Rubbernecking Literature
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.
A few times while driving on the interstate, I've come on traffic back-ups. These weren't cases where traffic came to a complete stop, but rather where it slowed almost to a crawl, but still kept inching forwards. Usually, it turned out that, somewhere up ahead, somethind had happened, and as the drivers were passing by they were slowing down and turning their heads to try to get a look at whatever had happened.
That's basically what this book is, a bit of rubbernecking as one looks at the wreck of a church.
It's an interesting enough book, so far as it goes. The writer relates the account in a fairly interesting way, with bit of humor thrown in. It wasn't a dull book to read.
But getting into the substance of it, it isn't too hard to see some pretty troubling things. As the title of the book indicated, the author claims that "Jesus Killed My Church". Frankly, if so, it was an act of kindness. This guy has a bloodhound's nose for finding the worst of the worst in false teachers and false revivals, as his accounts of pilgrimages to Pensacola and IHOP KC very well indicate. Sadly, he seems to think that he should join up with those people, or emulate them, rather than get as far away from them as possible.
Two things stood out for me in this book.
One was the inherent unreliability of these people who spend their lives making their decisions based on vague feelings. This author recounts two times when he was offered ministry positions, presumably by people who had thought their feelings were God's way of saying that they should offer him those positions, and each time he decided against accepting those positions because "it didn't feel right" (p 67).
So, which side was correct? Were the people offering him the position understanding their own feelings correctly, or did he understand the vague feelings correctly when he turned them down? Or, was God sending mixed signals? I seriously doubt the latter, so that just leaves the dilemma of trying to understand which side was hearing God more correctly than the other.
Another, even more disturbing, thing had to do with a woman who came to him, because she was worried that she had ESP because she felt some strange things and had repetitive dreams. At least from the account in the book, found on pages 110-111, instead of trying to determine if she needed some psychological help or even spiritual deliverance, they immediately tell her "You have a prophetic spirit".
Where does the Bible say that this is how a prophetic spirit operates? When God sent a prophetic dream or vision to a prophet, there was no doubt that it was from God. It was people like Pharoah in Genesis, and Nebuchanezzar in Daniel, essentially pagan rulers, who received dreams from God but they didn't know the source of the dreams until Joseph or Daniel explained things to them.
Also, there is simply the fact that this woman's feelings and dreams, concerning a certain building this pastor was wanting to obtain for his church, turned out to be false. They didn't happen. His church never acquired that building before Jesus killed it. In fact, if this was the former College Football Hall of Fame building near King's Island near Cincinnati, since this man's church was in or near Cincinnati, then that building was torn down in 2004, which means that her feelings and dreams cannot ever happen. This confirms that whatever was giving this woman these feelings and dreams, whether only her own mind or some kind of spiritual influence, was not from God.
If Jesus killed this man's church, maybe it was because it simply needed killing. Judging simply from what he writes, his mains concerns were with being different, getting the atmosphere right, and all kinds of frivolous things.
Probably the main profit one can get from this book is learning how NOT to pastor a church. Don't rely on vague feelings that the Bible never says are God's way of speaking to us. Don't get hung up on being different. Don't think you're such a big brave man because you went and got an earring. Don't think someone's dream or vision is from God simply because it agrees with what you want. Don't think you're called to be a pastor simply because some church plays a song by a band that you like. And, please, stay away from anyone associated with the false Pensacola revival, IHOP KC, The Call, or the NAR in general.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
book review--The Future of Worship by Nathan Byrd
Christian Feng-shui
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.
This is one of those books where the author makes a few valid points, but then goes completely loopy when it comes to his solutions.
For example, he's right to be concerned about things in the church today, such as how churches have become overly concerned with entertainment, being seeker-friendly, and basically becoming places for raising funds. When he recounts a time he did not give when a speaker insisted he did not want bills as small as $5, I agree with him completely on that decision.
But then he talks about his cures for these things, and they're every bit as wacked as anything any seeker megachurch is doing.
"There is a sound for worldly music and another sound for holy music, and the two shall never mix." p. 62. I think we may fairly ask where the Bible teaches this about music? He also tries to make this kind of comparison: flesh = rhythm, soul = harmony, and spirit = melody. Nowhere does the Bible teach such a thing. "Melody appeals to the spirit and fosters entry into the presence of the Almighty. Melody doesn't necessarily need harmony and certainly doesn't need rhythm." p. 77. So, anyone have any Scriptural passages saying that melody fosters entry into the presence of God? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
"I believe timeless music is divine and brings a heavenly context with it because there is no timing in Heaven. Since Heaven is a timeless environment, there is no need for percussion instruments in Heaven." p. 78 Who knew that the music closest to Heaven's music is Enya's? Or that God didn't have drums in Heaven? I certainly can't think of any biblical passage telling us that Heaven is a percussion-free zone.
One favorite NAR trick is take something good, and then add so much unscriptural stuff to it, that it's almost unrecognizable. This author does this to worship. Worship is a good thing, but by the time he keeps adding one unscriptural thing to it after another, one hardly recognizes anything biblical in his worship. "Spiritual continuity and a commitment to perfection bring the worshipers into one accord; when that sound and type of worship is presented before the throne, it takes on a "one-ness" quality in the spirit realm." p. 124. Funny how the Bible doesn't teach this at all, nor can he find anything about it in the Bible, only tries to shoehorn it into the account of Solomon's dedication of the Temple.
"The third dimension of worship is a place where there is no music provided by a human. There is no pastoral encouragement, no apostolic oversight, no prophetic impartation, no singing inspiration, but just the glory of the Presence that Israel experienced throughout their days in the wilderness." Well, talk about something the Bible says absolutely nothing about. See, something added on, completely without biblical support, but merely something this guy's making up from his own imaginations, and completely wacky.
Perhaps his worst ideas have to do with the reason this review is called "Christian Feng-shui", his ideas about church buildings that what should be included in them.
"...we need to redesign, renovate, and realign the church building to be transformed into the house of YHWH. We need to design the interior according to what is prescribed specifically in Scripture so that the Presence can come and remain in our midst forever." Oh, really? Do tell. "What I scripturally advocate is that we make YHWH preeminent by giving Him His proper and prominent space in the sanctuary. The only way I know to do that is by providing a Most Holy Place with the Ark and the cherubim." p. 245. What!!! Is he claiming to have found the Ark of the Covenant? Did he contact Indiana Jones to learn where it could be found? "If that barrier is truly removed and we truly have access to the Father through the Son, then the Church needs an opportunity to prove that out with a tangible location. The Church needs a Most Holy Place!" So, churches need to be laid out so that they have a Most Holy Place, complete with an Ark of the Covenant?
The supposed Tabernacle of David is the current big cause celebre among NAR worship leaders. They all want to establish this kind of place, in some way, shape, form, or fashion. Byrd, for example, says that Amos 9:11 tells us that God will rebuild this Taberacle, though reading that verse in context seems to say otherwise. He says that David established 24-7 music at this tabernacle, though he can offer no scriptural support for this claim.
Finally, he goes to a place that I can only think of as being Gnostic. "G-d is a Spirit, the Scripture says. He made me out of Himself in such a way that I, in a very small way, represent Him in this earthly container. So in essence, He is calling me to present the most authentic part of my being back to Him for true fellowship. He doesn't want me to present my corrupted and corroded flesh, nor does He desire my wayward and distracted soul; He desires that part of me which best represents Himself, my spirit." pp. 228-229. This is Gnosticism--God isn't interested in our bodies, but only in the spirit. Read I Thessalonians 5:23 and Mark 12:30 to see how wrong this guy's teachings here really are.
This touches a little bit on the bizarre things this guy is putting out there. Trust me, there's more.
So, where in the New Testament does anyone say that the churches need to provide some kind of literal space for a real or metaphorical Most Holy Place or Ark of the Covenant? Maybe Paul mentioned to Timothy or Titus that they needed be careful about the buildings they used when their congregations would meet? That it needed to have a certain kind of layout, that it needed to have a room that they would call a Most Holy Place? That they something they would call the Ark of the Covenant? That they needed to be careful that the music they played didn't sound too much like the music they heard outside the church? That they needed to make sure the rhythm section didn't get too loud, and maybe that it wasn't necessary since there are no rhythm sections in Heaven?
I think those questions almost answer themselves. Among the many concerns the epistle writers had for the churches, they make no mention at all of the need for churches to be careful of the types of buildings they met in, what kinds of music they put their songs to, the need for them to have a Most Holy Place, or any other thing that Byrds wants us to fret about.
What Byrd is doing is much the same thing that happened in the church in Galatia, where some came and tried to put the believers back under the Law. Paul's response to this was not weak or unclear at all, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- 6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?" Galatians 3. His words of warning are as applicable against Byrd's form of legalism as against the kind that was infiltrating the Galatian church, "10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."
Byrd's book is all legalism, and even he himself does not live up to his own rules. His church has no Most Holy Place, it has no Ark of the Covenant. He can call some room or space his Most Holy Place, he may even have some object he calls the Ark of the Covenant, but they aren't. He picks and chooses aspects of the tabernacle of ancient Israel, and put us under bondage to his ideas, but he himself makes no attempt to obey all the things taught about that tabernacle.
All of this is basically spiritualized busywork. The church has far more important concerns than about whether our buildings are designed correctly or incorrectly, and these kind of teachings do little more than distract the church from it's mission of preaching the Gospel and encouraging believers to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil world.
The things taught in this book are unnecessary, and even dangerous.
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.
This is one of those books where the author makes a few valid points, but then goes completely loopy when it comes to his solutions.
For example, he's right to be concerned about things in the church today, such as how churches have become overly concerned with entertainment, being seeker-friendly, and basically becoming places for raising funds. When he recounts a time he did not give when a speaker insisted he did not want bills as small as $5, I agree with him completely on that decision.
But then he talks about his cures for these things, and they're every bit as wacked as anything any seeker megachurch is doing.
"There is a sound for worldly music and another sound for holy music, and the two shall never mix." p. 62. I think we may fairly ask where the Bible teaches this about music? He also tries to make this kind of comparison: flesh = rhythm, soul = harmony, and spirit = melody. Nowhere does the Bible teach such a thing. "Melody appeals to the spirit and fosters entry into the presence of the Almighty. Melody doesn't necessarily need harmony and certainly doesn't need rhythm." p. 77. So, anyone have any Scriptural passages saying that melody fosters entry into the presence of God? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
"I believe timeless music is divine and brings a heavenly context with it because there is no timing in Heaven. Since Heaven is a timeless environment, there is no need for percussion instruments in Heaven." p. 78 Who knew that the music closest to Heaven's music is Enya's? Or that God didn't have drums in Heaven? I certainly can't think of any biblical passage telling us that Heaven is a percussion-free zone.
One favorite NAR trick is take something good, and then add so much unscriptural stuff to it, that it's almost unrecognizable. This author does this to worship. Worship is a good thing, but by the time he keeps adding one unscriptural thing to it after another, one hardly recognizes anything biblical in his worship. "Spiritual continuity and a commitment to perfection bring the worshipers into one accord; when that sound and type of worship is presented before the throne, it takes on a "one-ness" quality in the spirit realm." p. 124. Funny how the Bible doesn't teach this at all, nor can he find anything about it in the Bible, only tries to shoehorn it into the account of Solomon's dedication of the Temple.
"The third dimension of worship is a place where there is no music provided by a human. There is no pastoral encouragement, no apostolic oversight, no prophetic impartation, no singing inspiration, but just the glory of the Presence that Israel experienced throughout their days in the wilderness." Well, talk about something the Bible says absolutely nothing about. See, something added on, completely without biblical support, but merely something this guy's making up from his own imaginations, and completely wacky.
Perhaps his worst ideas have to do with the reason this review is called "Christian Feng-shui", his ideas about church buildings that what should be included in them.
"...we need to redesign, renovate, and realign the church building to be transformed into the house of YHWH. We need to design the interior according to what is prescribed specifically in Scripture so that the Presence can come and remain in our midst forever." Oh, really? Do tell. "What I scripturally advocate is that we make YHWH preeminent by giving Him His proper and prominent space in the sanctuary. The only way I know to do that is by providing a Most Holy Place with the Ark and the cherubim." p. 245. What!!! Is he claiming to have found the Ark of the Covenant? Did he contact Indiana Jones to learn where it could be found? "If that barrier is truly removed and we truly have access to the Father through the Son, then the Church needs an opportunity to prove that out with a tangible location. The Church needs a Most Holy Place!" So, churches need to be laid out so that they have a Most Holy Place, complete with an Ark of the Covenant?
The supposed Tabernacle of David is the current big cause celebre among NAR worship leaders. They all want to establish this kind of place, in some way, shape, form, or fashion. Byrd, for example, says that Amos 9:11 tells us that God will rebuild this Taberacle, though reading that verse in context seems to say otherwise. He says that David established 24-7 music at this tabernacle, though he can offer no scriptural support for this claim.
Finally, he goes to a place that I can only think of as being Gnostic. "G-d is a Spirit, the Scripture says. He made me out of Himself in such a way that I, in a very small way, represent Him in this earthly container. So in essence, He is calling me to present the most authentic part of my being back to Him for true fellowship. He doesn't want me to present my corrupted and corroded flesh, nor does He desire my wayward and distracted soul; He desires that part of me which best represents Himself, my spirit." pp. 228-229. This is Gnosticism--God isn't interested in our bodies, but only in the spirit. Read I Thessalonians 5:23 and Mark 12:30 to see how wrong this guy's teachings here really are.
This touches a little bit on the bizarre things this guy is putting out there. Trust me, there's more.
So, where in the New Testament does anyone say that the churches need to provide some kind of literal space for a real or metaphorical Most Holy Place or Ark of the Covenant? Maybe Paul mentioned to Timothy or Titus that they needed be careful about the buildings they used when their congregations would meet? That it needed to have a certain kind of layout, that it needed to have a room that they would call a Most Holy Place? That they something they would call the Ark of the Covenant? That they needed to be careful that the music they played didn't sound too much like the music they heard outside the church? That they needed to make sure the rhythm section didn't get too loud, and maybe that it wasn't necessary since there are no rhythm sections in Heaven?
I think those questions almost answer themselves. Among the many concerns the epistle writers had for the churches, they make no mention at all of the need for churches to be careful of the types of buildings they met in, what kinds of music they put their songs to, the need for them to have a Most Holy Place, or any other thing that Byrds wants us to fret about.
What Byrd is doing is much the same thing that happened in the church in Galatia, where some came and tried to put the believers back under the Law. Paul's response to this was not weak or unclear at all, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- 6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?" Galatians 3. His words of warning are as applicable against Byrd's form of legalism as against the kind that was infiltrating the Galatian church, "10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."
Byrd's book is all legalism, and even he himself does not live up to his own rules. His church has no Most Holy Place, it has no Ark of the Covenant. He can call some room or space his Most Holy Place, he may even have some object he calls the Ark of the Covenant, but they aren't. He picks and chooses aspects of the tabernacle of ancient Israel, and put us under bondage to his ideas, but he himself makes no attempt to obey all the things taught about that tabernacle.
All of this is basically spiritualized busywork. The church has far more important concerns than about whether our buildings are designed correctly or incorrectly, and these kind of teachings do little more than distract the church from it's mission of preaching the Gospel and encouraging believers to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil world.
The things taught in this book are unnecessary, and even dangerous.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
book review--On Earth as it is in Heaven by Peter Wagner
Everybody wants to rule the world
Or, at least, Peter Wagner and those like him do.
Wagner's books is interesting, at least in an academic sense; after all, it's rather helpful when those who want to be our future overlords give us their game plan, along with their motivations.
