Jesus Camp

[Quintessence]

Um no, I do not, which is why I questioned you when you said it did.

I recall saying no such thing, but okay.

 

[Father Heathen]

I recall saying no such thing, but okay.

So am I misunderstanding the following, then?

Frankly, the entire point of being an impartial observer is to avoid precisely this kind of moralizing and judging what is and isn't acceptable. One simply observes what is, without labeling it as abuse, as bad, or good, or whatever.

 

[Quintessence]

So am I misunderstanding the following, then?

Yes. Which, considering the probable motives of the initial response you made to me, is hardly surprising.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes. Which, considering the probable motives of the initial response you made to me, is hardly surprising.

Which are?

 

[David1967]

I haven't seen the entire film, merely excerpts of it, but from what little I've seen, I saw the camp leaders and counselors ordering the kids around. During one of their "praying and repenting sessions", I saw adults putting their hands on the kid's heads from behind, urging them to pray and repent. Kids were falling to the floor sobbing because the adults were telling them to. It seemed like a lot of what was going on there was forcing those kids to manufacture spiritual experiences because they were under pressure and expectation. The question that kept popping into my mind watching the entire thing was "Where is the choice?" I saw kids during interviews parroting things about how they were the new generation of soldiers for Christ, and how "we need to rise up and run with that idea". I saw them going up to complete strangers in a bowling alley and telling people that God is thinking about them and wants to love on them. Sure, some of that could be believable. But it also sounds exactly like they have been trained to speak that way, like they've been taught what to say in what situation. Again, where was the kids' choice in any of that? Did they have any option to opt out or not participate in certain activities? Did anyone tell them that it was okay if they didn't feel a certain way?

Its definitely a learned behavior. The modern tongues movement is a uniquely American invention that started around 1906. Tongues and spiritual gifts in the Bible did not resemble any of this stuff. Besides the fact that if what they are doing is speaking in an unknown heavenly language, I would think a heavenly language wouldn't sound like gibberish crossed with constipation.

 

[Windwalker]

Its definitely a learned behavior.

Other than the fact it also happens spontaneously to those who have never been exposed to it before. So, not definitely.

The modern tongues movement is a uniquely American invention that started around 1906.

Other than the fact it happens in cultures that existed prior to the birth of Christianity, and in religions the world over long, long before 1906. (BTW, your date is wrong. It was 1901 Topeka, Kansas that the modern Pentecostal movement began. You're confusing the Azusa street revival as the beginning of it).

Tongues and spiritual gifts in the Bible did not resemble any of this stuff. Besides the fact that if what they are doing is speaking in an unknown heavenly language, I would think a heavenly language wouldn't sound like gibberish crossed with constipation.

Does this quote resemble anything in the Bible? "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." So, yes or no? Does that resemble anything the Bible might say about tongues?

 

[David1967]

Other than the fact it also happens spontaneously to those who have never been exposed to it before. So, not definitely.

Not sure about that. Never heard of this happening on its own without being caught up in the fervor of the moment ....but .


Other than the fact it happens in cultures that existed prior to the birth of Christianity, and in religions the world over long, long before 1906. (BTW, your date is wrong. It was 1901 justTopeka, Kansas that the modern Pentecostal movement began. You're confusing the Azusa street revival as the beginning of it).

Yes tongues have existed in many cultures in times past. I am referring to the modern tongues movement that is in some branches of Christianity. And as far as the date , I said "around 1906". Doesn't change my statement that what we see today is uniquely American.


Does this quote resemble anything in the Bible? "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." So, yes or no? Does that resemble anything the Bible might say about tongues?

True, yet they were instructed not to do this in congregation lest people think they were drunk. And I seriously doubt that they flopped around on the floor , shamelessly thrusting their pelvis into the floor and air like some bizarre sex act.

 

[Windwalker]

True, yet they were instructed not to do this in congregation lest people think they were drunk.

So you are admitting that this was what they were doing in the church in the Bible? You realized you previously said, "Tongues and spiritual gifts in the Bible did not resemble any of this stuff." What we see is it in fact did resemble it, but that it was to be practiced in private, not in the church body. Right?

