tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post7343643379638921756..comments2024-03-20T19:23:09.857+02:00Comments on Notes from underground: Orthodoxy and premodern and postmodern thinkingSteve Hayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-88115768413937277942006-12-07T10:35:00.000+02:002006-12-07T10:35:00.000+02:00I actually believe that there is a substantial dif...I actually believe that there is a substantial difference in the premodern and say pentecostal experience. The difference is often that the excitement in the latter is more akin to the excitement of entertainment than anything else (having seen and experienced these things as a child, and also seen the misuse following from that). I agree with CS Lewis' assesment that one should not look for miracles, as these are found in the ganglions of history, at times of difficulty, persecution and suffering. Advertising miracles as some (not all)charismatics/pentecostals do makes a mockery of the suffering of God's people in other lands / times. I also say that, as my own life has been miraculously preserved (don't ask me for details) - and ephoria/excitement are not the adjectives I would use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-79564542936093893492006-12-07T05:14:00.000+02:002006-12-07T05:14:00.000+02:00Perhaps one needs to qualify "proof" by "rational"...Perhaps one needs to qualify "proof" by "rational". <br /><br />A classic example, it seems to me, is Aaron's rod, which "proves" that YHWH is superior to the gods of Egypt, and that His emissary has a more authentic message. <br /><br />A post-Enlightenment Western missionary would probably build a school to teach that sticks don't turn into snakes.<br /><br />So yes, I think you are right. It is immanent and personal. To the premodern mind, miracles do not prove abstract rational propositions, but are evidence of God's concern for people involved in the events.Steve Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-62765547650460795912006-12-07T00:50:00.000+02:002006-12-07T00:50:00.000+02:00Regarding miracles: in premodern Christianity it s...Regarding miracles: in premodern Christianity it seems to me they 'prove' things, though the context is arguably different from the way someone in this era in the West would employ them. A miracle performed by St. Martin of Tours for the pagans is employed to 'prove' the superiority of Christ over the pagan gods; St. Athanasius asks us in De Incarnatio if any of the miraculous impacts of Christ's incarnation- the philosophizing of the barbarians, the turning to peace of the violent, etc- could have been caused by anything else. Miracles are evidence (though no enlightened Westerner in the post-enlightnment scrubbed clean world would admit such evidence in all probability), but they are evidence that is immanent and immediate to the person being convinced, or nearly so.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10019108361024010146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-13902701457814828152006-12-06T02:01:00.000+02:002006-12-06T02:01:00.000+02:00About 20 years ago I spoke to the Anglican bishop ...About 20 years ago I spoke to the Anglican bishop of Singapore, Dr Moses Tay. At that time there had been some controversy about the Archbishop of York who had said he did not believe in miracles (and York minister was struck by lightning shortly before he was consecrated). Bishop Tay said that the Archbishop, and other Western theologians, insulted the faith of thousands of Asian Christians, for whom miracles were an everyday experience.<br /><br />Many Anglicans in Singapore were charismatic, and their approach did seem more akin to that of the Coptic monks than to some American Pentecostals. Perhaps it has something to do with Chritainity being a minority religion as well.Steve Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-5365663199146591672006-12-06T00:49:00.000+02:002006-12-06T00:49:00.000+02:00My experience is limited as well, but what I know ...My experience is limited as well, but what I know of most American charismatics (and to some degree pentecostals) there is a closer affinity with modernist POV than the pre-modern at least as discussed in this post.<br />I see it as kind of a mixture for I think it would be true that miracles are not a form of proof, but there is a technical approach to meracles that approaches scientific patterns of behavior. This makes me think of these practices as a quasi magical and thus gnostic POV.Community of the Holy Trinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327079170088324442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-70449385346107124662006-12-05T07:01:00.000+02:002006-12-05T07:01:00.000+02:00In my somewhat limited experience, it is somewhere...In my somewhat limited experience, it is somewhere in between. African Pentecostals and charismatics, especially Zionists, tend towards the premodern point of view, while the "word of faith" propserity churches emanating from the USA lean towards modernity.Steve Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-55390733475982679092006-12-05T01:27:00.000+02:002006-12-05T01:27:00.000+02:00It might be interesting also to look at how Charis...It might be interesting also to look at how Charismatics and Pentecostals approach miracles. I suspect that many of the Charismatics, at least, would have a more similar understanding, based on the Biblical sense of things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com