Concerning motivations and reasons, bibllically, I can't buy into what Wagner is trying to sell. "Hunter, to the contrary, says, "Most Christians in history have interpreted the creation mandate in Genesis as a mandate to change the world."" (Kindle Locations 455-456). Not sure why we should accept the word of this Hunter guy, or what evidences he gives to support that claim. But concerning this suppose "mandate to change the world", you can find it Genesis 1, "28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Notice, please, first that this mandate was given before the Fall. Notice, again, that nothing is said in that mandate about changing the world, or people having dominion over each other. It is all about mankind having children and filling the earth, and mankind having dominion over fish and birds and animals.
The other big way he tries to find dominionism in the Bible has to do with a few words in Jesus' prayer. "My basic premise is that God's kingdom should come and that His will should be done here on earth as it is in heaven. This is clearly a Christian principle because, as I have said, these are the very words that Jesus taught His disciples to pray every day in the Lord's Prayer." (Kindle Locations 89-90). Now, are the words in the this prayer suppose to be a covert command for the Church to take charge of the world? Considering that no place else in the Bible hints at such a thing, that Jesus never told the Apostles to try to gain control of the world, that no epistles tell the churches to act in such a way, I think we can safely be skeptical of Wagner's spin on this phrase.
But, as the book makes plain, Wagner is all about power. Christians should be in charge, Christians should take over the supposed seven mountains of society. And how is that done?
"The second pillar is the great transfer of wealth, which God has been promising through His prophets for several years." (Kindle Locations 192-193). Yeah, that's right, money. Or, as Wagner rather crassly put it, "If you check back through human history, you will find that three things, more than anything else, have produced social transformation, namely violence, knowledge and wealth. The greatest of these is wealth!" (Kindle Locations 2200-2201), and "One of the apostles present said, "If you want to take a city, you need to buy it! Own businesses, property, and whatever other opportunities you can find to build wealth."" (Kindle Locations 2233-2235).
Wow. You know all that stuff the Bible says about the dangers of wanting wealth, about being content with what we have? Oh, but Peter Wagner is sooooo much smarter than those fuddy-duddy biblical writers! Who needs contentment, when Peter Wagner wants to rule the world! There have been modern-day prophets, whose prophetic accuracy rate has probably been much less than the biblically required 100%, who have been going on about a transfer of wealth! People like Joel Osteen tell you that God wants to your life to improve, God wants you to be prosperous! Who are you going to believe, the Bible or Joel Osteen!!!
"Apostle Pat Francis of Kingdom Covenant Ministries in Toronto say that her goal is to help every member of her church become a millionaire." (Kindle Locations 2323-2324). Wow, why didn't the Apostle Paul, or any other biblical Apostle for that matter, think about that? Their main concern was preaching the Gospel of Christ dying for the sins of people and rising again, and that the Christians should live holy and godly lives. Why, if they'd told them to become millionaires, or whatever the equivalent was at that time, just think about what the church would have been like.
There's more weirdness in this book, such has Wagner's claim that we are in some kind of Second Apostolic Age, which the Bible says nothing about, or his claim that Rick Warren and Joel Osteen are apostles (even if they don't use that title for themselves), which is simply hilarious.
I will thank Wagner for one thing, though. At one point, he writes this, "For example, one of my self-perceived badges of honor is to have had a whole book written to criticize my (and George Barna's) pragmatism!" (Kindle Locations 1927-1928). A footnote tells the reader that the book in question is Ashamed of the Gospel by John MacArthur. I've read that book, since reading Wagner's, and found MacArthur's book to be orders of magnitude superior to the drivel in Wagner's book. I will recommend MacArthur's book to you, instead of Wagner's. You'll learn far more of biblical value in that book, as against Wagner's imaginings on how to take over the world.
Or, at least, Peter Wagner and those like him do.
Wagner's books is interesting, at least in an academic sense; after all, it's rather helpful when those who want to be our future overlords give us their game plan, along with their motivations.
Concerning motivations and reasons, bibllically, I can't buy into what Wagner is trying to sell. "Hunter, to the contrary, says, "Most Christians in history have interpreted the creation mandate in Genesis as a mandate to change the world."" (Kindle Locations 455-456). Not sure why we should accept the word of this Hunter guy, or what evidences he gives to support that claim. But concerning this suppose "mandate to change the world", you can find it Genesis 1, "28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Notice, please, first that this mandate was given before the Fall. Notice, again, that nothing is said in that mandate about changing the world, or people having dominion over each other. It is all about mankind having children and filling the earth, and mankind having dominion over fish and birds and animals.
The other big way he tries to find dominionism in the Bible has to do with a few words in Jesus' prayer. "My basic premise is that God's kingdom should come and that His will should be done here on earth as it is in heaven. This is clearly a Christian principle because, as I have said, these are the very words that Jesus taught His disciples to pray every day in the Lord's Prayer." (Kindle Locations 89-90). Now, are the words in the this prayer suppose to be a covert command for the Church to take charge of the world? Considering that no place else in the Bible hints at such a thing, that Jesus never told the Apostles to try to gain control of the world, that no epistles tell the churches to act in such a way, I think we can safely be skeptical of Wagner's spin on this phrase.
But, as the book makes plain, Wagner is all about power. Christians should be in charge, Christians should take over the supposed seven mountains of society. And how is that done?
"The second pillar is the great transfer of wealth, which God has been promising through His prophets for several years." (Kindle Locations 192-193). Yeah, that's right, money. Or, as Wagner rather crassly put it, "If you check back through human history, you will find that three things, more than anything else, have produced social transformation, namely violence, knowledge and wealth. The greatest of these is wealth!" (Kindle Locations 2200-2201), and "One of the apostles present said, "If you want to take a city, you need to buy it! Own businesses, property, and whatever other opportunities you can find to build wealth."" (Kindle Locations 2233-2235).
Wow. You know all that stuff the Bible says about the dangers of wanting wealth, about being content with what we have? Oh, but Peter Wagner is sooooo much smarter than those fuddy-duddy biblical writers! Who needs contentment, when Peter Wagner wants to rule the world! There have been modern-day prophets, whose prophetic accuracy rate has probably been much less than the biblically required 100%, who have been going on about a transfer of wealth! People like Joel Osteen tell you that God wants to your life to improve, God wants you to be prosperous! Who are you going to believe, the Bible or Joel Osteen!!!
"Apostle Pat Francis of Kingdom Covenant Ministries in Toronto say that her goal is to help every member of her church become a millionaire." (Kindle Locations 2323-2324). Wow, why didn't the Apostle Paul, or any other biblical Apostle for that matter, think about that? Their main concern was preaching the Gospel of Christ dying for the sins of people and rising again, and that the Christians should live holy and godly lives. Why, if they'd told them to become millionaires, or whatever the equivalent was at that time, just think about what the church would have been like.
There's more weirdness in this book, such has Wagner's claim that we are in some kind of Second Apostolic Age, which the Bible says nothing about, or his claim that Rick Warren and Joel Osteen are apostles (even if they don't use that title for themselves), which is simply hilarious.
I will thank Wagner for one thing, though. At one point, he writes this, "For example, one of my self-perceived badges of honor is to have had a whole book written to criticize my (and George Barna's) pragmatism!" (Kindle Locations 1927-1928). A footnote tells the reader that the book in question is Ashamed of the Gospel by John MacArthur. I've read that book, since reading Wagner's, and found MacArthur's book to be orders of magnitude superior to the drivel in Wagner's book. I will recommend MacArthur's book to you, instead of Wagner's. You'll learn far more of biblical value in that book, as against Wagner's imaginings on how to take over the world.
Monday, April 29, 2013
book review--Spiritual Warfare by Dean Sherman
this author fails at his own standard
Early in the book, Sherman makes this statement, "When it comes to spiritual warfare, if it’s not in the Bible, be careful." (Kindle Location 335). I think this is a pretty wise statement. Sadly, I do not think that he abided by it very much throughout the rest of the book. Here are some examples...
In the first pages, he claims to have gotten this message from God, "Praise is the key to breaking down the forces of darkness which have held this city since the beginning of time. These forces have never been challenged." (Kindle Locations 84-85) But he records no attempts to verify whether the Bible teaches this or not. In fact, if these were the exact words he received, he should have been immediately warned, because this city in Papua New Guinea had obviously not existed from the beginning of time, so "the forces of darknes" could not have had hold of it for that long.
He writes this about Satan, "He is a thief who wants to rob us of all he can. He wants to steal our health and another year of life. He wants to steal our productivity, our relationships, our joy, our peace, and our faith." (Kindle Locations 566-568), and "His full intention is to destroy our minds, our bodies, our character, our reputations, and our relationships." (Kindle Location 592). While the Bible does describe Satan as a thief, are these the things he is most concerned about stealing? Are there not sinful peple who would claim that they have productive lives, good relationships, happiness, peace, and faith in something? Would they not say that they have sound bodies and minds, good reputations and character? On the other hand, are they not Christians who are maybe not so healthy in mind or body, have bad reputations because of their faith, have lost relationships because they are more loyal to God rather than to others? If Satan is a thief, perhaps he has bigger game.
He claims that Satan has a kingdom, and that this kingdom has three kingpins. "These three are pride, unbelief, and fear. Everything that Satan does, his entire kingdom and his nature, emanate from pride, unbelief, and fear." (Kindle Locations 862-863) He gives no biblical passage in support of this assertation.
He has a strange take on the passage "our battle is not against flesh and blood". "It has never been, and never will be, a Christian activity to write books and articles or make speeches against other Christians. We get into a savage theological controversies that neither side will every win." (Kindle Locations 1161-1162) "We should fight issues in society, but not people. Fighting people never advances the Kingdom of God, no matter how right the issues." (Kindle Locations 1193-1194) "Even if we have the right doctrine, if we damage people in defense of it, we give the enemy entrance. It’s okay to fight issues, but not the people behind the issues. We can never win if we battle other human beings." (Kindle Locations 1171-1173). If I were to take his interpretation of this seriously, then Jesus was wrong to speak against the Pharisees and other who were misleading the people, Peter was wrong to speak against Ananias and Sapphira, Paul was wrong to say that those are accursed who were teaching the churches another gospel, and Jesus was again wrong in Revelation to speak against the churches. And at various times in church history, when there were those like the Gnostics who tried to bring in heresy, there were those like Irenaeus and Athanasius who spoke against them, exposed their teachings, and would not compromise. It seems that Sherman is saying that they were wrong to have done this, that they should simply have dealt with ideas but not named names and stood against the ones spreading these heresies. I find that ridiculous.
He makes a rather bizarre statement concerning the Pharisees, "It may be hard to swallow, but the Pharisees were right. They understood the Scriptures completely."(Kindle Locations 1173-1174). Yet it was Jesus Himself who got onto them about not understanding the Scriptures, saying that while the search them to find eternal life, they would not believe and come to Him. If they did not come to Him, but rather worked to crucify Him, then they obviously did not undstand the Scriptures completely.
"However, it is essential that we become well acquainted with the invisible realm." (Kindle Location 1285). But if it is so essential, why does the Bible tell us so very little about it? We get glimpses, but hardly much more than that. "More time and energy need to be invested in the unseen world." (Kindle Location 1296). If that is so, then were does the Bible say that?
"The greatest manual for spiritual warfare is the Old Testament. The battles that were fought then in the earthly realm are exactly the same as those we now fight in the unseen world." (Kindle Locations 1615-1616) He seems to simply try to make the OT battles into some kinds of analogies for current spiritual warfare. Where does the Bible tell us to view those battles in that way?
Sherman says this at one point, "The kingdom of darkness is as well-oiled as the best human military machine. Satan has particular battle plans for each geographic area and for each group of people." (Kindle Locations 1710-1711) Since he gives no real scriptural support for this assertion, only out-of-context verses, we can only assume that his spiritual spies have gained copies of these plans, or maybe his spiritual communications specialists have cracked the codes Satan's army is using.
"In light of our Great Commission to “Go into all the world,” praying into all the world should be our first response and our first commitment to win the world to Christ." (Kindle Locations 1741-1743). If that were so, then why did not Christ say that, instead of actually telling us to go?
He makes some unwarranted leaps. "If there are princes of Persia and Greece, there are also princes of Scotland, Hawaii, London, Dallas, and even North Dallas." (Kindle Locations 1755-1756) He references Daniel 10 for the princes of Persia and Greece, and that's all well and good. But why should we then conclude that every country, city, or even suburb has it's resident demonic prince? Outside of Daniel 10, the Bible doesn't seem to elaborate on this subject further, leaving one to conclude it's hardly a major biblical teaching. The New Testament writings are silent on this subject, no epistle writer tells the churches to be concerned about demonic princes over their city, so I can only conclude that Sherman is stressing something that isn't really all that important.
"Many activities of the enemy are functions that intersect in the heavenlies. If we ask the Holy Spirit, He will reveal how Satan is working in any given place or situation." (Kindle Locations 1882-1883). He doesn't say where the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will tell us this if we ask.
There are some questionable speculations. Concerning the fall of man, "Adam and Eve had something of tremendous value to Satan. Satan wanted the authority God had given to man." (Kindle Location 2056) He never gives any scriptural support for this claim that Satan wanted man's authority.
Sherman comes close to blasphemy in this, "God promised to bruise Satan’s head—not directly, but through the seed of the woman. The seed of Satan would in turn bruise mankind’s heel. This established the grounds for spiritual warfare. Satan is working through mankind to do his business on the planet. And God is working through mankind to defeat the enemy. This is what has been happening throughout history...The seed of the woman is three things: It is, first of all, all who are born from Eve—the human race. Satan’s attack on the seed of the woman is seen primarily in his attack on all human children." (Kindle Locations 2068-2076) This couldn't be more wrong. The "seed of the woman" mentioned in Genesis 3 is a prophesy referring to Christ, not mankind as a whole. Shame of Sherman for this awful teaching!!
"We need a revelation of what happens among demonic powers when we speak the precious and powerful name of Jesus. It’s not a magic word. We must be wholly submitted to Jesus to use it." (Kindle Locations 2306-2307) This is the sort of thing that has led to that awful practice on the part of the obvious false teachers, who get up and think that simply repeating a phrase like "...in Jesus' name!!" is some kind of spark for things to happen. But there are several passages in the New Testament, gospels and epistles, where demons spoke Jesus' name.
Sherman gives a kind of example prayer of intercessor spiritual warfare, "Father, we come before you in the name of Jesus Christ and ask you to bring conviction upon this person and to lead him to repentance in his life. Satan, we come against you in the name of Jesus Christ and we cut off your influence in the life of this person in the areas of…" (Kindle Locations 2982-2984) But the Bible is rather silent about the need to "come against" Satan like this prayer suggests; in fact, in the short book of Jude, where it says that Michael the archangel and Satan disputed over the body of Moses, it says that not even the archangel spoke like that to Satan, but simply said "The Lord rebuke you". In this, it seems that Jude warns against such things.
Here is another unsupported claim. "God has established certain irrevocable principles in the universe. He will move in the affairs of mankind according to the degree and how specifically we pray." (Kindle Locations 3021-3022) There doesn't seem to be any biblical support for what he is saying here; indeed, this god would be a rather pathetic being, as even Sherman himself shows, "God is crying out to His people: “I want to move. I want to bless. I want to save. I want to protect, provide, and stop injustice. Why won’t you intercede?” (Kindle Locations 3024-3025) Yeah, poor god, stuck on the sidelines, unable to play until we let him in the game.
