She's like this:
The video isn't new, but it's new to me. So much one could say. I'll let you say it.
Whom do we "thank," historically, for women in the pulpit? Charismatics, or liberals?
POSTSCRIPT:
Now one more thought, a serious thought, before we leave this one. Here it is:
That poor woman.
I don't mean, "Poor woman, married to Benny Hinn." I could mean that, sure; but then, maybe they're a real match for each other. And maybe that's not entirely good.
But poor woman. She's out of shape physically, she's out of breath like someone who's run a mile, and she's making an absolute fool, an absolute spectacle, of herself.
It would be as if I were put in front of a classroom full of doctoral candidates in biology, or physics. I'd make an absolute fool of myself. Anyone who knew anything would be able to tell, within five minutes at the most, that I had no concept of my subject whatever.
And that's Mrs. Hinn's position, only worse. She's put herself in a position that she should not occupy, a position with eternal consequences, one for which she will be judged severely (James 3:1ff.) -- and she pretty apparently hasn't the vaguest concept of what to do with it.
Now in my doctoral class, every student would be wondering one thing: who in Gehenna put this guy up here?
And so I blame Mrs. Hinn for choosing to do this. She has the same Bible you and I do. She could have read it, studied it, understood it, believed it, obeyed it.
But I also blame her husband for (presumably) encouraging her to do this. My wife is an astonishingly, formidably capable woman. But I love her, and would no more encourage her publicly to do one of those very few things that she had absolutely no ability to do, than I would harm one of my children.
And I also blame the Charismatic movement, or at least that huge portion of it that has granted canonical status to feelings, hunches, and urges, and has given the platform to folks like Mrs. Hinn and her con-man husband to make fools of themselves, imperil or damage eternal souls, and shame the name of Christ.
Posts
39 comments:
I'm thinking feminists.
I'll go with Kim.
How about rebels?
Weak men?
What, is Blogger charging you guys by the word or something?
Chris - 100% mate
tha't one crazy woman!
Reminds me of the church at Corinth. Anything said while "in the spirit" was considered OK, even cursing the name of Christ and Paul had to rebuke this(see 1 Corinthians 12:3).
You're all kind of going in a different direction than my question. Not bad, just different.
I said "historically." I meant, where did it start? There's Aimee Semple McPherson and Ellen G. White in the more or less charismatic camp, and a host of other charismatic types blaming the Spirit for making them disobey His own word. And then liberals -- "Bible, Schmible." Then "evangelicals" coming along saying, "Hey... look at all those people... okay, we're in!"
Anyone know any history on it?
Ummm...how about Eve? That's where it started historically.
I vote for Anne Marbury Hutchinson.
If not her, then Hannah Whithall Smith.
The first, oddly enough, is a Puritan (okay, not really a Puritan, but of that background). The second was part of the Methodist Holiness movement, which eventually lead to Pentecostalism. Smith is probably the easiest direct link, but Hutchinson was the forerunner.
David: You need to be a little more modest when you have your picture taken.
DJP: I wonder if Charles Spurgeon walked back and forth like that when he preached...
Oh, you were looking for an historical answer. That's a really good question. I'd like to know the answer to that.
You're wanting to know if there is a 16th or 17th century Joyce Meyer out there, right?
Phoebe Palmer - Holiness "icon" and entire sanctification "stalwart".
Maria Woodworth-Etter - during a campmeeting where she was preaching at the time is when someone had a vision in the crowd and went about proclaiming the Jesus only doctrine for the first time (in modern history) in a public, popular setting.
Bit of a rabbit trail this, really.
I'm no advocate of women in the pulpit, in case you didn't know, but I've seen the same sort of abject nonsense coming from men in the charismatic hoopla set.
The woman's theology is floating somewhere in the ether to begin with. Her gender is irrelevant to that, as her husband illustrates.
Well, but Libbie, I've heard the specific rationale that "the Holy Spirit gave me this gift, so how can I refuse?" That's a classic extension of the charismatic's notion of extra-Biblical revelation. So it happens to clash with Biblical revelation -- oh, well! Maybe we can just "massage" the Word a bit, to accommodate the newer, shinier, more congenial revelation.
Well, of course, but that's still a theology problem, rather than a specific gender problem. Yes, the outworking here is a woman displaying how distinctly ungifted she is in the pulpit, but it still boils down to overall shoddy theology to begin with..
I don't think its either/or, nor both/and regarding whom we have to thank for these problems. We have seen manifestations of this throughout recent history, such as the two examples I gave earlier, but also going back a bit, to the time of the Reformation and before.
The answer to your question (oh that I could even begin to approach Gene Bridges - ha ha) historically comes from the late second and early third centuries. Specifically, the Montanist movement, led by the namesake, and his two female prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla.
Check out Eusebius for more info...
I would tend to believe that it is more charismatic in its origin, and then aided by the liberals in its development.
I do not mean this in any way to be derogatory of women (I hold them in the highest regard), but if you took women away from the charismatic movement, it would fold.
Would this be a good moment to point out that if you took women away from the actual church as a whole, it would look pretty pasty too?
It would indeed, Libbie.
My vote is Montanus -- Long ago and far away... He drug several 'prophetess' around with him -- I believe their names were Prisca and Maximilla (sp?)