Don't get me wrong, I think what you see in this Jesus Camp movie is messed up. But I just challenge those who think they can just simply say it's not what was happening in the Bible. It was.

And I seriously doubt that they flopped around on the floor , shamelessly thrusting their pelvis into the floor and air like some bizarre sex act.

I don't doubt it at all. What you see in Christian ecstasy is the same as you see in other religions. It's a religious phenomenon.

 

[InChrist]

I think that any true "gift of tongues" in a biblical sense must be exercised within the parameters of the scriptures. People speaking with incoherent noises is an occurrence which has taken place among pagan and false religions throughout history. It is now a common practice within Christian groups, usually of the Pentecostal or Charismatic persuasion. I see this type of "speaking in tongues" as a counterfeit to that outlined in the scriptures and as either a carnal psychological phenomenon or the manifestation of demonic possession.

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command God gave through the apostle Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/gift-of-tongues.html

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I think that any true "gift of tongues" in a biblical sense must be exercised within the parameters of the scriptures. People speaking with incoherent noises is an occurrence which has taken place among pagan and false religions throughout history. It is now a common practice within Christian groups, usually of the Pentecostal or Charismatic persuasion. I see this type of "speaking in tongues" as a counterfeit to that outlined in the scriptures and as either a carnal psychological phenomenon or the manifestation of demonic possession.

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command God gave through the apostle Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/gift-of-tongues.html

Actually it has been a practice in a lot of religions in general throughout history. Especially Abrahamic religions.

 

[InChrist]

Actually it has been a practice in a lot of religions in general throughout history. Especially Abrahamic religions.

I have already noted that it has been a practice in many religions throughout history. Maybe it has been especially practiced in forms of Abrahamic religions which deviate from the scriptures. I haven't researched that, but nevertheless, I think any ecstatic tongue speaking such as in the video on this thread is contrary to the scriptures and is not from God.

 

[Windwalker]

I think that any true "gift of tongues" in a biblical sense must be exercised within the parameters of the scriptures. People speaking with incoherent noises is an occurrence which has taken place among pagan and false religions throughout history.

And yet Paul said that this was a legitimate practice amongst Christians. He explained clearly to them, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." He then further instructs them because of the nature of this that in his idea of a church meeting should look like that they shouldn't all just being doing their own things as in a private practice, that they should be working to building one another up through sharing of ideas through a common tongue.

Paul exorts that "prophecy" is best, which is to speak to others through a place of inspiration within their own hearts. (Prophecy is not about foretelling the future in this context). Prophecy is best in gatherings, according to Paul, because through the inspiration of the heart, you speak to the hearts of others through the words, like poetry, words of love, and so forth. You build up others through the inspiration of Spirit through you to others. Prophecy edifies others, whereas speaking in tongues edifies, is for the benefit of the practitioners themselves.

Such comments as Paul's about how to conduct oneself in a church meeting, does not deny the validity of glossolalia as a practice. He very clearly says they speak "to God", and that they speak "by the Spirit". These anti-anything-but-their-own-chosen-beliefs apologist sites who quote the restrictions placed upon tongues in the church gathering seem to miss these verses Paul says just a few sentences earlier. Add to the fact Paul does legitimize it as a practice by as he explained it's speaking to God in mysteries uttered by the Spirit (his words), he then cites his own practices of them by saying explicitly, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all".

Now, there is a lot more to this that can be said, and again I think a lot of what you see in the Jesus Camp movie with 5 year olds speaking in tongues and whatnot is more an imitation of others, than it is genuine religious ecstatic experience. I notice the folks in the Jesus Camp movie are far too doctrinal-focused, these claims of having the Truth as they hold their Bibles high above their heads proclaiming its authority to validate their own beliefs, and a whole lot less about the knowledge of the heart, interior experience.