He says this, concerning the conquest of Jericho in the book of Judges, "Through obedience and the very presence of the people of God, Israel drove back the powers of darkness in the unseen realm. God showed them the importance of going exactly where He wanted them to go, and doing exactly what He wanted them to do. Before the walls of Jericho fell, there was victory in the spiritual realm."(Kindle Locations 3228-3231) He gives no biblical support for this claim, and it isn't anywhere in the account in Judges.
This review is rather long, but it actually contains only a few of the many questionable, unscriptural things taught in this book.
I cannot recommend this book at all. Sherman fails at keeping his own standard. His book is a theological train-wreck, unworthy of being looked to for solid bibilcal teaching. It is to YWAM's shame that they published this book, and telling their DTS students to read it and practice the unbiblical things taught in it.
Early in the book, Sherman makes this statement, "When it comes to spiritual warfare, if it’s not in the Bible, be careful." (Kindle Location 335). I think this is a pretty wise statement. Sadly, I do not think that he abided by it very much throughout the rest of the book. Here are some examples...
In the first pages, he claims to have gotten this message from God, "Praise is the key to breaking down the forces of darkness which have held this city since the beginning of time. These forces have never been challenged." (Kindle Locations 84-85) But he records no attempts to verify whether the Bible teaches this or not. In fact, if these were the exact words he received, he should have been immediately warned, because this city in Papua New Guinea had obviously not existed from the beginning of time, so "the forces of darknes" could not have had hold of it for that long.
He writes this about Satan, "He is a thief who wants to rob us of all he can. He wants to steal our health and another year of life. He wants to steal our productivity, our relationships, our joy, our peace, and our faith." (Kindle Locations 566-568), and "His full intention is to destroy our minds, our bodies, our character, our reputations, and our relationships." (Kindle Location 592). While the Bible does describe Satan as a thief, are these the things he is most concerned about stealing? Are there not sinful peple who would claim that they have productive lives, good relationships, happiness, peace, and faith in something? Would they not say that they have sound bodies and minds, good reputations and character? On the other hand, are they not Christians who are maybe not so healthy in mind or body, have bad reputations because of their faith, have lost relationships because they are more loyal to God rather than to others? If Satan is a thief, perhaps he has bigger game.
He claims that Satan has a kingdom, and that this kingdom has three kingpins. "These three are pride, unbelief, and fear. Everything that Satan does, his entire kingdom and his nature, emanate from pride, unbelief, and fear." (Kindle Locations 862-863) He gives no biblical passage in support of this assertation.
He has a strange take on the passage "our battle is not against flesh and blood". "It has never been, and never will be, a Christian activity to write books and articles or make speeches against other Christians. We get into a savage theological controversies that neither side will every win." (Kindle Locations 1161-1162) "We should fight issues in society, but not people. Fighting people never advances the Kingdom of God, no matter how right the issues." (Kindle Locations 1193-1194) "Even if we have the right doctrine, if we damage people in defense of it, we give the enemy entrance. It’s okay to fight issues, but not the people behind the issues. We can never win if we battle other human beings." (Kindle Locations 1171-1173). If I were to take his interpretation of this seriously, then Jesus was wrong to speak against the Pharisees and other who were misleading the people, Peter was wrong to speak against Ananias and Sapphira, Paul was wrong to say that those are accursed who were teaching the churches another gospel, and Jesus was again wrong in Revelation to speak against the churches. And at various times in church history, when there were those like the Gnostics who tried to bring in heresy, there were those like Irenaeus and Athanasius who spoke against them, exposed their teachings, and would not compromise. It seems that Sherman is saying that they were wrong to have done this, that they should simply have dealt with ideas but not named names and stood against the ones spreading these heresies. I find that ridiculous.
He makes a rather bizarre statement concerning the Pharisees, "It may be hard to swallow, but the Pharisees were right. They understood the Scriptures completely."(Kindle Locations 1173-1174). Yet it was Jesus Himself who got onto them about not understanding the Scriptures, saying that while the search them to find eternal life, they would not believe and come to Him. If they did not come to Him, but rather worked to crucify Him, then they obviously did not undstand the Scriptures completely.
"However, it is essential that we become well acquainted with the invisible realm." (Kindle Location 1285). But if it is so essential, why does the Bible tell us so very little about it? We get glimpses, but hardly much more than that. "More time and energy need to be invested in the unseen world." (Kindle Location 1296). If that is so, then were does the Bible say that?
"The greatest manual for spiritual warfare is the Old Testament. The battles that were fought then in the earthly realm are exactly the same as those we now fight in the unseen world." (Kindle Locations 1615-1616) He seems to simply try to make the OT battles into some kinds of analogies for current spiritual warfare. Where does the Bible tell us to view those battles in that way?
Sherman says this at one point, "The kingdom of darkness is as well-oiled as the best human military machine. Satan has particular battle plans for each geographic area and for each group of people." (Kindle Locations 1710-1711) Since he gives no real scriptural support for this assertion, only out-of-context verses, we can only assume that his spiritual spies have gained copies of these plans, or maybe his spiritual communications specialists have cracked the codes Satan's army is using.
"In light of our Great Commission to “Go into all the world,” praying into all the world should be our first response and our first commitment to win the world to Christ." (Kindle Locations 1741-1743). If that were so, then why did not Christ say that, instead of actually telling us to go?
He makes some unwarranted leaps. "If there are princes of Persia and Greece, there are also princes of Scotland, Hawaii, London, Dallas, and even North Dallas." (Kindle Locations 1755-1756) He references Daniel 10 for the princes of Persia and Greece, and that's all well and good. But why should we then conclude that every country, city, or even suburb has it's resident demonic prince? Outside of Daniel 10, the Bible doesn't seem to elaborate on this subject further, leaving one to conclude it's hardly a major biblical teaching. The New Testament writings are silent on this subject, no epistle writer tells the churches to be concerned about demonic princes over their city, so I can only conclude that Sherman is stressing something that isn't really all that important.
"Many activities of the enemy are functions that intersect in the heavenlies. If we ask the Holy Spirit, He will reveal how Satan is working in any given place or situation." (Kindle Locations 1882-1883). He doesn't say where the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will tell us this if we ask.
There are some questionable speculations. Concerning the fall of man, "Adam and Eve had something of tremendous value to Satan. Satan wanted the authority God had given to man." (Kindle Location 2056) He never gives any scriptural support for this claim that Satan wanted man's authority.
Sherman comes close to blasphemy in this, "God promised to bruise Satan’s head—not directly, but through the seed of the woman. The seed of Satan would in turn bruise mankind’s heel. This established the grounds for spiritual warfare. Satan is working through mankind to do his business on the planet. And God is working through mankind to defeat the enemy. This is what has been happening throughout history...The seed of the woman is three things: It is, first of all, all who are born from Eve—the human race. Satan’s attack on the seed of the woman is seen primarily in his attack on all human children." (Kindle Locations 2068-2076) This couldn't be more wrong. The "seed of the woman" mentioned in Genesis 3 is a prophesy referring to Christ, not mankind as a whole. Shame of Sherman for this awful teaching!!
"We need a revelation of what happens among demonic powers when we speak the precious and powerful name of Jesus. It’s not a magic word. We must be wholly submitted to Jesus to use it." (Kindle Locations 2306-2307) This is the sort of thing that has led to that awful practice on the part of the obvious false teachers, who get up and think that simply repeating a phrase like "...in Jesus' name!!" is some kind of spark for things to happen. But there are several passages in the New Testament, gospels and epistles, where demons spoke Jesus' name.
Sherman gives a kind of example prayer of intercessor spiritual warfare, "Father, we come before you in the name of Jesus Christ and ask you to bring conviction upon this person and to lead him to repentance in his life. Satan, we come against you in the name of Jesus Christ and we cut off your influence in the life of this person in the areas of…" (Kindle Locations 2982-2984) But the Bible is rather silent about the need to "come against" Satan like this prayer suggests; in fact, in the short book of Jude, where it says that Michael the archangel and Satan disputed over the body of Moses, it says that not even the archangel spoke like that to Satan, but simply said "The Lord rebuke you". In this, it seems that Jude warns against such things.
Here is another unsupported claim. "God has established certain irrevocable principles in the universe. He will move in the affairs of mankind according to the degree and how specifically we pray." (Kindle Locations 3021-3022) There doesn't seem to be any biblical support for what he is saying here; indeed, this god would be a rather pathetic being, as even Sherman himself shows, "God is crying out to His people: “I want to move. I want to bless. I want to save. I want to protect, provide, and stop injustice. Why won’t you intercede?” (Kindle Locations 3024-3025) Yeah, poor god, stuck on the sidelines, unable to play until we let him in the game.
He says this, concerning the conquest of Jericho in the book of Judges, "Through obedience and the very presence of the people of God, Israel drove back the powers of darkness in the unseen realm. God showed them the importance of going exactly where He wanted them to go, and doing exactly what He wanted them to do. Before the walls of Jericho fell, there was victory in the spiritual realm."(Kindle Locations 3228-3231) He gives no biblical support for this claim, and it isn't anywhere in the account in Judges.
This review is rather long, but it actually contains only a few of the many questionable, unscriptural things taught in this book.
I cannot recommend this book at all. Sherman fails at keeping his own standard. His book is a theological train-wreck, unworthy of being looked to for solid bibilcal teaching. It is to YWAM's shame that they published this book, and telling their DTS students to read it and practice the unbiblical things taught in it.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
book review--Humble Orthodoxy by Joshua Harris
short book, well worth the read
This is a small book, but it really is one that is quite good. Probably about 4/5 of it, I have no problems with, and even the parts were I may express concern or disagreement are not areas of strong disagreement. I can agree quite well with his premise that we need to be concerned with both being orthodox in our beliefs and humble in our attitudes. There are things that we may need to stand strong for, such as the divinity of Christ, but also things that are not worth dividing over, such as some theories about the end times. There have been times in the past, and today, when disagreements over secondary matters have become too heated.
I'm not completely without some concerns, though.
Harris begins the book by telling a bit about a friend of his, a fellow author whose book apparently had some questionable things in it. People responded to this other author, and some apparently in a strong way. "He said the harshest ones (e-mails) were from people who presented themselves as "caring about doctrine". Their e-mails were vitriolic, pointing out the theological errors and inconsistencies of what he had written". p 1.
Harris doesn't identify his friend, nor his friend's book, so I can't comment about it that way or this. I don't know if his friend showed him the e-mails he thought were vitriolic and harsh. My main concern is this--it's quite common today for people to take any criticism of themselves or their work, and see it in the worst of lights. How are we to know that this other author may not simply have read those e-mails in a worse way than the writers had intended? Perhaps those readers were responding with real concern to serious errors that they saw that this other author was teaching, and were not trying to be unduly harsh?
This is such a common thing, I see it often. For example, a Christian rapper recently put out a song, calling certain popular authors and pastors and teachers in the church "Fal$e Teacher$". Some claim that he is being divisive, they would probably use words like "harsh" and "vitriolic" to describe him and his song. My opinion is that he's simply calling a spade a spade, the people he identifies as false teachers are really false teachers, and of the worst sort. To my mind, if anything the church has been far too accepting of such false teachers, letting them practically define Christianity in the minds of those in the church and in the world.
Finally, we have examples in Scripture were Jesus and the Apostles were none too gentle in their words regarding those who were leading people astray with their unscriptural teachings. In Matthew 23, Jesus is unsparing in this words against the scribes and Pharisees. In Galatians 1, Paul says that anyone who preaches another Gospel is accursed, and in chapter 5 of the same book he wishes that those who wanted to put the believers under by law of circumcision would emasculate themselves. In the book of Jude, the author compares false teachers to unreasoning animals, and that's just at the start of his descriptions of them, none of which are complimentary. II John tells the church being written to, and by extension us, to not even welcome false teachers into our homes or churches, or even greet them.
I know that we must weight these things against the command to love our enemies, and if I've understood him corrently in this book, I think Harris agrees that sound doctrine is important, and we must warn against false teachers.
Anyway, I highly recommend this book. It's short, but weighty, and you'll be given some things to ponder on.
This is a small book, but it really is one that is quite good. Probably about 4/5 of it, I have no problems with, and even the parts were I may express concern or disagreement are not areas of strong disagreement. I can agree quite well with his premise that we need to be concerned with both being orthodox in our beliefs and humble in our attitudes. There are things that we may need to stand strong for, such as the divinity of Christ, but also things that are not worth dividing over, such as some theories about the end times. There have been times in the past, and today, when disagreements over secondary matters have become too heated.
I'm not completely without some concerns, though.
Harris begins the book by telling a bit about a friend of his, a fellow author whose book apparently had some questionable things in it. People responded to this other author, and some apparently in a strong way. "He said the harshest ones (e-mails) were from people who presented themselves as "caring about doctrine". Their e-mails were vitriolic, pointing out the theological errors and inconsistencies of what he had written". p 1.
Harris doesn't identify his friend, nor his friend's book, so I can't comment about it that way or this. I don't know if his friend showed him the e-mails he thought were vitriolic and harsh. My main concern is this--it's quite common today for people to take any criticism of themselves or their work, and see it in the worst of lights. How are we to know that this other author may not simply have read those e-mails in a worse way than the writers had intended? Perhaps those readers were responding with real concern to serious errors that they saw that this other author was teaching, and were not trying to be unduly harsh?
This is such a common thing, I see it often. For example, a Christian rapper recently put out a song, calling certain popular authors and pastors and teachers in the church "Fal$e Teacher$". Some claim that he is being divisive, they would probably use words like "harsh" and "vitriolic" to describe him and his song. My opinion is that he's simply calling a spade a spade, the people he identifies as false teachers are really false teachers, and of the worst sort. To my mind, if anything the church has been far too accepting of such false teachers, letting them practically define Christianity in the minds of those in the church and in the world.
Finally, we have examples in Scripture were Jesus and the Apostles were none too gentle in their words regarding those who were leading people astray with their unscriptural teachings. In Matthew 23, Jesus is unsparing in this words against the scribes and Pharisees. In Galatians 1, Paul says that anyone who preaches another Gospel is accursed, and in chapter 5 of the same book he wishes that those who wanted to put the believers under by law of circumcision would emasculate themselves. In the book of Jude, the author compares false teachers to unreasoning animals, and that's just at the start of his descriptions of them, none of which are complimentary. II John tells the church being written to, and by extension us, to not even welcome false teachers into our homes or churches, or even greet them.
I know that we must weight these things against the command to love our enemies, and if I've understood him corrently in this book, I think Harris agrees that sound doctrine is important, and we must warn against false teachers.
Anyway, I highly recommend this book. It's short, but weighty, and you'll be given some things to ponder on.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
book review--Answering the Contemplative Call by Carl McColman
not very biblical
I received a free copy of this book from Speakeasy.
It's hard to escape the various flavors of contemplative practices out and about in the church nowadays. Whether its more refined versions of it like in this book, or the rough-and-tumble of the ways the New Apostolic Reformation folks do it, it's everywhere. Whether it's sitting alone doing mantra-like chants and lectio divina, like McColman recommends, or it's YWAmers practicing the supposed steps of prayer and intercession, then sitting around in a circle trying to get guidance from some inner voice, it's all the same and one.
The fact that none of it has much in the way of biblical support seems to be lost on all of these practitioners.
For the discerning Christian, there are plenty of things in this book that should cause alarms to go off. For example, while he makes a point of saying that he's teaching about Christian mysticism or spirituality, one gets the impression that the "Christian" part of that is much less valuable to him than the "mysticism" or "spirituality" part. "Saint Paul sees Christ on the road to Damascus. The Buddha achieves enlightenment sitting under the Bodhi tree. Mohammed takes the miraculous night journey of Isra and Mi’raj, carrying him from earth to heaven. And of course, Aquinas and Julian and Merton have their singular peak moments and their lives are forever changed." p 32. Experience trumps beliefs, one may well assume.
