Right of Reply?
I know a number of people have been fascinated by the content of the Armybarmy blog and would periodically like to enter into public dialogue about it. Here's your opportunity to do so...
Brengle - read the article, it was not much help as the writer didn't explain what he thought Brengle meant. I would suggest Brengle was wrong as he failed to understand the difference between sin and sins of the flesh and so fell into the trap of turning them into demon possession. When we sin it is because we have yielded to our own desires which have given birth to sin (James 1:13-15). If Brengle is right it would mean the demon has been able to evict the Holy Spirit which is a form gnostic dualism and means we have two gods of equal power, neither one being able to overcome the other. I wonder if Armybarmy actually means that the last time he got angry with one of his cadets or staff it was because he was no longer entirely sanctified but demon possessed? Paladin
One has to wonder whether many in the Army really understand the difference between the theologies of Brengle and Coutts, between personal holiness and the social holiness of Wesley? Why is it that one position has become dominant and the other virtually forgotten?
Wesley once claimed that there was no holiness but social holiness. The original context of the saying was in relation to the necessity for Christian fellowship, that is koinonia. What he was doing was countering a privatised notion of Christian faith. One cannot go to heaven alone but one needs friends. It is within Christian community that holiness of life is to be realized. Today social holiness has tended to move into the realm of the socio-economic and political community. Frederick Coutts wrote a number of book of which, The Call to Holiness (1957), Essentials of Christian Experience (1969 and The Splendour of Holiness (1983). Were among them. Coutts saw holiness as growth in grace that was grounded in Christ Jesus and the gospels and as growth in Christ-likeness . It was a crisis and progressive maturing in Christ and Christ-likeness. He is closer to Wesley at the end of his lifetime. Brengle on the other hand saw holiness holiness as crisis and second work of grace that led to entire sanctification and a purity of heart. While both Brengle and Coutts emphasized holiness as “Christ in you” and while both underscored the importance of experience and the role of the will, Coutts’s distinctiveness lies in his emphasis on an ongoing, growing relationship, communion, and fellowship in Christ, and not just a single crisis experience. The Army world is divided between the two positions. Any new perspectives concerning the doctrine of holiness requires that we reach not for the holiness tradition but scripture itself as the means whereby we renew our understanding of what it means to be “in Christ” and thus a justified, holy people. While we may honour the tradition and people like Wesley, Brengle and Coutts, we ought not canonize them and their writings. Rather than being committed to holiness movement Tradition we are called instead to rethink the Tradition afresh in the light of scripture itself. WJE
I agree with paladin that there is absolutely no biblical evidence to suggest that sanctification, the process whereby a Christian overcomes sin, is produced via the casting out of demons. Scripture is clear - the source of besetting sins is the sinful nature, not demons. When St. Paul defines the dynamic of the Christian life and experience does he encourage the casting out of demons as a necessary prelude for sanctification. Brengle is certainly wrong to even suggest demon possession let alone teach it. Paul commands Christians to walk in the Spirit and to put to death the deeds of the sinful nature. (Galatians 5: 16ff.) In Romans 6, the power of our incorporation into Christ, not the self-proclaimed power of one engaged in a deliverance ministry, is the answer to the sins that plague Christians. In fact, in the sections of the New Testament that list the variety of ministries in the church (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4) there is no mention of a "deliverance ministry." Those who claim to be practicing such a ministry have no biblical support for their function. Christians cannot be possessed by demons. If deliverance from demons was an issue for Christians, the Bible would clearly say so. In his Word, God has revealed to us all things that are necessary for life and salvation. Army barmy focuses an inordinate amount of attention upon the devil and demons which can be spiritually debilitating. One can readily become obsessed with the devil and might finally conclude, based upon experience, that everyone is demonized. True if we are ignorant of his devices we become easily deceived and susceptible to strange experiences and false teaching, and we give the devil too much attention and begin to see demons behind every bush and under every bed, as Armybarmy seems to do. This is also a deception of the devil. The Christian who becomes obsessed with Satan and demons has taken his focus off the Word of God, the cross of Jesus Christ, and the victory that has been gained over the powers of hell. If we fall into the snare of focusing upon the devil, he will gladly provide us with our share of supernatural experiences and successful power-trips. If we are willing to base truth upon experience rather than upon the objective Word of God, the devil is more than willing to provide confirming testimony. Brengle and Armybarmy have got it wrong.
Just found this place: a Salvo blog dedicated to viciously dissecting another Salvo blog. Mmm...
While some of the discussion here is lucid and helpful (above discussion is strong stuff), I believe the initial bursts of published bile shows the blog's true colours. Is this just stephencourtsucks.com? Some of the slander posted here is shameful.
