What is the position of the Anglican church as the validity of tongues, prophetic words, casting out demons, ect?
I don't think there is any codified "position" in the Anglican churches. One might find differing views in different parishes, dependent upon the opinions of that parish's rector, vestry, and congregation. However, I think there probably are very few of what one might call "charismatics" among Anglicanism. Our rector's opinion is that heavenly prayer languages are valid but are meant for private prayer, and casting out demons is to be left to specially trained church leaders. I regret to state that his thoughts on prophecy are, in my view, completely muddled and beyond sensible description.
Well, I've had a prophetic ministry for 41 years and can attest to the validity of the spiritual gifts I speak in tongues also .
No argument from me. I spent several years in A/G. (That said, I couldn't put up with the direction the local A/G churches have taken in music ministry and the relative lack of Bible being quoted and expounded upon. They seemed to have set aside the spiritual gifts in which they were formerly rooted and they neither preach nor teach nor practice them. Not to say that there might still be some better pastors out there, though.) At my current Anglican Church, we read an OT portion, a NT epistle portion, part of a psalm, and a Gospel portion, after which the rector utilizes on one or more of them as his subject matter. (That's far more than I had been hearing elsewhere!) Hymns are centuries old and contain edifying truths. It's a cross between the Roman church of my childhood (minus most of their egregious errors) and the A/G church my family and I belonged to in the 1980s (minus the excited utterances and most, not all, of the hand-raising).
Historically, the Church of England was aligned with the portion of the Reformation on the Continent that came to be called ‘Reformed’. The Reformed were cessationist with regard to the ‘spiritual gifts’. As the Church of England - and later, the Episcopal Church in America - gradually charted its own course, the cessationist attitude remained as a general, unstated assumption, though not, to my knowledge, as binding dogma. There were, as we know, non-cessationist movements originating from offshoots of Anglicanism like the Methodists. The Church of England also retained the medieval polity and the traditional Catholic liturgy as much as it could, and the ‘spiritual gifts’ formed no part of that praxis. The Church of England was then compelled to enforce strict uniformity in worship to prevent violent sectarianism from erupting following the break with Rome. Anglicanism in the UK and America has also increasingly overlapped with the elite and educated classes, among whom great weight is given to science, biblical criticism, public opinion, etc. You’re just not likely to see a bunch of liberals like me embrace things like glossolalia or faith healings. So, there are cogent historical reasons why it has followed this course. As a practical matter, the quiet, restrained orderliness of the worship prescribed by the Prayer Book seems hard to square with what I’ve seen of charismatic worship. (The lack of charismatic influence was one of the things I actually always found rather attractive about Anglicanism, personally.)
One might ask, why are the gifts of the Spirit no longer an integral part of church life in A/G congregations? I can hypothesize. I do think there were excesses (people faking the gifts) and a relative lack of good fruit (lives changed in a positive direction). Maybe they are leery of the human tendency for individuals to 'stir up' themselves and produce a fake utterance... perhaps to make themselves look more godly, to gain attention, to fit in, or whatever. Overall the western Anglican churches are not oriented toward (and often are critical of) experiential Christianity. In other words, they usually discount 'feelings' and 'spiritual experiences' while they emphasize the significance of the two Sacraments (baptism and communion), participation in church life, and morally upright lifestyle. (Note, I'm not speaking of African or far east Asian Christians in any of my comments here.) Personally, I see a ditch (of error) on either side of the road. Church membership, being 'good,' and receiving sacraments cannot save, only grace through faith in Jesus saves. But on the other side, having some sort of spiritual experience is not an absolute assurance that one is in faith either. For example of the latter, Mormons sometimes have a deeply moving experience after praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true. Similarly, Sister Annie in the front row who has an utterance in tongues 3 weeks out of 4 might or might not be genuinely in tune with the Holy Spirit. I think there are many within the western Anglican churches who fit the description of Matthew 13:22. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. And I think there are many within Pentecostal and Word of Faith churches who fit the description of Matthew 13:20-21. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. Very few western Christians fit the description of verse 23: But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. For a parish to flow in the gifts, the rector must have experience with them and must have discernment to tell the fake from the real. I think very few rectors meet these criteria. And even if they did meet the criteria, there still won't be manifestations if that rector doesn't teach his congregation appropriately on the subject and encourage them to "earnestly seek" the gifts. This simply isn't happening in western Anglican churches. And it is happening less and less in the Pentecostal churches that I have familiarity with, too.