In fact, conversion seems to have become unnecessary. "He (Merton) also became increasingly interested in interfaith dialogue, and began to explore the points of connection between Christian monasticism and the spirituality of Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism." p 24. And the author of this work is also involved in such dialogues.
And the Bible? Well, consider this. "Here’s a comment that Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, a monk of the twelfth century and a renowned mystic, once made about nature—one I believe could just as easily be applied to any of life’s mysteries. “Believe me as one who has experience,” said Bernard, “you will find much more among the woods than ever you will among books. Woods and stones will teach you what you can never hear from any master."...Consider this: Bernard is not rejecting the kind of wisdom or understanding that can be found in books or from a spiritual director. He just recognizes that nature—even the silence of “woods and stones”—is an even greater teacher. " p 7. If we are to believe that nature in superior to books, and the Bible is a book, would it be unfair to conclude that Bernard, and by extention this author, are saying that nature is a better teacher than the Bible? That God speaks better through woods and stones than throught the words He gave to the apostles and prophets?
"Jesus has been loved and accepted by the mystics, not as a way of appeasing an angry God, but as a joyful entry into the mysteries of love." p 77. Now, I can look in Scripture, and see passages which speak of Christ's death being a substitutionary atonement for us, to among other things appease the just anger of a righteous God directed at sinful rebellious humanity. For example, read the biblical book of Romans. I can't read the scriptures to find where Christ's death was "a joyful entry into the mysterities of love". Why bother with crucifixion, if that's all Christ was doing?
He engages in some shenanigans. "Jesus’s followers were called disciples, implying that discipline is an essential part of the Christian wisdom tradition." p 128. No problem with the statement itself, but when he tries to sneak in these contemplative practices, I have to ask where the Bible says that Jesus had the disciples sit around trying to experience God inside themselves.
"God’s Word emerged out of “the sound of sheer silence” (I Kings 19:12), and words of the Divine mystery have been emerging out of silence ever since." p 125. I'm calling shenanigans again. The prophet Elijah did not get a message from silence, he heard the voice of God, even if it was calm and gentle. The Bible nowhere says that God's language is silence. God used real words to communicate to real people so that they understand what He was saying to them.
Nor did Elijah hear a voice inside himself. The voice He heard was outside himself, outside of even the cave he had been in.
In his book Broken, Jonathan Fisk writes "The plain words of Holy Scripture are the antidote to the poisoned dish of Mysticism. Reading those words carefully and learning their context is to inwardly digest the faith that God is not only real but also gives us real, pure, true answers. God is far more generous to us than to force us to endlessly seek Him in the flurries of the wind and the palpitations of our hearts. He wants us to do far more than merely imagine what His will for us might be. He wants us to be certain." (Kindle Locations 510-514). When I read works by these modern-day NAR contemplatives, I'm simply appalled by how bad they are theologically. Something seems very wrong with the people who practice these things. When people put the voices they hear inside themselves above the words plainly taught in Scripture, then that's a sure way to get led astray.
I agree with Fisk, God cares for us far too much to make us sit around trying to hear some kind of almost-impossibly-difficult-to-hear voice inside ourselves, that can be easily confused with our own thoughts, and that may not even be the voice of God at all (and probably isn't). God has spoken, we have His words in the Bible. God can still speak, I think there are reliable sources who have had dreams and visions from God, even in modern times.
I simply cannot recommend this book, or the practices recommended in it. They are unbiblical, thus spiritually unhealthy. Stop looking inside your heart to hear the voice of God, because you have God's Word at your fingertips.
I received a free copy of this book from Speakeasy.
It's hard to escape the various flavors of contemplative practices out and about in the church nowadays. Whether its more refined versions of it like in this book, or the rough-and-tumble of the ways the New Apostolic Reformation folks do it, it's everywhere. Whether it's sitting alone doing mantra-like chants and lectio divina, like McColman recommends, or it's YWAmers practicing the supposed steps of prayer and intercession, then sitting around in a circle trying to get guidance from some inner voice, it's all the same and one.
The fact that none of it has much in the way of biblical support seems to be lost on all of these practitioners.
For the discerning Christian, there are plenty of things in this book that should cause alarms to go off. For example, while he makes a point of saying that he's teaching about Christian mysticism or spirituality, one gets the impression that the "Christian" part of that is much less valuable to him than the "mysticism" or "spirituality" part. "Saint Paul sees Christ on the road to Damascus. The Buddha achieves enlightenment sitting under the Bodhi tree. Mohammed takes the miraculous night journey of Isra and Mi’raj, carrying him from earth to heaven. And of course, Aquinas and Julian and Merton have their singular peak moments and their lives are forever changed." p 32. Experience trumps beliefs, one may well assume.
In fact, conversion seems to have become unnecessary. "He (Merton) also became increasingly interested in interfaith dialogue, and began to explore the points of connection between Christian monasticism and the spirituality of Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism." p 24. And the author of this work is also involved in such dialogues.
And the Bible? Well, consider this. "Here’s a comment that Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, a monk of the twelfth century and a renowned mystic, once made about nature—one I believe could just as easily be applied to any of life’s mysteries. “Believe me as one who has experience,” said Bernard, “you will find much more among the woods than ever you will among books. Woods and stones will teach you what you can never hear from any master."...Consider this: Bernard is not rejecting the kind of wisdom or understanding that can be found in books or from a spiritual director. He just recognizes that nature—even the silence of “woods and stones”—is an even greater teacher. " p 7. If we are to believe that nature in superior to books, and the Bible is a book, would it be unfair to conclude that Bernard, and by extention this author, are saying that nature is a better teacher than the Bible? That God speaks better through woods and stones than throught the words He gave to the apostles and prophets?
"Jesus has been loved and accepted by the mystics, not as a way of appeasing an angry God, but as a joyful entry into the mysteries of love." p 77. Now, I can look in Scripture, and see passages which speak of Christ's death being a substitutionary atonement for us, to among other things appease the just anger of a righteous God directed at sinful rebellious humanity. For example, read the biblical book of Romans. I can't read the scriptures to find where Christ's death was "a joyful entry into the mysterities of love". Why bother with crucifixion, if that's all Christ was doing?
He engages in some shenanigans. "Jesus’s followers were called disciples, implying that discipline is an essential part of the Christian wisdom tradition." p 128. No problem with the statement itself, but when he tries to sneak in these contemplative practices, I have to ask where the Bible says that Jesus had the disciples sit around trying to experience God inside themselves.
"God’s Word emerged out of “the sound of sheer silence” (I Kings 19:12), and words of the Divine mystery have been emerging out of silence ever since." p 125. I'm calling shenanigans again. The prophet Elijah did not get a message from silence, he heard the voice of God, even if it was calm and gentle. The Bible nowhere says that God's language is silence. God used real words to communicate to real people so that they understand what He was saying to them.
Nor did Elijah hear a voice inside himself. The voice He heard was outside himself, outside of even the cave he had been in.
In his book Broken, Jonathan Fisk writes "The plain words of Holy Scripture are the antidote to the poisoned dish of Mysticism. Reading those words carefully and learning their context is to inwardly digest the faith that God is not only real but also gives us real, pure, true answers. God is far more generous to us than to force us to endlessly seek Him in the flurries of the wind and the palpitations of our hearts. He wants us to do far more than merely imagine what His will for us might be. He wants us to be certain." (Kindle Locations 510-514). When I read works by these modern-day NAR contemplatives, I'm simply appalled by how bad they are theologically. Something seems very wrong with the people who practice these things. When people put the voices they hear inside themselves above the words plainly taught in Scripture, then that's a sure way to get led astray.
I agree with Fisk, God cares for us far too much to make us sit around trying to hear some kind of almost-impossibly-difficult-to-hear voice inside ourselves, that can be easily confused with our own thoughts, and that may not even be the voice of God at all (and probably isn't). God has spoken, we have His words in the Bible. God can still speak, I think there are reliable sources who have had dreams and visions from God, even in modern times.
I simply cannot recommend this book, or the practices recommended in it. They are unbiblical, thus spiritually unhealthy. Stop looking inside your heart to hear the voice of God, because you have God's Word at your fingertips.
Monday, April 15, 2013
peter wagner: Jesus could have decided to sin
That certainly seems to be what Wagner is saying in this quote from his book "On Earth as it is in Heaven", emphasis mine.
I think Wagner needs to consider his words a bit better, at the least. In fact, perhaps he should stop pretending to be a church leader, after that one.
A fresh look at Jesus’ temptation will remove any lingering doubts that Satan had acquired true dominion over the earth. What I am going to say now assumes that we believe the three temptations were real. They were literal, not just figurative. In each of the three, Jesus could have decided to sin, which, of course, He didn’t.This is more than a little bizarre. Jesus could have sinned? Really? Doesn't that mean the Jesus was less than divine? If Jesus could decide to sin, then that's essentially saying that God could decide to sin.
On Earth as it Is in Heaven (Kindle Locations 796-799).
I think Wagner needs to consider his words a bit better, at the least. In fact, perhaps he should stop pretending to be a church leader, after that one.
Monday, April 8, 2013
book review--Spiritual Avalanche, by Steve Hill
Not very good, but interesting
This book is not well written. It's rambling, disjointed, and Hill spends far too much space bragging about himself, trying to explain how important his vision is, as if no one else had noticed that things are very wrong in the church up until he found it out. The vision itself is rather unconvincing, and Hill seems to have to provide his own interpretation to it, very much unlike how God explains visions He gave to prophets in the Bible.
But for all of that, there are points of interest. When Hill finally gets around to explaining the heresies he's worked up about, which is about halfway through the book, I have to admit that, by and large, he's spot on with those things being heresies. His explanations are brief, and don't tell us who's spreading these heresies, but I'll give him credit for presenting real heresies.
When Hill writes things like "Instead of the true gospel, people are fed a lukewarm, pitiful, watered-down message of the cross of Christ..." (p. 26), I agree with him, this is a real problem.
There are, however, some contradictory messages. Early in the book, he writes this, "If you’re reading this and do not have a Pentecostal heritage, keep going. This is about fundamental truth, not nit-picking theological issues that have embattled the church for centuries." (p. 12). Yet towards the end of the book, in chapter 14, he basically tries to bring in the charismatic stuff. "You see, those who used to believe that stuff (tongues, modern-day prophets, et al) have been affected by the snow falling upon the mountain and don’t even know it." (p. 187).
At one point, he says "In the same way, Christians rarely concern themselves over the depth of any teaching. Why waste time examining the prophet and his prophecy? That’s already been done." (p. 63). But at times, he seems to discourage such examining of his own vision and teachings. "Although any outside comments are greatly appreciated, they are not necessary for me to continue this work. What has been revealed to me about the times we are living in is without dispute. There is no jury out deliberating on whether or not this is valid truth." (p. 123). "Regardless, I want you to trust the words you’ve read and allow your spirit man to consume and digest the words to come." (p. 41).
In chapter 10, Hill gives lots of warnings about false prophets, which is very good, very needful; however, when I look at the people who endorsed this book, I see...lots of false prophets. James Goll? Cindy Jacobs? Sid Roth? Mike Bickle? False prophets don't get any worse than those people.
One of my big complaints about the book would be that it's not really all that informative. True, he does point out some heresies, but he refrains from naming names, and doesn't really deal with what's being taught in any detail.
So, I'd like to suggest a few books for further research, if this discussion of heresies has piqued your interest. When Hill mentioned "The carnal prosperity message" (p. 80) as one heresy, it brought to mind Hanegraaff's excellent expose "Christianity In Crisis: The 21st Century", which shows the truly awful things some have taught in order to simply get people to send them money. As well, you may want to check out "Counterfeit Revival", though Hill comes under a bit of fire himself in that book, and not without reason.
Another good one, concerning the feel-good messages being preached far too much, is Michael Horton's "Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church". And though I haven't yet read it, I know enough about John MacArthur to think I'm safe in recommending "The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception". As far as other resources go, listening to a week's worth of episodes of the Fighting For The Faith internet radio program will get you up-to-date very quickly on what kind of complete lunacy is being taught in far too many churches, as well as a lot of good stuff, too.
So, my three star review for this book is mainly my way of saying that I'm cautiously optimistic, but not buying what Hill's selling. There's really nothing new in this book for anyone who's kept their eyes and ears open, but if you're new to this kind of stuff, and Hill's book has opened your eyes and ears to what may be going on, then welcome aboard.
This book is not well written. It's rambling, disjointed, and Hill spends far too much space bragging about himself, trying to explain how important his vision is, as if no one else had noticed that things are very wrong in the church up until he found it out. The vision itself is rather unconvincing, and Hill seems to have to provide his own interpretation to it, very much unlike how God explains visions He gave to prophets in the Bible.
But for all of that, there are points of interest. When Hill finally gets around to explaining the heresies he's worked up about, which is about halfway through the book, I have to admit that, by and large, he's spot on with those things being heresies. His explanations are brief, and don't tell us who's spreading these heresies, but I'll give him credit for presenting real heresies.
When Hill writes things like "Instead of the true gospel, people are fed a lukewarm, pitiful, watered-down message of the cross of Christ..." (p. 26), I agree with him, this is a real problem.
There are, however, some contradictory messages. Early in the book, he writes this, "If you’re reading this and do not have a Pentecostal heritage, keep going. This is about fundamental truth, not nit-picking theological issues that have embattled the church for centuries." (p. 12). Yet towards the end of the book, in chapter 14, he basically tries to bring in the charismatic stuff. "You see, those who used to believe that stuff (tongues, modern-day prophets, et al) have been affected by the snow falling upon the mountain and don’t even know it." (p. 187).
At one point, he says "In the same way, Christians rarely concern themselves over the depth of any teaching. Why waste time examining the prophet and his prophecy? That’s already been done." (p. 63). But at times, he seems to discourage such examining of his own vision and teachings. "Although any outside comments are greatly appreciated, they are not necessary for me to continue this work. What has been revealed to me about the times we are living in is without dispute. There is no jury out deliberating on whether or not this is valid truth." (p. 123). "Regardless, I want you to trust the words you’ve read and allow your spirit man to consume and digest the words to come." (p. 41).
In chapter 10, Hill gives lots of warnings about false prophets, which is very good, very needful; however, when I look at the people who endorsed this book, I see...lots of false prophets. James Goll? Cindy Jacobs? Sid Roth? Mike Bickle? False prophets don't get any worse than those people.
One of my big complaints about the book would be that it's not really all that informative. True, he does point out some heresies, but he refrains from naming names, and doesn't really deal with what's being taught in any detail.
So, I'd like to suggest a few books for further research, if this discussion of heresies has piqued your interest. When Hill mentioned "The carnal prosperity message" (p. 80) as one heresy, it brought to mind Hanegraaff's excellent expose "Christianity In Crisis: The 21st Century", which shows the truly awful things some have taught in order to simply get people to send them money. As well, you may want to check out "Counterfeit Revival", though Hill comes under a bit of fire himself in that book, and not without reason.
Another good one, concerning the feel-good messages being preached far too much, is Michael Horton's "Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church". And though I haven't yet read it, I know enough about John MacArthur to think I'm safe in recommending "The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception". As far as other resources go, listening to a week's worth of episodes of the Fighting For The Faith internet radio program will get you up-to-date very quickly on what kind of complete lunacy is being taught in far too many churches, as well as a lot of good stuff, too.