I've often compared the speaking of tongues in these sorts of churches to children who find the keys to a truck and figure out how to start up the engine, jumping in and out of the cab to feel the roar of the engine as they press on the gas peddle. But not one single one of them knows what the stick shift on the floor is for. They do not understand that the energy raised by depressing the gas peddle on the engine is to do an actual work. The purpose of raising the energy (speaking in tongues) is to transport one from one place to the next when it's energy is harnessed by engaging the clutch and the transmission.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who look at the other kids jumping in and out of the cab and revving the engine for their own delights, and instead opt to read others opinions about the truck and learning all about it as they sit in the seat, without ever actually turning the engine itself on, let alone engaging the clutch and going somewhere with it. An "owner's manual" church is formed versus the "church of loud exciting noises". Neither understand the nature or purposes of religious experience, nor actually go anywhere in the truck to take them from point A to point B. Maybe the two groups should learn from each as well as listen to others who have a different perspective on it than either of them do.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I have already noted that it has been a practice in many religions throughout history. Maybe it has been especially practiced in forms of Abrahamic religions which deviate from the scriptures. I haven't researched that, but nevertheless, I think any ecstatic tongue speaking such as in the video on this thread is contrary to the scriptures and is not from God.

No it happens in Abrahamic religion that follow scripture, just not your interpretation of it.

 

[roger1440]

Groups like the one portrayed in the movie actually poison the minds of children. Children are very impressionable. It doesn’t take much to install a particular belief in there little minds. These children will grow up believing in demons and exorcisms. These very same children or future adults will ignore the fact that there are no documented cases of the existence of demons or demonic possession. In all likelihood they will use Christian rhetoric to justify their belief. “The devil always tries to convince people he does not exist”. Granted, it makes great entertainment, but it should be left at that.

 

[David1967]

True, yet they were instructed not to do this in congregation lest people think they were drunk. And I seriously doubt that they flopped around on the floor , shamelessly thrusting their pelvis into the floor and air like some bizarre sex act.

So you are admitting that this was what they were doing in the church in the Bible? You realized you previously said, "Tongues and spiritual gifts in the Bible did not resemble any of this stuff." What we see is it in fact did resemble it, but that it was to be practiced in private, not in the church body. Right?

Yes, you are correct. I believe that at that time there were people practicing what they believed or wanted to be spiritual gifts outside their intended purpose, thus Pauls warning to them. But soon after the time of the apostles it seems they disappeared until recently. I am not disputing that there were such things as tongues spoke of in the Bible, of course there were, my problem is the circus like atmosphere we see today. ...And my wife is Pentacostal, so you can imagine our discussions. We disagree, but we tolerate each other.



Don't get me wrong, I think what you see in this Jesus Camp movie is messed up.

Agreed


But I just challenge those who think they can just simply say it's not what was happening in the Bible.

And that is OK, I enjoy the discussion.



I don't doubt it at all. What you see in Christian ecstasy is the same as you see in other religions. It's a religious phenomenon.

Again, I agree with you on this part. It is a "religious" phenomenon, but I don't believe that what we see the televangelists pushing is real. When someone like Benny Hinn waves his coat or hand and people fall down, I don't believe that is the Holy Spirit. Appreciate your input.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We have a saying...It could only happen in The USA...
unfortunately it is no longer quite true, as the poison is spreading.

I suppose it is not quite as dangerous as their worship of guns.
but equally as profound.

 

[InChrist]

And yet Paul said that this was a legitimate practice amongst Christians. He explained clearly to them, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." He then further instructs them because of the nature of this that in his idea of a church meeting should look like that they shouldn't all just being doing their own things as in a private practice, that they should be working to building one another up through sharing of ideas through a common tongue.

Paul exorts that "prophecy" is best, which is to speak to others through a place of inspiration within their own hearts. (Prophecy is not about foretelling the future in this context). Prophecy is best in gatherings, according to Paul, because through the inspiration of the heart, you speak to the hearts of others through the words, like poetry, words of love, and so forth. You build up others through the inspiration of Spirit through you to others. Prophecy edifies others, whereas speaking in tongues edifies, is for the benefit of the practitioners themselves.

Such comments as Paul's about how to conduct oneself in a church meeting, does not deny the validity of glossolalia as a practice. He very clearly says they speak "to God", and that they speak "by the Spirit". These anti-anything-but-their-own-chosen-beliefs apologist sites who quote the restrictions placed upon tongues in the church gathering seem to miss these verses Paul says just a few sentences earlier. Add to the fact Paul does legitimize it as a practice by as he explained it's speaking to God in mysteries uttered by the Spirit (his words), he then cites his own practices of them by saying explicitly, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all".