I think my experience of Anglicanism may be a little different. I have certainly known Anglicans who embrace what we might call charismatic expressions of Anglicanism, often matched with an iconoclastic fervour to dismantle anything perceived as traditional. And yet Anglicanism survives, and by the grace of God continues to survive. We recognise many gifts among us, including teaching, healing, leadership, and prayer, and we do not discount glossolalia, prophecy and exorcism. That being said, our embrace of these things is measured. A fundamental principle of our liturgy is that it might be in a language that can be understood by the people, the vulgar tongue, so in the main glossolalia might be more of a privately expressed charism. I think prophecy (as opposed to fortune-telling) is alive and well in many places in Anglicanism, yet may often be derided as the Church engaging in politics. The charism of exorcism is an area that we have approached with liturgical seriousness and would normally be expressed through the work of the Diocesan Exorcist, with a significant base of prayerful support; not simply as a spontaneous outburst. Anglicans in the main do not seek signs and wonders (Matthew 16:4). We are more concerned about the fruits of the spirit, and in the main, I believe Anglicanism is more encouraging of the fruits of the Spirit. These are Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness, Self-Control and Faithfulness. These are the real measure of a congregation that is in tune with the Spirit. Sometimes I find myself saying Kindness is still on the list! Interestingly there are a number of things that are not on the list, including efficiency, corporate branding, and paperwork, not that they are bad things per see but rather should not be our primary concern.
All of the responses to my posts were excellent and informative.My church is small with a mature congregation and a godly and charismatic pastor. The Gifts are not a focus during the Eucharist but sometimes happen organically during prayer. Prayer meetings and small groups are where Gods power and presence are freely expressed
I would say hardcore cessationists are not in vogue. I believe most are at least open to the possibility of the gifts manifesting.
In most Anglican churches, (but by no means all), people receive no encouragement to recognise or operate gifts of the Holy Spirit. Many therefore do not know they have them, or know how to use them effectively at a conscious level in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is one of the things I find frustrating about the paucity of teaching in the Anglican Church. Just about every mention of the Holy Spirit and the gifts to Christ's believers, (which are irrevocable), are only ever mentioned in the liturgy and the reading of scripture, never in the sermon or further education courses. Thus the Anglican Church is hamstrung, hampered and impoverished in ministry to the world. Cessationism wrongly assumes that Christ decided, at some vague post Apostolic time, that the church of Jesus Christ no longer needed gifts of The Holy Spirit to minister to each other and the world. Whereas in fact there has never been a time when it has needed them more than today. I suspect there are many CofE clergy who have little or no experience of receiving them or using them, so are very reluctant to teach about what they do not know or have little experience of. Though this may be a wise precaution on their part, it provides little help to the church to function as it should, to the benefit of the world at large. .
What scientific evidence is there to support the contention that events like glossolalia, xenoglossy, and faith healings are genuine?
What scientific evidence is there to support the contention that 'gifts' like a Word of Wisdom, or a word of knowledge, discernment of spirits or interpretaton of dreams, are genuine? For that matter what scientific evidence is the that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was 'genuine', as you put it. I would suggest only the individual with the gift and those immediately affected by it can decide whether it is 'genuine' or not.
For months we were told that "follow the science' meant that wearing a mask would keep us from contacting COVID. It has now been proven that's untrue.That false statement has negatively affected millions of people. If scientists said that they had found life on a planet called Zooran, would you believe that? Wow, it's Buzz Lightyear! !
I’m not talking about disingenuous right-wing culture war obsessions. I’m asking what evidence there is that would show that such ‘gifts’ are genuine. Have people claiming to be able to ‘speak in tongues’ been able to sit down with language experts and convincingly demonstrate they had the sudden ability to speak in languages of which they had no prior knowledge? It seems like that would be a fairly simple thing to demonstrate, if it were genuine.
Masks do provide some protection for others if the mask wearer happens to be breathing out infection. It's fairly obvious that a mask will at least pose a slight barrier to spreading infectious micro droplets above a certain size. They may even provide a small degree of protection for the user, from breathing them in, but admittedly not that much, but more than not wearing a mask at all. Otherwise why do operating theathre staff all routinely wear masks during an operation? .
It’s not about the science for such people. Their objection to masking is disingenuous. It’s about the government telling them to do something that they don’t want to do.
Yes, because blindly following the dictates of the government has such a wonderful history of working out just fine, especially when it comes to public health. Yeesh. I cannot fathom where this faith in governmental competence comes from among liberals. You'd think that decades of crummy public policy and disastrous social-engineering projects would convince them otherwise, but no -- one can only wish they had the same devotion to their religious faith as they have for the dicta of unelected bureaucrats.
Most would call obeying the law just being a good citizen, and only an idiot would seriously argue that a robust public health policy is something that could or should be dispensed with. Speaking personally, I was by no means blind or insensitive to the myriad inconveniences of dealing with COVID (including the loudmouthed pontificators and troublemakers at both extreme ends of the issue), but I did what I was asked (and in some cases, ordered) to do: I wore masks, I got the vaccine, I got all the boosters, I socially distanced, etc. Today, I am in perfectly good health, all my freedoms are intact, and I never got COVID. It sounds like you’re stuck in 2020; time to join the rest of us in 2023.