So, my three star review for this book is mainly my way of saying that I'm cautiously optimistic, but not buying what Hill's selling. There's really nothing new in this book for anyone who's kept their eyes and ears open, but if you're new to this kind of stuff, and Hill's book has opened your eyes and ears to what may be going on, then welcome aboard.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
movie review--G.I. Joe: Retaliation
Fun fun fun fun fun!!
I have my doubts that this was the sequel that was intended when the first G.I Joe movie was made.
If you remember that first movie, you may remember things like the Joes having a giant underground headquarters, guys in some kind of mechanical enhancement suits crashing through busses in Paris, and Cobra having an extensive complex under an ice cap. The star power in that movie was pretty high, and the effects and CG was extensive.
A lot of that is lacking in the new movie, and, honestly, while it's not all a good thing, overall I think it helped make this movie better than the first.
True, the lack of continuity from the old one to the new is a bit off-putting. The romance that played a bit part in the first movie is not even mentioned in the second. The Joes' big underground complex is completely missing. Thankfully, so were the mech suits.
Few of the actors from the first movie are in this second one, which may also account for the continuity problems. Tatum returns as Duke, for a bit of the movie. Ray Park is Snake-Eyes again, and we all rejoice. The same actors played Storm Shadow and the President/Zartan in disguise. I suppose it also accounts for the strange leaving behind of Destro from the prison break.
This movie is definitely more small-scale. The Joes here are more like an elite special force's team, not an independent army all of their own. Cobra has gone underground, though because one of their guys is the President in disguise, they have some means of getting their big bad satellites into orbit. Then, the Joe's get pretty much wiped out, so the surviviors have to go underground and think small-scale.
While that's going on, Snake-Eyes and his new sidekick are having the movie's big CG fight--ninjas sword-fighting along a mountainside. Literally, along a mountainside. Two thumbs up for that!
Dwayne Johnson has to pretty much carry the movie, and to his credit, he does it well. His Roadblock is probably rather typical for such a character, but he comes off as a leader for the team once Duke is gone. Lady Jaye holds up her end, but Flint is pretty much a non-entity.
Among the villains, Zartan/President and Firefly seem to both be enjoying themselves. I'll give the movie special props for Cobra Commander. He's in the movie far too little, but when he is, he definitely comes off as the most threatening bad guy of all of them.
And Bruce Willis provides some good support for the good guys.
The bad guys do seem to have a good working knowledge of oldies rock music, as they use lines like "Everybody wants to rule the world" and "I want it all". Roadblock references a more modern rap artist at one point.
Overall, it's an enjoyable movie, very fun, I liked it a lot. It's not perfect, it does feel odd as a follow-up to the first movie, and one wonders where it may go from here, if it does at all. But I can recommend it.
I have my doubts that this was the sequel that was intended when the first G.I Joe movie was made.
If you remember that first movie, you may remember things like the Joes having a giant underground headquarters, guys in some kind of mechanical enhancement suits crashing through busses in Paris, and Cobra having an extensive complex under an ice cap. The star power in that movie was pretty high, and the effects and CG was extensive.
A lot of that is lacking in the new movie, and, honestly, while it's not all a good thing, overall I think it helped make this movie better than the first.
True, the lack of continuity from the old one to the new is a bit off-putting. The romance that played a bit part in the first movie is not even mentioned in the second. The Joes' big underground complex is completely missing. Thankfully, so were the mech suits.
Few of the actors from the first movie are in this second one, which may also account for the continuity problems. Tatum returns as Duke, for a bit of the movie. Ray Park is Snake-Eyes again, and we all rejoice. The same actors played Storm Shadow and the President/Zartan in disguise. I suppose it also accounts for the strange leaving behind of Destro from the prison break.
This movie is definitely more small-scale. The Joes here are more like an elite special force's team, not an independent army all of their own. Cobra has gone underground, though because one of their guys is the President in disguise, they have some means of getting their big bad satellites into orbit. Then, the Joe's get pretty much wiped out, so the surviviors have to go underground and think small-scale.
While that's going on, Snake-Eyes and his new sidekick are having the movie's big CG fight--ninjas sword-fighting along a mountainside. Literally, along a mountainside. Two thumbs up for that!
Dwayne Johnson has to pretty much carry the movie, and to his credit, he does it well. His Roadblock is probably rather typical for such a character, but he comes off as a leader for the team once Duke is gone. Lady Jaye holds up her end, but Flint is pretty much a non-entity.
Among the villains, Zartan/President and Firefly seem to both be enjoying themselves. I'll give the movie special props for Cobra Commander. He's in the movie far too little, but when he is, he definitely comes off as the most threatening bad guy of all of them.
And Bruce Willis provides some good support for the good guys.
The bad guys do seem to have a good working knowledge of oldies rock music, as they use lines like "Everybody wants to rule the world" and "I want it all". Roadblock references a more modern rap artist at one point.
Overall, it's an enjoyable movie, very fun, I liked it a lot. It's not perfect, it does feel odd as a follow-up to the first movie, and one wonders where it may go from here, if it does at all. But I can recommend it.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
book review--The Voice by Don Nori
faulty premise leads to other faulty teachings
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.
The main problem with this book is that it's based on a faulty premise. "Yes, the Voice of God speaks to true intercessors", p. 38. "The Voice has much to say; as we hear, feel, and respond to the Voice, Heaven and Earth are forever changed." p. 41. We must let the River of His Voice literally gush forth from deep within our spirits, and then flow out to the spiritual wasteland that is all around us." p. 12
The problem with this striving to hear some kind of voice inside of us is this--the Bible never tells us to do that. When God spoke to the prophets and apostles, He did not do so through some ultra-quiet, difficult to hear inner voice. He came in instances like the burning bush, He gave them dreams and visions, He spoke directly to them. Even when he spoke to the prophet Elijah in a still, quiet voice, he did not speak to him with quiet inner voice, but with a voice that the prophet heard with his ears. God's messages to them were clear, they did not have some vague inner feelings that they had to try to create some interpretations for.
Seeing this faulty premise, it's easy to see how much of the rest of the book goes astray. For example, he tries to create a type of elite "true intercessors" that the Bible says nothing about, and the things he teaches about these "true intercessors" are rather odd. "True intercessors don't take prayer requests." p. 40. Really? Ok, I'll be sure to not tell any "true intercessor" my concerns. "There is only one allegiance, to God alone. Personal desires have no place counseling God." p. 40. Considering that it is God Himself who has invited us to "let your request be made known to God", then I can only think that there is certainly a place for letting God know our personal desires. It may be said that our prayers should be about more than just our wants, but there seems to be no biblical call for us to try to be so spiritual that we ignore our own needs and wants.
Another thing he contends has to do with the Most Holy Place. "For instance, if Christ dwells within, why do we sing, "Come into the Holy of Holies" when we are the Holy of Holies?" p. 134. "Our hearts are the Most Holy Place within which the Presence dwells." p. 180. However, he gives no scriptural support for this contention that we are the Holy of Holies, or that our hearts are the Most Holy Place; in fact, the Bible is rather uncomplimentary about the state of our hearts, calling the heart "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, more than we can understand".
In his chapter titled "Quiet Anarchy", he writes this about the word "anarchy", "This is the word that many folk fear. If you are one of those people who fear this word, close this book and go home. I am sorry. You are not a world-changer." p. 113. Since I see no place in Scripture where we are called to be world-changers, I see no reason to embrace any form of anarchy; in fact, anarchy is a very ungodly concept. It is the Apostle Paul who told the church that they needed to "do all things decently and in order". The New Testament tells us to obey and submit to rulers. We are not to be leftists who think that chaos is a good thing.
The author makes some strange, unsupported contentions. "At one time, such anarchy was seen as pure heresy, rebellion, and immaturity. At one time, though, anarchy was a way of life for all those who truly loved God and sought diligently for a greater truth; to be a believer in Jesus was to openly oppose the government in power." p. 114. Really? Tell us, please, when and where this time was. No, please, do tell, my curiosity is piqued. I'm actually studying early church history right now, and I really haven't seen any time like this, where the church was fomenting anti-government sentiments.
Or this one, "History shows us that the greatest steps in spiritual renewals and advancements were made by those who were regarded by many as heretics, madmen, or worse." p. 123. Since the author does not show us his claim to be true, then why should we believe that history shows it? Who are these "heretics, madmen and worse" that he wants us to admire? Why does he not name them, so that we may determine for ourselves if they are people to be respected and admired?
Probably the most questionable part of the book is the chapter called "Brink of Heresy", as he pretty much says that experience trumps doctrine. "Whether or not they accept the experience is not the issue, for the experience is my reality, and I will not deny it." p. 137. Welcome to Postmodernism, where the only truth is what you experience to be true. Peter Rollins or Tony Jones could write that statement, and I'm not complimenting this author when I compare him to those two.
"It's actually too bad that Bible scholars don't subject their mountains of theology to the same tests as they use on the rest of us!" p. 139. What a nonsense statement! True Bible scholars do subject their doctrine to the same test, "What do the Scriptures say?". That's the test, that's the only test, and that's why this author's teachings fail. "The decision to put their studies above what they witness with their own eyes is both frightening and arrogant." p. 139 The decison to put experiences above sound biblical doctrine is unwise, and arrogant.
While every now and again he does come up with a bit of something that's interesting, it's simply not worth wading through all the unbiblical ideas and mystical mush that he tries to feed us. His unsupported claims make his book come off more as propoganda than any kind of serious biblical teaching. His claim that experience trumps doctrine is a sure road to failure.
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.
The main problem with this book is that it's based on a faulty premise. "Yes, the Voice of God speaks to true intercessors", p. 38. "The Voice has much to say; as we hear, feel, and respond to the Voice, Heaven and Earth are forever changed." p. 41. We must let the River of His Voice literally gush forth from deep within our spirits, and then flow out to the spiritual wasteland that is all around us." p. 12
The problem with this striving to hear some kind of voice inside of us is this--the Bible never tells us to do that. When God spoke to the prophets and apostles, He did not do so through some ultra-quiet, difficult to hear inner voice. He came in instances like the burning bush, He gave them dreams and visions, He spoke directly to them. Even when he spoke to the prophet Elijah in a still, quiet voice, he did not speak to him with quiet inner voice, but with a voice that the prophet heard with his ears. God's messages to them were clear, they did not have some vague inner feelings that they had to try to create some interpretations for.
Seeing this faulty premise, it's easy to see how much of the rest of the book goes astray. For example, he tries to create a type of elite "true intercessors" that the Bible says nothing about, and the things he teaches about these "true intercessors" are rather odd. "True intercessors don't take prayer requests." p. 40. Really? Ok, I'll be sure to not tell any "true intercessor" my concerns. "There is only one allegiance, to God alone. Personal desires have no place counseling God." p. 40. Considering that it is God Himself who has invited us to "let your request be made known to God", then I can only think that there is certainly a place for letting God know our personal desires. It may be said that our prayers should be about more than just our wants, but there seems to be no biblical call for us to try to be so spiritual that we ignore our own needs and wants.
Another thing he contends has to do with the Most Holy Place. "For instance, if Christ dwells within, why do we sing, "Come into the Holy of Holies" when we are the Holy of Holies?" p. 134. "Our hearts are the Most Holy Place within which the Presence dwells." p. 180. However, he gives no scriptural support for this contention that we are the Holy of Holies, or that our hearts are the Most Holy Place; in fact, the Bible is rather uncomplimentary about the state of our hearts, calling the heart "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, more than we can understand".
In his chapter titled "Quiet Anarchy", he writes this about the word "anarchy", "This is the word that many folk fear. If you are one of those people who fear this word, close this book and go home. I am sorry. You are not a world-changer." p. 113. Since I see no place in Scripture where we are called to be world-changers, I see no reason to embrace any form of anarchy; in fact, anarchy is a very ungodly concept. It is the Apostle Paul who told the church that they needed to "do all things decently and in order". The New Testament tells us to obey and submit to rulers. We are not to be leftists who think that chaos is a good thing.
The author makes some strange, unsupported contentions. "At one time, such anarchy was seen as pure heresy, rebellion, and immaturity. At one time, though, anarchy was a way of life for all those who truly loved God and sought diligently for a greater truth; to be a believer in Jesus was to openly oppose the government in power." p. 114. Really? Tell us, please, when and where this time was. No, please, do tell, my curiosity is piqued. I'm actually studying early church history right now, and I really haven't seen any time like this, where the church was fomenting anti-government sentiments.
Or this one, "History shows us that the greatest steps in spiritual renewals and advancements were made by those who were regarded by many as heretics, madmen, or worse." p. 123. Since the author does not show us his claim to be true, then why should we believe that history shows it? Who are these "heretics, madmen and worse" that he wants us to admire? Why does he not name them, so that we may determine for ourselves if they are people to be respected and admired?
Probably the most questionable part of the book is the chapter called "Brink of Heresy", as he pretty much says that experience trumps doctrine. "Whether or not they accept the experience is not the issue, for the experience is my reality, and I will not deny it." p. 137. Welcome to Postmodernism, where the only truth is what you experience to be true. Peter Rollins or Tony Jones could write that statement, and I'm not complimenting this author when I compare him to those two.
"It's actually too bad that Bible scholars don't subject their mountains of theology to the same tests as they use on the rest of us!" p. 139. What a nonsense statement! True Bible scholars do subject their doctrine to the same test, "What do the Scriptures say?". That's the test, that's the only test, and that's why this author's teachings fail. "The decision to put their studies above what they witness with their own eyes is both frightening and arrogant." p. 139 The decison to put experiences above sound biblical doctrine is unwise, and arrogant.
While every now and again he does come up with a bit of something that's interesting, it's simply not worth wading through all the unbiblical ideas and mystical mush that he tries to feed us. His unsupported claims make his book come off more as propoganda than any kind of serious biblical teaching. His claim that experience trumps doctrine is a sure road to failure.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
a serious reason for concern about "The Bible" miniseries
While I haven't been able to watch the miniseries myself, some people that I trust have, and they don't speak very highly of it. But my concern isn't directly about anything in the series itself, though I can't help but think that it may well have effected the contents. It's about one of the main people behind it.
A gift from Heaven! Roma Downey returns to TV after five-year absence
Ok, bad attempt at humor now over.
In reality, this "spiritual psychology" thing is hardly a laughing matter, especially when one is talking about someone who's behind something like this miniseries. Here are some excerpts from the school's site about this degree program.
M.A. in Spiritual Psychology
I suppose it could be said that it's unfair to bring this up; after all, I've heard nothing about the miniseries that says that these kinds of ideas are in it. So far as I know, no Old Testament person portrayed in the miniseries has told the people of Israel that they needed to know themselves as Divine Beings.
Maybe, but can we say that a person who has been taught these things is someone whose views of theology are going to basically sound?
Maybe Downey doesn't believe these things. Maybe she doesn't think that she is a Divne Being having a human experience. One could wonder how she hopes to finish her degree is she doesn't buy into those ideas, and why she would continue to pursue a degree that taught those things.
But maybe someone should be asking her about what she's being taught.
I know that many Christians in the media are all gung-ho over this miniseries, supporting it and telling others to watch it. Maybe they should be the ones asking the questions of Downey, to find out what she really believes, and make sure that what they are promoting isn't really theological poison.
A gift from Heaven! Roma Downey returns to TV after five-year absence
For now, when she’s not shuttling the kids to their school–a 40-minute commute in each direction that’s earned her the carpooling crown–Roma continues broadening her horizons. She’s returned to painting, and is partway through a Masters program in “spiritual psychology“ from the University of Santa Monica. And yes, the fact that the university’s name contains “Monica” makes her smile.So, a master's degree in "spiritual psychology"? Not sure how anyone has learned about how the minds of spirits work, but...