You guys are bright people, why are you heckling? I'd like to think we all urge challenging and contradictory voices, provided they are framed in practical and Godly ways. Truth be told, this place is reactionary and negative. Diatribe. The Army needs every intelligent and passionate voice it can get. I'm not saying you guys can't play, I think you deserve a better sandbox. I'd advocate you spend your efforts in a place that discusses the topics at hand (holiness/deliverance/mission) is a positive, unifying and scriptural voice. For God's sake preach the ideal, don't argue the division.
I have worked with Stephen. He is a 'hero' of mine, an admission I stand by regardless of the scorn it sometimes evokes. By no means do I agree with everything he has said and taught, but I test all things in regards to our old friend the Wesleyan Quatrilateral (as Stephen recommends). I've seen him minister in selflessness, duty and love. He is also one of the top five most fun people I know (putting a hole in the wall playing 'duck, duck, goose' is no easy feat).
I don't think I'll comment on here again (because what we really need is more christians arguing on the internet!!!). I think there's good news to spread and good deeds to be done. I'd like to think we're all dedicated to the task at hand.
Some good comments above from A. Castle. I'd also like to think that 'we all urge challenging and contradictory voices' at times, but the fact is that most often the only voices that are encouraged are those that are 'positive' and 'unifying'. However, sometimes it is necessary to take a stand against something if you really believe it to be wrong.
Agreed that some early comments were not constructive, but recent commenters have clearly moved past that stage and produced solid argument for their own views. I don't agree with everything written here or on the Armybarmy blog and I don't feel bad for saying so. Christianity without dissent is vulnerable to fanaticism and idolatry.
I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)
I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)
I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)
A Castle may be right that there are times when some get a little carried away - but the majority haven't. Stephan may be your hero but he does have feet of clay and all too often the theology is way off beam. Can't extend the benefit of the doubt on this one seen and heard for myself. Hence the challengers that are being made. If A Castle would like to stay around and add to the discussion as to why Stephen is right then lets hear more. Canada Calling
Anthony Castle, welcome to the fray - it is pity Stephen doesn't also join and defend himself and his theology. It is the theology that is being pushed that is being challenged as well as the antedotal stories that at time simply continue unsubstantiated events. Sorry some of us are not true believers when it comes to Armybarmy and his blog. GB
Brengle - read the article, it was not much help as the writer didn't explain what he thought Brengle meant. I would suggest Brengle was wrong as he failed to understand the difference between sin and sins of the flesh and so fell into the trap of turning them into demon possession. When we sin it is because we have yielded to our own desires which have given birth to sin (James 1:13-15). If Brengle is right it would mean the demon has been able to evict the Holy Spirit which is a form gnostic dualism and means we have two gods of equal power, neither one being able to overcome the other. I wonder if Armybarmy actually means that the last time he got angry with one of his cadets or staff it was because he was no longer entirely sanctified but demon possessed? Paladin
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder whether many in the Army really understand the difference between the theologies of Brengle and Coutts, between personal holiness and the social holiness of Wesley? Why is it that one position has become dominant and the other virtually forgotten?
ReplyDeleteWesley once claimed that there was no holiness but social holiness. The original context of the saying was in relation to the necessity for Christian fellowship, that is koinonia. What he was doing was countering a privatised notion of Christian faith. One cannot go to heaven alone but one needs friends. It is within Christian community that holiness of life is to be realized. Today social holiness has tended to move into the realm of the socio-economic and political community. Frederick Coutts wrote a number of book of which, The Call to Holiness (1957), Essentials of Christian Experience (1969 and The Splendour of Holiness (1983). Were among them. Coutts saw holiness as growth in grace that was grounded in Christ Jesus and the gospels and as growth in Christ-likeness . It was a crisis and progressive maturing in Christ and Christ-likeness. He is closer to Wesley at the end of his lifetime. Brengle on the other hand saw holiness holiness as crisis and second work of grace that led to entire sanctification and a purity of heart. While both Brengle and Coutts emphasized holiness as “Christ in you” and while both underscored the importance of experience and the role of the will, Coutts’s distinctiveness lies in his emphasis on an ongoing, growing relationship, communion, and fellowship in Christ, and not just a single crisis experience. The Army world is divided between the two positions.