If you read about the Montanist movement (cited as heretical by the church), you will be surprised by the similarities between modern 'stuff' and them.
While I have seen this video several times, i am always amazed that SOMEONE did not 'stop the madness'.
Does Montanus put it back on the Charismatics, then? Desperate to find some historical evidence of continuance, some Charismatics have cited Montanus as their forebear.
Dan,
Even though I spoke of the historical precedent, it is rebellious hearts, not particular movements that brought this about. True, liberalism and charismaticism may foster the growth of such ideas, but they didn't "spawn" them.
To try and ferret out "whodunit" is to sidestep the more pertinent issue, women as preachers, and delve into placing blame on liberals or charismatics, when such a broad sweep is not warranted.
Even if all the women preachers of all times were seemingly from the either camp, this still wouldn't mean that they were the reason for them. To wit, if every duck we ever see is white, it doesn't mean that there aren't any black ducks out there. We haven't been everywhere in the world. Induction is valuable, but not always decisive in these matters.
133 words (non inclusive)
Enemas, butt kissers, stinkin’ high heals, and a whole lotta huffin and puffin. Did she die at the end?
Even so -- I think you have it!
BTW, as an aside -- I once heard a bunch of 'pastors' being interviewed and the one who had the most orthodox, most consistent, most theo-centric answers was a woman pastor...
Therefore, while I am not one who believes that the role of pastor should be opened to women -- there comes a time when the Deborah's of the world need to step up when the Barak's won't!
I am not trying to open a can of worms, just making an observation...
Actually I read that it was the Quakers that we should "thank", believe it or not, for being the first recorded egalitarians.
I also read that it was not until the 19th century [that] women [began] to make significant strides towards egalitarianism.
Because I frequenty post on Biblical womanhood, I have, especially recently, gotten an onslaught of e-mails from several people calling me a chauvenist.
OUCH Dan, now I'm blind!
I've added a postscript to the post, above.
Dan...just some info. I was doing some research on the Signs and Wonders movement among other things I was researching regarding apostasy. Apparantly this was the situation that Benny used to not allow his wife to be on stage any longer. She joined another...very weird group....with a lady named Gwen something who has a group called Handmaidens of the Lord. One has to fast in this group, so Mrs. Hinn lost the weight...but she has mental problems apparantly also. The Handmaidens group (headed by a woman) participates in all sorts of deceptive supernatural things including gold dust on people and all. Very ecumenical too. There are a lot of very weird things that go on. My husband is from New England and many people he knows there are involved in extreme charismatic movements, and there are many leaders that trickled down from Toronto, which is what inspired me to do extensive research.
Sad to think that the area known for the Great Awakening is so rife with deceptive practices.
Dan,
Here is my question from having viewed the video. When did it become acceptable to be vulgar behind the pulpit. Words like "butt" and "holy ghost enema" were never heard when I was growing up in chruch. Now my Mother comes home from the Christian (SBC) church/school she works at and they are using the slang for women's anatomy in their testimonies and often cussing so they seem relevant. This all blows my mind.
I watched a video of Ergun Caner preaching at First Baptist Woodstock, Georgia the other day and he referred to several crude things behind their pulpit as well. Seems like an attitude of irreverence to me.
Candy -- poor lady. Thanks for the background. But then I'll also add that she's not alone. I often see charismatic "preachers" like Benny Hinn, and think that these are people who themselves need serious help -- not a pulpit.
Jared -- my opinion of the Caners has plummeted like a meteorite over the last year or so; sorry to hear that, but not stunned. I gather foul language in the pulpit is a "thing," right now. But I daresay the effect on the hearers is not, "What a glorious God!" but "Oooh, what a happening preacher-dude!"
And maybe that's the design.
Jared said
"Now my Mother comes home from the Christian (SBC) church/school she works at and they are using the slang for women's anatomy in their testimonies. . ."
The long tradition of SBC people giving their testimonies has caused me many agonies. Often special Music or Evangelist speakers are brought in and share their testimonies.
I have been so embarassed by their "sharing" so many specifics of their life of sin (and wonder that they are not more embarassed). The word "lurid" comes to mind, and I could never see the justification for exposing the innocent church and the children to this.
djp said: "my opinion of the Caners has plummeted like a meteorite over the last year or so".
I have been so dissapointed with them and their attitude even towards healthy discussions. When I was at Master's College in 2002 we had Ergun come over one day and speak on witnessing to muslims, and it was probably one of the best chapels of the year.
It's hard even to read and listen to both him and his brother anymore...
About the video. I think it will haunt me forever and give me nightmares...
My wife and I found ourselves in Pentacostal/charismatic country and we found ourselves hated soley becuase we gracefully taught scriptures as opposed to the 'experiantal'. We also taught the principle of women not preaching. We didnt realize that extra revelation and women preachers were such hot button issues...we were wrong. Tommy Nelson preached on the history of this movement..its a good place to start.
http://ia300112.us.archive.org/2/items/ChurchHistory/ChurchHistory13.mp3
"Holy Ghost enemas?"
Wha...?!
The video is no longer up, which is a shame as I have not yet seen it.
The biggest shock to me is that he has a wife - I had always presumed he was gay. Not trying to be mean, I really did...
Unfortunately, I understand. Hinn does set off one's "gaydar."
I'll look for a replacement video.
Post a Comment