Taking classes has been an eye-opening experience. “It’s like the peeling of an onion, layer upon layer of behavior, and learning why we do what we do and how we can potentially change our negative patterning,” she says.
Ok, bad attempt at humor now over.
In reality, this "spiritual psychology" thing is hardly a laughing matter, especially when one is talking about someone who's behind something like this miniseries. Here are some excerpts from the school's site about this degree program.
M.A. in Spiritual Psychology
Experiencing enhanced spiritual awareness through knowing yourself as a Divine Being having a human experience.There's some other kinda mushy mystical language used on that page that may cause some alarms in one's mind, but these are the biggest, so I thought. How unbiblical can it be to think of oneself as "a Divine Being", basically that one is God? And how New-Agey can it be to try to "connect with your "Inner Counselor"?
Individual Evolution - Learning to relate to yourself with greater Compassion and Awareness of yourself as a Divine Being having a human experience.
Self-Counseling - Learning, through the process of Self-Counseling, to connect with your Inner Counselor, a source of Wisdom, Unconditional Loving, and Compassion that resides at the level of the Authentic Self.
I suppose it could be said that it's unfair to bring this up; after all, I've heard nothing about the miniseries that says that these kinds of ideas are in it. So far as I know, no Old Testament person portrayed in the miniseries has told the people of Israel that they needed to know themselves as Divine Beings.
Maybe, but can we say that a person who has been taught these things is someone whose views of theology are going to basically sound?
Maybe Downey doesn't believe these things. Maybe she doesn't think that she is a Divne Being having a human experience. One could wonder how she hopes to finish her degree is she doesn't buy into those ideas, and why she would continue to pursue a degree that taught those things.
But maybe someone should be asking her about what she's being taught.
I know that many Christians in the media are all gung-ho over this miniseries, supporting it and telling others to watch it. Maybe they should be the ones asking the questions of Downey, to find out what she really believes, and make sure that what they are promoting isn't really theological poison.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
movie review--The Dark Knight Returns, part 2
I have a bit of a memory of when The Dark Knight Returns comics came out, way back when. I didn't read them until later, though. And now, a bit later still, I've been watching the second part of the recent animated movies based on the comics.
Despite some points of interest in the comics, I remember being put off by some things in it, too. Having learned a bit more since them, I can say that things I found off-putting are even more numerous.
To put it more plainly, this isn't so much an animated movie as a piece of clumsy propoganda, and if people actually knew and remembered history, they would find it ridiculous.
When this comic was first put out, there was this thing called the Cold War going on. The place we know call Russia was at that time a major part of what was called The Soviet Union, along with a lot of other countries around present-day Russia that at that time were a part of the USSR, and not exactly by choice.
That figured into the comics, and is in this animated movie, too. What's happening with Batman and Gotham is set against a grow internationsl conflict between the USA and USSR over a fictional country. While Batman fights the Joker, again, Superman is winning this international conflict. Whether the guy writing the comic is happy about the US winning this conflict is an interesting question, and simply judging by how he handles it, I'd have to say he wasn't.
Somewhat odd. He has a psychiatrist try to say that Batman is the one at fault for the Joker's crimes, right before the Joker kills him and a TV studio full of people. But because of this victory by the US, the Soviet Union launches nuclear missles, which detonate and cause an EMP event, wiping out electronic across the US. One wonders if he thinks the US, or the president in the movie, isn't to blame for this strike by the Soviets.
The writer of the comic included a character that is basically the former US President, Ronald Reagan, though I don't know if he ever names him or now. He basically makes this character a klutz, incompetent, and has newscasters go one about how shameful his handling of the crisis after the EMP event was.
Now, for a touch of reality. One of the big reasons the USSR collapsed was because of Reagan's refusal to back down from them. Far from being as this comic depicts him, Reagan was one of the better US presidents.
This writer, and of course the movie, portrays this Reagan president as someone who would send Superman to take Batman down, because of how Batman is embarrassing him. Can't help but think that that's not how Reagan was.
The writer's politics show through in other ways, too. At one point, Batman is trying to rally a gang of young men who were part of some kind of Batman-cult like group, so he could use them to help restore order to Gotham because of the lack of electrical power. He grabs a rifle or shotgun one of them had, holds it up, tells them that these gusn are the weapons of cowards, and proceeds to destroy it.
It's always interesting whenever these comic book heroes, who often have access to some kind of powers of their own or, like Batman, to really advanced technological weapons, get all worked up because a normal person dares to have a gun. Batman can have Batmoblies, Batcopters, Batplanes, Batarangs, Batcycles, and many of those with some kind of weapon that can blow stuff up, not to mention a bullet-proof suit with all the neat trimmings, and all that stuff in his utility belt, but let some poor normal person dare have a pistol, and that's just unacceptable and cowardly.
Then, when Batman is restoring order and making himself the law in Gotham, he becomes the thought police, deciding who stays "tied up" based on their willingness to display a proper cooperative attitude.
I can't help but think that this animation is pretty much the left's ideas of how things should be run, how the 80s should have happened. For them, Reagan should be seen as incompetent old man, all evidence to the contrary. Having guns in the hands of the average person is a serious problem, one they need to fix. And if you don't want to cooperate with them, well, there are places you can be "tied up" so you don't interfere with their utopia.
Basically, don't bother with it. There's very little in this movie worth seeing.
Despite some points of interest in the comics, I remember being put off by some things in it, too. Having learned a bit more since them, I can say that things I found off-putting are even more numerous.
To put it more plainly, this isn't so much an animated movie as a piece of clumsy propoganda, and if people actually knew and remembered history, they would find it ridiculous.
When this comic was first put out, there was this thing called the Cold War going on. The place we know call Russia was at that time a major part of what was called The Soviet Union, along with a lot of other countries around present-day Russia that at that time were a part of the USSR, and not exactly by choice.
That figured into the comics, and is in this animated movie, too. What's happening with Batman and Gotham is set against a grow internationsl conflict between the USA and USSR over a fictional country. While Batman fights the Joker, again, Superman is winning this international conflict. Whether the guy writing the comic is happy about the US winning this conflict is an interesting question, and simply judging by how he handles it, I'd have to say he wasn't.
Somewhat odd. He has a psychiatrist try to say that Batman is the one at fault for the Joker's crimes, right before the Joker kills him and a TV studio full of people. But because of this victory by the US, the Soviet Union launches nuclear missles, which detonate and cause an EMP event, wiping out electronic across the US. One wonders if he thinks the US, or the president in the movie, isn't to blame for this strike by the Soviets.
The writer of the comic included a character that is basically the former US President, Ronald Reagan, though I don't know if he ever names him or now. He basically makes this character a klutz, incompetent, and has newscasters go one about how shameful his handling of the crisis after the EMP event was.
Now, for a touch of reality. One of the big reasons the USSR collapsed was because of Reagan's refusal to back down from them. Far from being as this comic depicts him, Reagan was one of the better US presidents.
This writer, and of course the movie, portrays this Reagan president as someone who would send Superman to take Batman down, because of how Batman is embarrassing him. Can't help but think that that's not how Reagan was.
The writer's politics show through in other ways, too. At one point, Batman is trying to rally a gang of young men who were part of some kind of Batman-cult like group, so he could use them to help restore order to Gotham because of the lack of electrical power. He grabs a rifle or shotgun one of them had, holds it up, tells them that these gusn are the weapons of cowards, and proceeds to destroy it.
It's always interesting whenever these comic book heroes, who often have access to some kind of powers of their own or, like Batman, to really advanced technological weapons, get all worked up because a normal person dares to have a gun. Batman can have Batmoblies, Batcopters, Batplanes, Batarangs, Batcycles, and many of those with some kind of weapon that can blow stuff up, not to mention a bullet-proof suit with all the neat trimmings, and all that stuff in his utility belt, but let some poor normal person dare have a pistol, and that's just unacceptable and cowardly.
Then, when Batman is restoring order and making himself the law in Gotham, he becomes the thought police, deciding who stays "tied up" based on their willingness to display a proper cooperative attitude.
I can't help but think that this animation is pretty much the left's ideas of how things should be run, how the 80s should have happened. For them, Reagan should be seen as incompetent old man, all evidence to the contrary. Having guns in the hands of the average person is a serious problem, one they need to fix. And if you don't want to cooperate with them, well, there are places you can be "tied up" so you don't interfere with their utopia.
Basically, don't bother with it. There's very little in this movie worth seeing.
Friday, March 15, 2013
book review--Burn by Eric Gilmour
New Agey gobblety-good with a thin covering of Christianese
There was a small village that suffered greatly during a time of severe drought, and the people of the village were starving. One day, a man, well-fed and well-off, came to the village, and standing in the center of the village, he spoke long and eloquently about steak, giving the succulent details about the many steaks he had eaten, and telling the people that if they could find steak, they would not be hungry. But he had no steak with him, and he did not know of any stores near them that had steak. The only advice he gave them was that they had to look within themselves, struggling to hear a faint voice within themselves, and if they do that absolutely and completely correctly, they would get the steak they wanted.
That little story pretty much sums up my impression of "Burn" by Eric Gilmour.
First, he is all law. "He is only made manifest in us as much as we can host Him in our lives through such a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance." (Kindle Locations 339-340). Ok, so, we have here Gilmour's law, that we have to have "a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance". But like the starving people in the story, at no point does he tell us how to attain those things. How, for example, do we reach a place of "real, absolute surrender"? Dunno. All he says is that that is what we need, but nothing is said about how to get there.
The language he uses in regards to this state he says we must attain is rather disturbing. "It is burning inside of His heart to possess His people. God possession is the formula to create the Jesus people. There is only one route to God possession: God obsession." (Kindle Locations 47-49). Possession? I'd be very surprised if Gilmour wasn't aware of how such language would bring to mind demonic possession. Is he saying that God is suppose to "possess" us in a similar way? Does the Bible say that that is how God does things? I would say, not in the least. "Have you an inward burning attraction to be absorbed up into your God?" (Kindle Locations 247-248). Absorbed into God? Wow, that sounds like something from Eastern religious mysticism.
And, at times, his language is as silly as the notion of getting steak by looking inside yourself. "As the rain rests upon the ground after the storm, it yearns to return back to the high place from which it has fallen." (Kindle Location 256). How does he know that? Has he gone outside and asked rain droplets what they want? "God can forgive you, but time will never forgive you." (Kindle Location 204). So, time is an even stricter judge than God? "Throughout this book we will look into the ascent of the soul into the state of unbroken awareness of His abiding presence and its effects." (Kindle Locations 207-208). The ascent of the soul? Please, slowly put down the Deepak Chopra books, and no one will get hurt. "The tree doesn't focus on bearing fruit, but on receiving the sap." (Kindle Location 549). I suppose he's asked a bunch of trees about that? "What called down an angel to release Peter out of jail? It was not power, but prayer." (Kindle Locations 877-878). That passage doesn't say that prayer called down an angel. "We possess divine interaction and exchange from each individual's specific unique color in which Christ proceeds." (Kindle Locations 1215-1216). We each have a "specific unique color"? Nothing about that in the Bible, but that sure sounds like the New-Agey idea of auras.
On top of all of that, there is his constant belittling of sound doctrine and correct beliefs, and even of the Bible itself. "The wisdom of God is an octave too high for the minds of men. Such heavenly wisdom is not wisdom that can be explained; it must be demonstrated." (Kindle Locations 94-95). Outside of having no idea where he gets the idea that God's wisdom is so high that only dogs can hear it, there is simply the idea that it cannot be explained. God wrote a whole big book called The Bible for nothing, I guess. "There lies in the midst of Christendom a great danger, a danger that is deeply woven into the fabric of modern American Christianity. It is not as much a danger of doctrinal error as it is an absence of the most vital underlying element of spirituality." (Kindle Locations 395-397). If someone tries to dismiss the danger of doctrinal error, you should check his own doctrinal luggage. "Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible is unable to give life. As Jesus noted in John 6, "The Spirit gives life." Paul had the same understanding, stating, "... The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3: 6)." (Kindle Locations 424-425). I've seen Bill Johnson use that argument, and it's a bad one, no matter who uses it. Paul is not denigrating the Word of God, and it at least borders on blasphemy for Gilmour to even imply that. "The Gospel is not a verbal argument for the existence of God." (Kindle Locations 960-961). Makes one wonder why Jesus bothered telling the disciples to preaching and proclaim the Gospel, then. "They couldn't possibly be born from above by a nominal belief system or by adherence to correct thinking patterns. Doctrine has never saved a person." (Kindle Locations 996-997). So, correct doctrine and beliefs are unimportant? "Freedom is in a Man named Jesus-- not a belief system, religion, or an attempt to make a life change." (Kindle Locations 1005-1006). Again with the attacks on beliefs. At no point does the Bible treat beliefs and doctrine with such distain.
"Leonard Ravenhill said, "No one can change God's opinion of you but you."" (Kindle Location 580). We should be very glad that this statement is very wrong! Christ has changed God's opinion of those who repent and have faith in Him, taking us from being enemies of God and children of wrath to become children of God.
Geting back to his idea about having to have a "a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance", one might wonder if Gilmour is holding himself up as one who has attained to those things. I think we can question that about him, because if he is, I'll admit that I don't buy it. Why? Because of those with whom he fellowships and supports. For example, he proudly tells us of his connection with the Pensacola revival, and his admiration for Steve Hill. Now, Hill is someone who has fabricated many things concerning this revival, things that have been shown to be lies. Several times during the book, he uses quotes from Benny Hinn. Hinn is the worst of the worst among the Faith Healers, a known charlatan and fake, whose 'ministry' has been a blight and shame on the church. You may learn more about these men in these books, Christianity In Crisis: The 21st Century and Counterfeit Revival.
If these are the people Gilmour looks up to, then there are ramifications. At the end of Chapter 6 of this book, he gives some "Testimonies" which he claims are of healings he was involved in. But because of his association with a known liar like Hill, and his admiration of a known fake like Hinn, I must say that I see no reason to believe his "Testimonies". Has he had these healings documented? Has anyone independent of his ministry verified them? Can he provide proof that what he claims happened is what really happened? Short of irrefutable proof, I'll consider him a fake like so many of such 'ministers' like himself.
In the end, this book is rubbish. His teachings have more in common with New Age gobblety-gook than biblical Christianity. His attacks on the Bible, correct beliefs, and sound doctrine should be instant and insistent warning signs that we should steer clear of him. There are so many more biblically sound teachers and ministers out there, why bother with the nonsense this guy is peddling?
There was a small village that suffered greatly during a time of severe drought, and the people of the village were starving. One day, a man, well-fed and well-off, came to the village, and standing in the center of the village, he spoke long and eloquently about steak, giving the succulent details about the many steaks he had eaten, and telling the people that if they could find steak, they would not be hungry. But he had no steak with him, and he did not know of any stores near them that had steak. The only advice he gave them was that they had to look within themselves, struggling to hear a faint voice within themselves, and if they do that absolutely and completely correctly, they would get the steak they wanted.
That little story pretty much sums up my impression of "Burn" by Eric Gilmour.
First, he is all law. "He is only made manifest in us as much as we can host Him in our lives through such a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance." (Kindle Locations 339-340). Ok, so, we have here Gilmour's law, that we have to have "a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance". But like the starving people in the story, at no point does he tell us how to attain those things. How, for example, do we reach a place of "real, absolute surrender"? Dunno. All he says is that that is what we need, but nothing is said about how to get there.
