Hi Mr K

Apologies in advance for the length of this post. I wanted to get some stuff off my chest :-)

IMO, unfortunately 'anti-intellectualism' isn't restricted to Revers, as flagged by Morgan's Kingdom Triangle - recomended by Ian in another thread (though Morgan puts it differently).

In my own experience, I wonder whether 'anti-intellectualism' in non-RF circles contributed to me staying in RCI/RF ... even though I accept full responsibility for my choices.

I visited a particular orthodox church a few weeks after my 'speaking in tongues experience' and the pastor there questioned my beliefs (good), and he suggested that I ask God for guidance about what the bible says (good) but didn't work through any of the scriptures - or suggest resources I could use (not good). Now it may have been that he perceived that I wouldn't listen, and I certainly could have searched stuff for myself ('though in the 70s the 'net was not the WWW we know today). Yet when I *did indeed* go through that process what I listened to was my ignorant interpretation of scripture combined with the 'feeling' that I was in a place of blessing from God. I remember clearly a 'crisis' 6 months after my tongues experience when I got fair dinkum about the process and resolved with myself that I would go wherever God wanted, even if it meant making a break with my friends and mentors, just as I had when I moved from the church I'd grown up in to RCI (then called RCA?). I've been through similar 'crises', with the same result periodically since then. But ... listening to my ignorant interpretation of scripture combined with the 'feeling' that I was in a place of blessing from God left me you-know-where.

Now, even when I *was* challenged with relevant scriptural information back in 2000 (Ian/Drew and PleaseConsider.info) I chose not to engage as I *knew* I was correct and I didn't want to waste time in a debate that I didn't believe would change anyone's opinion. Yet considering some of the resources on that website on and off (well, more off than on) led me to the position in April 2007 where there was one slim thread of justification I could find in the bible for the RCI/RF notion that speaking in tongues always accompanied receiving the Spirit. Then, thanks to the efforts of God through Ian, I found my concept of 'praying in the s/Spirit' demolished and therefore my acceptance of the RCI/RF understanding of tongues had to go ... and the next 8 months consisted (again on and off) of clearing away the debris of belief in a 'baptism of the Spirit evidenced by tongues'. (Yet other rubble remains ...)

All through these last 30-odd years I have maintained the belief that the bible was my rule of faith, yet *very* few of the many Christians with whom I debated presented anything resembling a challenge from the scriptures. Sure, I had rationalisations for many of the challenges, in particular 1 Co 12, yet the challenges were generally ones I found myself. I remember even convincing a person who had been taught that only the Twelve had spoken in tongues on the day of Pentecost, that it was really the whole 120-or-so by little more than asserting it with conviction! Meanwhile, I continued arguing that God would 'prove Himself when He meets you and you find that you speak in tongues just like they did on the day of Pentecost', despite what the bible said about fire, wind sounds and intelligibility of the languages!

So ... a sound presentation of the bible could conceivably have led to a shorter stay for me in Revivalism, and at least would have left me without one excuse.

So ... a rational defense of rational Christianity, is needed as much today as it was in the 1st and 2nd centuries, to deal with errant (and pseudo- such as some Rever) Christians as well as non-Christians. Sure, for example, there's an awful lot of we Christians who aren't able to construct arguments using propositional logic the way Ian can, but some of us can learn to, and others can and should be introduced to the reasoning more intuitively through material such as that of C S Lewis. A responsible approach to understanding and interpreting the bible, must - I believe - be encouraged and *taught* as *fundamental* to "devoting ourselves to the apostles' teaching". What a counter against "Revivalism" these are!!!

I suspect that given Australia's general approach to truth, Christianity here will need to have the guts to be more counter-cultural than it would have been in the '70's to do so. I gather that some are rising to the challenge. Christianity *can* use the intellect (as indeed the bible does) to point to God. It suits those in power for Christians to engage them on the basis of feelings (what *they* call faith) rather than intellect (which the bible seems to indicate as undepinning faith). Eg what type of Christianity gets the most publicity? God can use us to take "the world's" supposed strength - the intellect - and direct it rather to His purposes. From what I read, He's done it before.

DISCLAIMER None of this is to suggest that I believe that intellect alone will bring one to Christianity. I believe humility remains essential, and that a supernatural encounter with the risen Christ (eg Jn 3) underlies confessing and believing in Him.

Hi Mr K

Thanks for the thoughts. There's some interesting theologising to work through regarding God's plan and my time in RCI/RF, but I *do* believe He's not allowed me to be tested beyond what I can handle. I'm not wallowing in self-pity, but I am going through what I consider to be reasonable grieving over apparent losses due to the impact of the choices I made.

From my perspective my time in RCI/RF is/was a better choice than many I could have made, such as choosing to become a heroin addict, and I do believe I learned snippets of God's Word and a little about Jesus because of my time there, and I do believe I have been 'blessed' by God whilst there. (I suspect many have learned much despite their time there.) I would further say that I know many people there who confess Christ (not tongues or 'the Holy Spirit') as Lord and saviour. Unfortunately though, RF doctrine as such doesn't seem to lead to Godly behaviour e.g. when one considers the actions of those in key positions, such as the Pastors Council. The 'salvation message' remains, sadly, another gospel. As I said, many, I believe, do bend the knee to Christ, but that seems to only rarely be given much emphasis in teaching. The word 'grace' is used, but the actions often say 'legalism'

Anyway, I'd best be off ...