.

I pretty much agree with what you have said, except I think you have overlooked a few important points which the scriptures provide with information concerning; what tongues are, the purpose of the gift of tongues, and where and how this gift is to be exercised.

The first manifestation of speaking in tongues in the NT shows that it is a supernatural gift from the Holy Spirit for someone to speak in a real language they do not know or had never learned... And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.(Acts 2:6) and ...how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?(Acts 2:8) It should be noted that the word translated as tongue in some Bible versions is the common Greek word for language. So according to the scripture example the gift of speaking in tongues is speaking is the ability given by the Spirit to speak in a real, but unlearned language, This rules out gibberish, stammering, stuttering, or repetitious sounds and much of what passes for tongues today.

The purpose is also shown in Acts 2:11... "we hear them speaking in our own tongues (languages) the wonderful works of God.”, then in 1 Corinthians 14;22, Paul says..."Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers". This lines up with the first manifestation of the gift of tongues in the New Testament ( Acts 2:1-13), when there were unbelieving Jews present...dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation (Acts 2:5). So the purpose of the gift of tongues is to speak of the wonderful works of God and a sign to unbelievers.

As you have pointed out, anyone who speaks in a tongue speaks not to people, but to God. (1 Cor. 14:2) Paul elaborates this further in chapter 14 verses 14-17. So speaking in tongues consists of praise, prayer, thanksgiving and singing addressed to God Himself about His marvelous works, mercy, and blessing to the human race.. This is very important when judging whether the gift that we hear all around today is the true, biblical gift. One of the first questions to ask is, "Was it addressed to men?" Often today, when interpretations are given, the content makes clear that they are claiming to give exhortation, teaching or preaching to the audience. But that is not the gift of tongues, because, according to the Word of God, this gift is not addressed to men.

Lastly, there is not a single instance in the New Testament of any private use of tongues, or any of the gifts of the Spirit. Every occurrence is in a public place or open meeting...the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all (1 Corinthians 12:7). Therefore the biblical injunction for interpretation and understanding...So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance.Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. (1 Cor. 14:9-14)

 

[Shem]

is a documentary (once up for an Academy Award) available on Netfix disc or Instant Viewing that will either make you get down on your knees and thank the lord or make you cringe in disgust.

I haven't seen the documentary and I only watched the trailer. From what I can see, this is not my approach to Christianity and differs from my beliefs in many ways. I don't like the way the kids are being taught. But the camps are and should remain perfectly legal. In my church, we teach children and youth what we consider to be true principles about God. Those classes or activities bear little resemblance to this trailer. We are entitled to teach our children our faith as we see fit. That is a sacred family right and must not be interfered with by the government. The fact that someone believes that what is taught is not the truth, is not sufficient reason to stop it.

 

[roger1440]

I don't doubt it at all. What you see in Christian ecstasy is the same as you see in other religions. It's a religious phenomenon.

It resembles Beatle mania to me.

 

[Skwim]

I haven't seen the documentary and I only watched the trailer. From what I can see, this is not my approach to Christianity and differs from my beliefs in many ways. I don't like the way the kids are being taught. But the camps are and should remain perfectly legal. In my church, we teach children and youth what we consider to be true principles about God. Those classes or activities bear little resemblance to this trailer. We are entitled to teach our children our faith as we see fit. That is a sacred family right and must not be interfered with by the government. The fact that someone believes that what is taught is not the truth, is not sufficient reason to stop it.

The synopsis in the OP brought up the question: "are these children being brainwashed?" If the answer is yes, then do you think it's a sacred right of parents to do so?

"Mind control, also known as brainwashing, . . . is a theory that human subjects can be indoctrinated in a way that causes "an impairment of autonomy, an inability to think independently, and a disruption of beliefs and affiliations. In this context, brainwashing refers to the involuntary reeducation of basic beliefs and values."
Source: Wikipedia​