ReplyDeleteAny new perspectives concerning the doctrine of holiness requires that we reach not for the holiness tradition but scripture itself as the means whereby we renew our understanding of what it means to be “in Christ” and thus a justified, holy people. While we may honour the tradition and people like Wesley, Brengle and Coutts, we ought not canonize them and their writings. Rather than being committed to holiness movement Tradition we are called instead to rethink the Tradition afresh in the light of scripture itself. WJE
I agree with paladin that there is absolutely no biblical evidence to suggest that sanctification, the process whereby a Christian overcomes sin, is produced via the casting out of demons. Scripture is clear - the source of besetting sins is the sinful nature, not demons. When St. Paul defines the dynamic of the Christian life and experience does he encourage the casting out of demons as a necessary prelude for sanctification. Brengle is certainly wrong to even suggest demon possession let alone teach it. Paul commands Christians to walk in the Spirit and to put to death the deeds of the sinful nature. (Galatians 5: 16ff.) In Romans 6, the power of our incorporation into Christ, not the self-proclaimed power of one engaged in a deliverance ministry, is the answer to the sins that plague Christians. In fact, in the sections of the New Testament that list the variety of ministries in the church (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4) there is no mention of a "deliverance ministry." Those who claim to be practicing such a ministry have no biblical support for their function. Christians cannot be possessed by demons. If deliverance from demons was an issue for Christians, the Bible would clearly say so. In his Word, God has revealed to us all things that are necessary for life and salvation. Army barmy focuses an inordinate amount of attention upon the devil and demons which can be spiritually debilitating. One can readily become obsessed with the devil and might finally conclude, based upon experience, that everyone is demonized. True if we are ignorant of his devices we become easily deceived and susceptible to strange experiences and false teaching, and we give the devil too much attention and begin to see demons behind every bush and under every bed, as Armybarmy seems to do. This is also a deception of the devil. The Christian who becomes obsessed with Satan and demons has taken his focus off the Word of God, the cross of Jesus Christ, and the victory that has been gained over the powers of hell. If we fall into the snare of focusing upon the devil, he will gladly provide us with our share of supernatural experiences and successful power-trips. If we are willing to base truth upon experience rather than upon the objective Word of God, the devil is more than willing to provide confirming testimony. Brengle and Armybarmy have got it wrong.
ReplyDeleteJust found this place: a Salvo blog dedicated to viciously dissecting another Salvo blog. Mmm...
ReplyDeleteWhile some of the discussion here is lucid and helpful (above discussion is strong stuff), I believe the initial bursts of published bile shows the blog's true colours. Is this just stephencourtsucks.com? Some of the slander posted here is shameful.
You guys are bright people, why are you heckling? I'd like to think we all urge challenging and contradictory voices, provided they are framed in practical and Godly ways. Truth be told, this place is reactionary and negative. Diatribe. The Army needs every intelligent and passionate voice it can get. I'm not saying you guys can't play, I think you deserve a better sandbox. I'd advocate you spend your efforts in a place that discusses the topics at hand (holiness/deliverance/mission) is a positive, unifying and scriptural voice. For God's sake preach the ideal, don't argue the division.
I have worked with Stephen. He is a 'hero' of mine, an admission I stand by regardless of the scorn it sometimes evokes. By no means do I agree with everything he has said and taught, but I test all things in regards to our old friend the Wesleyan Quatrilateral (as Stephen recommends). I've seen him minister in selflessness, duty and love. He is also one of the top five most fun people I know (putting a hole in the wall playing 'duck, duck, goose' is no easy feat).
I don't think I'll comment on here again (because what we really need is more christians arguing on the internet!!!). I think there's good news to spread and good deeds to be done. I'd like to think we're all dedicated to the task at hand.
Be Blessed.
A. Castle
Some good comments above from A. Castle. I'd also like to think that 'we all urge challenging and contradictory voices' at times, but the fact is that most often the only voices that are encouraged are those that are 'positive' and 'unifying'. However, sometimes it is necessary to take a stand against something if you really believe it to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that some early comments were not constructive, but recent commenters have clearly moved past that stage and produced solid argument for their own views. I don't agree with everything written here or on the Armybarmy blog and I don't feel bad for saying so. Christianity without dissent is vulnerable to fanaticism and idolatry.
For what it's worth, here's some constructive criticism...
ReplyDeletehttp://joenoland.blogspot.com/2009/07/covenant.html
From the Sojourners website:
ReplyDeleteComment Code of Conduct
I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)
I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)
I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)
A Castle may be right that there are times when some get a little carried away - but the majority haven't. Stephan may be your hero but he does have feet of clay and all too often the theology is way off beam. Can't extend the benefit of the doubt on this one seen and heard for myself. Hence the challengers that are being made. If A Castle would like to stay around and add to the discussion as to why Stephen is right then lets hear more. Canada Calling
ReplyDeleteAnthony Castle, welcome to the fray - it is pity Stephen doesn't also join and defend himself and his theology. It is the theology that is being pushed that is being challenged as well as the antedotal stories that at time simply continue unsubstantiated events. Sorry some of us are not true believers when it comes to Armybarmy and his blog. GB
ReplyDelete