Keener, Witherington, Fee, Roger Olsen, etc. are all incompetent or dishonest; I can't grasp that that view itself could be anything other than malicious or at best foolishly ignorant.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                      Nathaniel P. Morris (resident physician in psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine), wrote a blog entry for Scientific American a while back wherein he discusses some challenges in distinguishing religious fervor from mental illness.

                      When interacting with believers displaying religious fervor, what criterion do you utilize to ensure that the individuals' religiosity is rooted in a genuine faith experience as opposed to mental illness? Please read the article and share your thoughts. Thank you.
                      This is a bit of a tricky subject because what I might consider religious fervor bordering on mental illness, and what the good doctor might consider religious fervor that's indistinguishable from mental illness is likely going to be pretty far a part. After all (assuming he's not a Christian), "natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." That said, I've had plenty of run-ins with people who I consider excessively...fervored (is that a word?). Some of those people were right here on Theologyweb. Distinguishing between the two usually requires simply listening to them talk or rant for a bit. Being around them for awhile. Do they appear to be clear-minded on other topics? Does their religious zeal seem to be well ordered, healthy, and robust. Is their logical connective tissue between their beliefs and behavior? Does their zeal produce fruit in their lives, and the lives of others (specifically peace, patience, and self-control)? Does their behavior border on mania, especially outside of church or worship services? Are they the type of person who routinely goes 0 to 100 on topics they're passionate about?

                      It's been my experience that there are a few categories of people whose religious fervor moves past healthy Christian zeal, and over time I've been able to more or less get an idea of the warning signs using some of the criteria I listed above. And of course, I think the Holy Spirit can help give us intuition on these matters as well. Some of these categories include: The Christian who is super on fire for Christ... It's not at all uncommon for someone relatively new to the faith, maybe less than 3 years or so, to be extremely passionate about the faith, and that's fantastic, but over time most Christians temper that passion with wisdom and peacefulness. They are still as passionate as they were day one, but their passion moves from the external to the internal. I'm always a bit on guard when I run into someone who still acts as passionate as they were the first couple years they were a Christian. Experience has taught me that often these people burn so bright they burn themselves out, or worse, those same intense impulses lead them to rashly reject Christianity (for whatever reason), and become the John Loftus' of the world, being just as zealous, but now as persecutors and adversaries of the faith. Another category type is the person who holds tightly to irrational views on scripture or theology. There are plenty of popular views that I disagree with, but usually I can see the rationale in holding to them. But those who hold to illogical views like British Israelism, or KJV-Onlyism are beyond the pale. I've found that those who hold tightly to these irrational views typically hold other conspiracy minded views even outside of Christianity (they might be flat-earthers, believe in the moon-landing hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, pizza-gate, etc.). Another category-type is the person who, like the slave girl with a demonic spirit that Paul cast out, seem to move in manic circles about their faith, or the faith of others, to the point that it's a disturbing turn-off or distraction from others receiving the faith. I've seen these sorts of people, especially in some charismatic churches disrupting services with yelps of praise, or where they can't contain themselves emotionally, that were completely out of order. Now, I've been to charismatic churches long enough to know that they can get boisterous and emotional, and I'm not talking about that. Nor am I talking about the person who occasionally yells hallelujah, or "preach, pastor!," or whatever (though people not used to that type of service might ironically find that behavior nutty), no I'm talking about the types of people who are either mentally ill or spiritually demonized who cause enough commotion that the pastor or long time congregants who've seen everything raise their eyebrows at. I've seen people literally taken out of service by ushers because they lost control of their minds in a service where the pastor was simply reading out of the Bible in an otherwise silent room. I have no doubt that there's sometimes overlap in these categories, or that I'm missing a number of other categories, but as you mature in Christ you kinda know it when you see it, I suppose.
                      Last edited by Adrift; 06-04-2019, 10:35 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                        Nathaniel P. Morris (resident physician in psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine), wrote a blog entry for Scientific American a while back wherein he discusses some challenges in distinguishing religious fervor from mental illness.

                        When interacting with believers displaying religious fervor, what criterion do you utilize to ensure that the individuals' religiosity is rooted in a genuine faith experience as opposed to mental illness? Please read the article and share your thoughts. Thank you.
                        There is no “objective”, quantifiable test of these things, empirically available to all comers. Communion with God, however genuine, *cannot* be tested in the way one can test for the presence of an electric current or oxygen.

                        And if Christianity is true, that is what I would expect: tests applicable to this-worldly, quantitative entities don’t & can’t apply, because heavenly realities are not this-worldly. This elision of the sheer difference between two unlike kinds of experience is as naive (to put it nicely) as thinking one find Heaven by means of space-travel. The pure in heart, not the cosmonauts, shall see God. What people see, and how, depends largely on what sort of people they are.

                        Perhaps the only test applicable is that of the fruits of the alleged experience. And it gives moral certainty, not a certainty so solid that no possible counter-argument can prevail against it. Christ saves by the “folly” of the Cross which is wiser than men’s wisdom - not by dialectical brilliance, reason, or debate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree with others here that "by their fruits you will know them" (Mt. 7:20), meaning fruit as in the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). Though for some experiences, other tests might be good, let's say I think I can feel when other people are looking at me. Then I might close my eyes and have someone alternately look at me and look away, and tell them when I thought they were looking. Or if I hear a voice in my head, I can ask "Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?" (re 1 John 4:2-3). And so forth...

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment

                          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                          Working...
                          X