The language he uses in regards to this state he says we must attain is rather disturbing. "It is burning inside of His heart to possess His people. God possession is the formula to create the Jesus people. There is only one route to God possession: God obsession." (Kindle Locations 47-49). Possession? I'd be very surprised if Gilmour wasn't aware of how such language would bring to mind demonic possession. Is he saying that God is suppose to "possess" us in a similar way? Does the Bible say that that is how God does things? I would say, not in the least. "Have you an inward burning attraction to be absorbed up into your God?" (Kindle Locations 247-248). Absorbed into God? Wow, that sounds like something from Eastern religious mysticism.
And, at times, his language is as silly as the notion of getting steak by looking inside yourself. "As the rain rests upon the ground after the storm, it yearns to return back to the high place from which it has fallen." (Kindle Location 256). How does he know that? Has he gone outside and asked rain droplets what they want? "God can forgive you, but time will never forgive you." (Kindle Location 204). So, time is an even stricter judge than God? "Throughout this book we will look into the ascent of the soul into the state of unbroken awareness of His abiding presence and its effects." (Kindle Locations 207-208). The ascent of the soul? Please, slowly put down the Deepak Chopra books, and no one will get hurt. "The tree doesn't focus on bearing fruit, but on receiving the sap." (Kindle Location 549). I suppose he's asked a bunch of trees about that? "What called down an angel to release Peter out of jail? It was not power, but prayer." (Kindle Locations 877-878). That passage doesn't say that prayer called down an angel. "We possess divine interaction and exchange from each individual's specific unique color in which Christ proceeds." (Kindle Locations 1215-1216). We each have a "specific unique color"? Nothing about that in the Bible, but that sure sounds like the New-Agey idea of auras.
On top of all of that, there is his constant belittling of sound doctrine and correct beliefs, and even of the Bible itself. "The wisdom of God is an octave too high for the minds of men. Such heavenly wisdom is not wisdom that can be explained; it must be demonstrated." (Kindle Locations 94-95). Outside of having no idea where he gets the idea that God's wisdom is so high that only dogs can hear it, there is simply the idea that it cannot be explained. God wrote a whole big book called The Bible for nothing, I guess. "There lies in the midst of Christendom a great danger, a danger that is deeply woven into the fabric of modern American Christianity. It is not as much a danger of doctrinal error as it is an absence of the most vital underlying element of spirituality." (Kindle Locations 395-397). If someone tries to dismiss the danger of doctrinal error, you should check his own doctrinal luggage. "Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible is unable to give life. As Jesus noted in John 6, "The Spirit gives life." Paul had the same understanding, stating, "... The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3: 6)." (Kindle Locations 424-425). I've seen Bill Johnson use that argument, and it's a bad one, no matter who uses it. Paul is not denigrating the Word of God, and it at least borders on blasphemy for Gilmour to even imply that. "The Gospel is not a verbal argument for the existence of God." (Kindle Locations 960-961). Makes one wonder why Jesus bothered telling the disciples to preaching and proclaim the Gospel, then. "They couldn't possibly be born from above by a nominal belief system or by adherence to correct thinking patterns. Doctrine has never saved a person." (Kindle Locations 996-997). So, correct doctrine and beliefs are unimportant? "Freedom is in a Man named Jesus-- not a belief system, religion, or an attempt to make a life change." (Kindle Locations 1005-1006). Again with the attacks on beliefs. At no point does the Bible treat beliefs and doctrine with such distain.
"Leonard Ravenhill said, "No one can change God's opinion of you but you."" (Kindle Location 580). We should be very glad that this statement is very wrong! Christ has changed God's opinion of those who repent and have faith in Him, taking us from being enemies of God and children of wrath to become children of God.
Geting back to his idea about having to have a "a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance", one might wonder if Gilmour is holding himself up as one who has attained to those things. I think we can question that about him, because if he is, I'll admit that I don't buy it. Why? Because of those with whom he fellowships and supports. For example, he proudly tells us of his connection with the Pensacola revival, and his admiration for Steve Hill. Now, Hill is someone who has fabricated many things concerning this revival, things that have been shown to be lies. Several times during the book, he uses quotes from Benny Hinn. Hinn is the worst of the worst among the Faith Healers, a known charlatan and fake, whose 'ministry' has been a blight and shame on the church. You may learn more about these men in these books, Christianity In Crisis: The 21st Century and Counterfeit Revival.
If these are the people Gilmour looks up to, then there are ramifications. At the end of Chapter 6 of this book, he gives some "Testimonies" which he claims are of healings he was involved in. But because of his association with a known liar like Hill, and his admiration of a known fake like Hinn, I must say that I see no reason to believe his "Testimonies". Has he had these healings documented? Has anyone independent of his ministry verified them? Can he provide proof that what he claims happened is what really happened? Short of irrefutable proof, I'll consider him a fake like so many of such 'ministers' like himself.
In the end, this book is rubbish. His teachings have more in common with New Age gobblety-gook than biblical Christianity. His attacks on the Bible, correct beliefs, and sound doctrine should be instant and insistent warning signs that we should steer clear of him. There are so many more biblically sound teachers and ministers out there, why bother with the nonsense this guy is peddling?
Monday, March 11, 2013
book review--The Blessed Church by Robert Morris
some good, some not so good
I received a free copy of this book from the Waterbrook Multnomah Blogging for Books review program.
Three stars pretty much sums up my take on Morris' book. There're things in it that seemed good, and others that I thought were kinda sketchy.
First, to look at some of the good things. The fact that Morris puts so much emphasis on feeding the sheep puts him far ahead of some other megachurch pastors I've listened to who hop up in their I-chairs, rant about "the jackass in the church" who wants to go deeper, tells them that Jesus tells them to shut up, and overall takes on the attitude that if you're already a believer in Christ than "We need your seat!!" for the ones who aren't. Morris' attitude in this regards is much to be appreciated.
Along that same line, his ideas about training the people out there in the congregation to be more than mere spectators seems to be good, as well as his ideas about delegating church responsbilities to other people who may be able to focus on it better, as well as allowing the pastor to focus on his calling of teaching and preaching.
One of the things that was iffy to me has to do with him being in the charismatic camp, and maybe even in the NAR. This comes through in his emphasis on "hearing the voice of the Spirit", apparently usually the inner voice that charismatic types like to talk about a lot, as well as more blatant statement about his church having Apostolic Elders. He doesn't go into these things much, I think he mentions doing so in another of his books, so I'll not make much of it here either, just mention it and my reactions to it.
Morris finds many of his principles for church leadership and growth from the business world. I'm kinda iffy about this. It may not be wrong in itself, but the goals of a church and a business are very different. To put it rather simply, a business has products or services it's trying to sell, while a church has a message to proclaim that must be believed. There are things a business may do to attract customers that would be wrong for a chruch to do to make converts
Morris emphasises the idea that "God's blessing brings spiritual health, and spiritual health brings God's blessings", or to use what he says was the original title for this book, "healthy things grow". But we may well ask, is this so? We can easily think of unhealthy things that grow (cancer, debt), and we can think of things that grow in an unhealthy way or extent (a person who becomes obese). Morris points to the parable of the seeds and soils to illustrate this, showing how the seed that fell in the good soil grew. But it did not grow and grow and grow until it reached the heavens like Jack's beanstalk, but rather it grew until it yielded seeds, then those seeds could be gathered, and some used for food and others used to grow more grain.
Perhaps Morris has a point when he says that healthy things grow, but maybe we could also say that something growing may be seen in a few different ways, as in the thing itself growing and also reproducing itself so that it may cause growth in that way, too. A human being reaches maturity and stops growing, but this when he or she may marry, start a family, and in that way the family grows, if that illustration helps.
But he takes this idea to extremes, I think. "The number-one way to spot a false shepherd is a pattern of scattering sheep Their churches get smaller, or a least stay the same size year after year". (chapter 13). "According to the Barna Group, roughly 60 percent of the Protestant churches in the United States have fewer than 100 members and a full 98 percent have fewer than 1000. In other words, small churches are the rule, not the exception. At the same time, we have become an increasingly urban nation...I mention these numbers because they reveal something about the failure of our churches to effectively reach out in our communities...Nevertheless, I believe there is a reason the average church size in this increasingly urbanized nation is well below two hundred: the vast majority of pastors and congregations are still operating under that old, flawed paradigm of the pastor's role." (chapter 18).
I ask you, if you can, to read those excerpts in context, because to me it really does seem that he saying that unless you have a very large church in the context of your community, than your church has been a failure. I've no wish to misunderstand him, but if my understanding is true, how can such an attitude be accepted?
Plus, what about churches in other places, other countries where they are subject to persecution, even of a severe sort? What can all these words about growth mean to a pastor who's members are losing jobs and being disowned by their families because of their faith, or to he himself when he is being throw into prison for preaching the Gospel of Christ?
In the end, while this book may have some good things to say to a pastor, there are other things that simply seem off to me. I wouldn't necessarily tell someone to avoid it like the plague, but I wouldn't encourage it as a must-have resource, either.
I received a free copy of this book from the Waterbrook Multnomah Blogging for Books review program.
Three stars pretty much sums up my take on Morris' book. There're things in it that seemed good, and others that I thought were kinda sketchy.
First, to look at some of the good things. The fact that Morris puts so much emphasis on feeding the sheep puts him far ahead of some other megachurch pastors I've listened to who hop up in their I-chairs, rant about "the jackass in the church" who wants to go deeper, tells them that Jesus tells them to shut up, and overall takes on the attitude that if you're already a believer in Christ than "We need your seat!!" for the ones who aren't. Morris' attitude in this regards is much to be appreciated.
Along that same line, his ideas about training the people out there in the congregation to be more than mere spectators seems to be good, as well as his ideas about delegating church responsbilities to other people who may be able to focus on it better, as well as allowing the pastor to focus on his calling of teaching and preaching.
One of the things that was iffy to me has to do with him being in the charismatic camp, and maybe even in the NAR. This comes through in his emphasis on "hearing the voice of the Spirit", apparently usually the inner voice that charismatic types like to talk about a lot, as well as more blatant statement about his church having Apostolic Elders. He doesn't go into these things much, I think he mentions doing so in another of his books, so I'll not make much of it here either, just mention it and my reactions to it.
Morris finds many of his principles for church leadership and growth from the business world. I'm kinda iffy about this. It may not be wrong in itself, but the goals of a church and a business are very different. To put it rather simply, a business has products or services it's trying to sell, while a church has a message to proclaim that must be believed. There are things a business may do to attract customers that would be wrong for a chruch to do to make converts
Morris emphasises the idea that "God's blessing brings spiritual health, and spiritual health brings God's blessings", or to use what he says was the original title for this book, "healthy things grow". But we may well ask, is this so? We can easily think of unhealthy things that grow (cancer, debt), and we can think of things that grow in an unhealthy way or extent (a person who becomes obese). Morris points to the parable of the seeds and soils to illustrate this, showing how the seed that fell in the good soil grew. But it did not grow and grow and grow until it reached the heavens like Jack's beanstalk, but rather it grew until it yielded seeds, then those seeds could be gathered, and some used for food and others used to grow more grain.
Perhaps Morris has a point when he says that healthy things grow, but maybe we could also say that something growing may be seen in a few different ways, as in the thing itself growing and also reproducing itself so that it may cause growth in that way, too. A human being reaches maturity and stops growing, but this when he or she may marry, start a family, and in that way the family grows, if that illustration helps.
But he takes this idea to extremes, I think. "The number-one way to spot a false shepherd is a pattern of scattering sheep Their churches get smaller, or a least stay the same size year after year". (chapter 13). "According to the Barna Group, roughly 60 percent of the Protestant churches in the United States have fewer than 100 members and a full 98 percent have fewer than 1000. In other words, small churches are the rule, not the exception. At the same time, we have become an increasingly urban nation...I mention these numbers because they reveal something about the failure of our churches to effectively reach out in our communities...Nevertheless, I believe there is a reason the average church size in this increasingly urbanized nation is well below two hundred: the vast majority of pastors and congregations are still operating under that old, flawed paradigm of the pastor's role." (chapter 18).
I ask you, if you can, to read those excerpts in context, because to me it really does seem that he saying that unless you have a very large church in the context of your community, than your church has been a failure. I've no wish to misunderstand him, but if my understanding is true, how can such an attitude be accepted?
Plus, what about churches in other places, other countries where they are subject to persecution, even of a severe sort? What can all these words about growth mean to a pastor who's members are losing jobs and being disowned by their families because of their faith, or to he himself when he is being throw into prison for preaching the Gospel of Christ?
In the end, while this book may have some good things to say to a pastor, there are other things that simply seem off to me. I wouldn't necessarily tell someone to avoid it like the plague, but I wouldn't encourage it as a must-have resource, either.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
movie review--Oz, The Great and Powerful
I had kind of mixed expectations for this one, from watching the previews. It looked promising, but in recent year Franco's been in some pretty iffy films.
I'm glad to say that I found Oz to be pretty satisfying.
First, the scenery in the movie is outstanding. They did a good job of creating an essentially fantasy place, where the colors are so bright and full as to be almost too bright and full. In that sense, it was somewhat like the landscape in Avatar, though not as alien but maybe more dream-like.
And the plot had some clever twists and turns, which despite the overall basically normal plot line, gave it some good points of interest.
One review I read in a newspaper said that the actresses who played the witches didn't do that good of a job. Granted, this movie may not win them any awards, but I think a better way of looking at it was that they were more understated than mailing it in. And if you saw Hansel and Gretel, you may appreciate how not doing them the way that movie did may be considered a good thing.
And Franco was convincing as a small-time carnie trickster.
There are some things in it that could be questioned, though.
If you saw the Super Bowl a few weeks ago, you may well remember the auto commercial which featured Paul Harvey reading a bit of something about God making farmers, and the things they endure to do what they do. It's interesting, then, how Oz G&P kind of reverses that. Kansas, the land of good people who go to church and things like that, is depicted in a black and white, while Oz itself is a hyper-colorful fairy land. In other words, the world of farmers and good people is rather dull and dreary.
Maybe that wasn't the intended message, but that was how it seemed. I could be just reading more into it then what was meant to be there.
But outside of a bit of something like that, there wasn't really anything objectionable in it, and I enjoyed it pretty well. It may be one I'll see again in the next week or two, and one I can recommend to others.
I'm glad to say that I found Oz to be pretty satisfying.
First, the scenery in the movie is outstanding. They did a good job of creating an essentially fantasy place, where the colors are so bright and full as to be almost too bright and full. In that sense, it was somewhat like the landscape in Avatar, though not as alien but maybe more dream-like.
And the plot had some clever twists and turns, which despite the overall basically normal plot line, gave it some good points of interest.
One review I read in a newspaper said that the actresses who played the witches didn't do that good of a job. Granted, this movie may not win them any awards, but I think a better way of looking at it was that they were more understated than mailing it in. And if you saw Hansel and Gretel, you may appreciate how not doing them the way that movie did may be considered a good thing.
And Franco was convincing as a small-time carnie trickster.
There are some things in it that could be questioned, though.
If you saw the Super Bowl a few weeks ago, you may well remember the auto commercial which featured Paul Harvey reading a bit of something about God making farmers, and the things they endure to do what they do. It's interesting, then, how Oz G&P kind of reverses that. Kansas, the land of good people who go to church and things like that, is depicted in a black and white, while Oz itself is a hyper-colorful fairy land. In other words, the world of farmers and good people is rather dull and dreary.
Maybe that wasn't the intended message, but that was how it seemed. I could be just reading more into it then what was meant to be there.
But outside of a bit of something like that, there wasn't really anything objectionable in it, and I enjoyed it pretty well. It may be one I'll see again in the next week or two, and one I can recommend to others.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
book review--Broken, by Jonathan Fisk
a welcomed change from the usual kinds of such books
The usual kinds of books put out by young, hip, cool, relevant, whatever types of up-and-coming church leaders seem to fit in a couple of broad and overlapping categories. One is the seeker-purpose-get your best life now types who have found some big new secret way to pray and live that will guarantee you more and more and bigger and bigger. The other is the charismatic pray all day and all night and sing the songs on our new P&W recording 50 times each and God will (finally) be persuaded to do something. All are theologically asinine and scripturally vacuous.
In the marshmallow fluff world of that kind of stuff, "Broken" is like a ray of light, perhaps because it is not only contrary to them, but calls them out for what they really are.
For example, perhaps no teaching has caused more confusion and been the source of more bad decisions and loony teachings than the idea that we should try to hear "God's whispers" somewhere inside of us. In the chapter on Mysticism, Fisk calls that kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of our feelings.
Every two-bit apostle and prophet tries to get people to attend their churches and conferences and gatherings by holding out the carrot that if the people attending will do X then now or soon God will finally see fit to send the revival they've been waiting 100 or so years for Him to send--if they will worship with more abandon to the latest choruses, or pray 25 or more hours a day, or whatever. In the chapters on Moralism and Spirituality, Fisk calls that kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of the works of our hands and the worship of our own made-up spiritual rules.
And there are the ones who think that God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible is about as relevant as Oldsmobile, that what we need today is not your father's God, but a new generation of god, one that looks surprisingly like the person telling us that God is like a now-defunct automobile brand. This new generation of god will, of course, come complete with a new set of rules and directions, though if those don't seem to be working, well, the one real rule is that there are no real rules, so we can make this god however we want, so this god will say and do, approve and celebrate, whatever we want it to. In his chapter on God's Absence, Fisk calls out this kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of Lawlessness.
But while diagnosing the problems is certain worth a lot, Fisk does more than that. He points us to Christ, His sacrificial death, His resurrection, the things He did for us to rescue us from sin and death and judgment. Fisk does not point us to our own efforts to make ourselves good enough, either to earn salvation or to earn any blessing or favor from God, but shows us what God has done for us, so that while we cannot make ourselves righteous through vain attempts to keep the law, God has made righteous those who belief in Jesus.
In a church land which seems to be addicted to having more and having to do more and trading and bartering with God to get more, this "STOP!" message of Fisk's is a welcomed relief. We can stop doing all these things in an attempt to bribe and cajole God into finally doing something, but we can do all of them, from the simply tasks of everyday life to preaching to Gospel to thousands, out of a love of the One who has already done everything.
I recommend this book about as highly as I can.
The usual kinds of books put out by young, hip, cool, relevant, whatever types of up-and-coming church leaders seem to fit in a couple of broad and overlapping categories. One is the seeker-purpose-get your best life now types who have found some big new secret way to pray and live that will guarantee you more and more and bigger and bigger. The other is the charismatic pray all day and all night and sing the songs on our new P&W recording 50 times each and God will (finally) be persuaded to do something. All are theologically asinine and scripturally vacuous.
In the marshmallow fluff world of that kind of stuff, "Broken" is like a ray of light, perhaps because it is not only contrary to them, but calls them out for what they really are.
For example, perhaps no teaching has caused more confusion and been the source of more bad decisions and loony teachings than the idea that we should try to hear "God's whispers" somewhere inside of us. In the chapter on Mysticism, Fisk calls that kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of our feelings.
Every two-bit apostle and prophet tries to get people to attend their churches and conferences and gatherings by holding out the carrot that if the people attending will do X then now or soon God will finally see fit to send the revival they've been waiting 100 or so years for Him to send--if they will worship with more abandon to the latest choruses, or pray 25 or more hours a day, or whatever. In the chapters on Moralism and Spirituality, Fisk calls that kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of the works of our hands and the worship of our own made-up spiritual rules.
And there are the ones who think that God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible is about as relevant as Oldsmobile, that what we need today is not your father's God, but a new generation of god, one that looks surprisingly like the person telling us that God is like a now-defunct automobile brand. This new generation of god will, of course, come complete with a new set of rules and directions, though if those don't seem to be working, well, the one real rule is that there are no real rules, so we can make this god however we want, so this god will say and do, approve and celebrate, whatever we want it to. In his chapter on God's Absence, Fisk calls out this kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of Lawlessness.
But while diagnosing the problems is certain worth a lot, Fisk does more than that. He points us to Christ, His sacrificial death, His resurrection, the things He did for us to rescue us from sin and death and judgment. Fisk does not point us to our own efforts to make ourselves good enough, either to earn salvation or to earn any blessing or favor from God, but shows us what God has done for us, so that while we cannot make ourselves righteous through vain attempts to keep the law, God has made righteous those who belief in Jesus.
In a church land which seems to be addicted to having more and having to do more and trading and bartering with God to get more, this "STOP!" message of Fisk's is a welcomed relief. We can stop doing all these things in an attempt to bribe and cajole God into finally doing something, but we can do all of them, from the simply tasks of everyday life to preaching to Gospel to thousands, out of a love of the One who has already done everything.
I recommend this book about as highly as I can.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
ignorance does not make one qualified
He is not dead, He is alive, and He still visits folks today to minister to them one on one. Jesus still leaves the ninety-nine to go after the one lost sheep. He still loves each of us with a supernatural love that is impossible for us to comprehend with our human intellect. In other words, the experiences documented in this book are the innocent renderings of events as written down by a “babe in Christ.” At the time many of these heavenly experiences were recorded, I was not well-read, nor had I studied the Bible to any great degree. In my opinion, this fact lends validity to these simple, supernatural and ethereal observations of a new believer.It was somewhat funny to read this statement of Basconi's, because I'd actually had a character use a similar argument in something I'd written, in En Passant. Here's what it was...
Kevin Basconi Angels in the Realms of Heaven: Real Life Heavenly and Angelic Encounters, Prologue
...Anyway, you are sharing the stage with a person who has earned the title of Grandmaster in chess, so we may assume he's a pretty good player. Do you play chess, Jo?” “I would have thought that ignorance and inexperience would be qualifications only in Postmodernism. But, apparently, it also works as a qualification for have religious experiences, too.
Oh, dear, no. Such a crude, violent game, with all those winners and losers. My sensitive postmodern postcompetitive postmasculine postspiritualized nature will simply not tolerate such Modernistic barbaric violence. I could never find any enjoyment is such an activity.”
The Grandmaster gave her a puzzled look. “But, you are here to talk of chess, yes?”
“Of course, Grandmaster (and I'll deal later with how bad such a prepostmodern prepostmasculine title is), and I think that my not having any familiarity with Chess puts me in a unique and qualified position to offer enlightened comment on the game, and especially our current topic of what will come after the death of chess. The fact that I don't know the rules of the games means that I am not bound by the rules of the game, so that I may see the game in new and creative and even postsecular and postspiritualized ways, so that I may see not only the death of chess, but also what is coming after the death of chess, the chess after chess, the chess beyond chess, the Event of chess that through the current game of chess only vaguely and weakly calls to us, the chess of weakness which calls to us from afar.”
Sorry, not buying it. Basconi's ignorance of the Bible only made him more prone to being deceived by these experiences.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
BIBLE TROLLS UNITE!!!
To get the bit picture of this, go here, and read.
Tony Jones’ fascinating exchange with Chris Rosebrough
And put on your focus on this comment of Jones'
The article linked to above has the Scripture passages that Jones deleted.
Fine with me. Just call me Detritus.
Tony Jones’ fascinating exchange with Chris Rosebrough
And put on your focus on this comment of Jones'
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Chris, I have deleted all of the Bible verses that you've cut and pasted from elsewhere. You are free to come and troll here on my blog, but you cannot copy-and-paste from elsewhere. We can all read the Bible for ourselves. Also, prepare to be ignored. Those of us to spend time on this blog daily have changed a lot since your last visit. We don't really argue with trolls anymore.]So, in other words, you go around quote Scripture to Tony Jones, then you're a troll.
The article linked to above has the Scripture passages that Jones deleted.
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:1–5)Yep, posting those four passages above made Rosebrough a troll. Doing something similar would likely make any of us one, too, in the eyes of Jones and those like him.
“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)
“Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:23–28)
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)
Fine with me. Just call me Detritus.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
book review--Angels in the Realms of Heaven by Kevin Basconi
tedious and scripturally suspect
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program
Where to begin? Well, first, this book is tedious and repetitious. Each account of his encounters begins in roughly the same way, proceeds along the same lines, and basically seem like minor variations on each other. Whatever else may be said about Rick Joyner and his own accounts of similar encounters, at least his books make for interesting reading.
But that aspect could be accept, or at least tolerated, if Basconi's book was biblical sound in what it teaches. I don't think it is, though. A lot of what is taught seems more than a little suspect scripturally.
While he doesn't go into it much in this book, he does make mention a few times of his teaching about Melchizedek. "However, as I taught in the second book of this trilogy, you can also access the realms of Heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek in this lifetime. You can visit Heaven now." However, when the author of Hebrews deals with Christ being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it uses that in reference only to Christ, and never even hints at applying it to believers.
Plus, there is his idea that "You can visit Heaven now". "Thus also allowing you and I to have these same supernatural privileges by blazing a trail and making a way for us to be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named among men. That is our call- ing and inheritance—and we can step into it in this lifetime (see Eph. 1:18-20, Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10)." However, these passages say nothing about us having the power or the right to visit Heaven now.
And, like any good NAR minister would, he ties his experiences to health and wealth. "Jesus took me from sickness to health. He took me from hopelessness to happiness. The Messiah transformed my mindset and took me from poverty to prosperity in the natural realm. All of these wonderful blessings unfolded in my life in a supernaturally quick and efficient manner once I began to visit Heaven. Supernatural grace and favor with both God and man are the fruit of heavenly visitations." Considering that he relates times when he would blow off his job, I guess he needed a bit of angelic assistance to get the bills paid.
Funny, though, when Paul talks about the revelations he had (I'm not so sure he was referring to himself when he talked about a man who had been to the Third Heaven, but that's a side issue at best), he doesn't seem to have gotten the health and wealth aspect of them. Instead, he got some hardships, like the much-speculated-about thorn in the flesh, and all the physical hardships he listed in II Corinthians.
Concerning Basconi's accounts of his visits to Heaven, as far as I'm concerned, he really had encounters of some kind. But I think there are a few reasons for questioning the sources of those encounters.
One of the biggies is a time when he claimed to have seen and touched the wound in one of Jesus' hands, "This was the first time that I had looked closely and studied the scars of His hands. Jesus allowed me to place my index finger into the indention where the nail pierced His palm." The problem is, very likely the nails were driven through Christ's wrists, not the palms of His hands.
At one point, he claimed that he was taken to a vault full of mantles. "I saw boxes that contained the mantles of saints of old, and I saw mantles of people who had lived in more recent times such as Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Woodworth Etter, Kathryn Kuhlman, and William Seymour." There is nothing in the Bible about such mantles.
This part about mantles gets really weird when he talks about the mantles of people who were and are not children of God, like the Beatles. Again, nothing in the Bible about these mantles. Not a word.
He relates another time, where he goes to a place with spare body parts floating around in jars. "This was the vault of spare body parts, and they would be released to people on earth who needed them." Who knew that God could only heal you if He has the right spare parts around?
And, for some reason, both the mantle vault and this place with the body parts have doors with hermetic seals, and he assures us that the spare body parts room is sterile. Didn't know Heaven had germs.
To sum it up, this book is simply not all that good. Do we need these kinds of encounters to know that Heaven is real, that God is real? I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham told the rich man in Hell that even if one should return from the dead, the rich man's brothers would not believe. I'm reminded as well of Paul's own silence on the things seen in the Third Heaven by himself or some other man.
And far too much of what this man teaches doesn't add up biblically. The Bible nowhere tells us to try to have trips to Heaven in this life. It nowhere says that these trips to Heaven are guarateed to give us health and wealth.
There're so many better books out there that will teach you what the Bible says. Look for those, and don't bother with this one.
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program
Where to begin? Well, first, this book is tedious and repetitious. Each account of his encounters begins in roughly the same way, proceeds along the same lines, and basically seem like minor variations on each other. Whatever else may be said about Rick Joyner and his own accounts of similar encounters, at least his books make for interesting reading.
But that aspect could be accept, or at least tolerated, if Basconi's book was biblical sound in what it teaches. I don't think it is, though. A lot of what is taught seems more than a little suspect scripturally.
While he doesn't go into it much in this book, he does make mention a few times of his teaching about Melchizedek. "However, as I taught in the second book of this trilogy, you can also access the realms of Heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek in this lifetime. You can visit Heaven now." However, when the author of Hebrews deals with Christ being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it uses that in reference only to Christ, and never even hints at applying it to believers.
Plus, there is his idea that "You can visit Heaven now". "Thus also allowing you and I to have these same supernatural privileges by blazing a trail and making a way for us to be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named among men. That is our call- ing and inheritance—and we can step into it in this lifetime (see Eph. 1:18-20, Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10)." However, these passages say nothing about us having the power or the right to visit Heaven now.
And, like any good NAR minister would, he ties his experiences to health and wealth. "Jesus took me from sickness to health. He took me from hopelessness to happiness. The Messiah transformed my mindset and took me from poverty to prosperity in the natural realm. All of these wonderful blessings unfolded in my life in a supernaturally quick and efficient manner once I began to visit Heaven. Supernatural grace and favor with both God and man are the fruit of heavenly visitations." Considering that he relates times when he would blow off his job, I guess he needed a bit of angelic assistance to get the bills paid.
Funny, though, when Paul talks about the revelations he had (I'm not so sure he was referring to himself when he talked about a man who had been to the Third Heaven, but that's a side issue at best), he doesn't seem to have gotten the health and wealth aspect of them. Instead, he got some hardships, like the much-speculated-about thorn in the flesh, and all the physical hardships he listed in II Corinthians.
Concerning Basconi's accounts of his visits to Heaven, as far as I'm concerned, he really had encounters of some kind. But I think there are a few reasons for questioning the sources of those encounters.
One of the biggies is a time when he claimed to have seen and touched the wound in one of Jesus' hands, "This was the first time that I had looked closely and studied the scars of His hands. Jesus allowed me to place my index finger into the indention where the nail pierced His palm." The problem is, very likely the nails were driven through Christ's wrists, not the palms of His hands.
At one point, he claimed that he was taken to a vault full of mantles. "I saw boxes that contained the mantles of saints of old, and I saw mantles of people who had lived in more recent times such as Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Woodworth Etter, Kathryn Kuhlman, and William Seymour." There is nothing in the Bible about such mantles.
This part about mantles gets really weird when he talks about the mantles of people who were and are not children of God, like the Beatles. Again, nothing in the Bible about these mantles. Not a word.
He relates another time, where he goes to a place with spare body parts floating around in jars. "This was the vault of spare body parts, and they would be released to people on earth who needed them." Who knew that God could only heal you if He has the right spare parts around?
And, for some reason, both the mantle vault and this place with the body parts have doors with hermetic seals, and he assures us that the spare body parts room is sterile. Didn't know Heaven had germs.
To sum it up, this book is simply not all that good. Do we need these kinds of encounters to know that Heaven is real, that God is real? I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham told the rich man in Hell that even if one should return from the dead, the rich man's brothers would not believe. I'm reminded as well of Paul's own silence on the things seen in the Third Heaven by himself or some other man.
And far too much of what this man teaches doesn't add up biblically. The Bible nowhere tells us to try to have trips to Heaven in this life. It nowhere says that these trips to Heaven are guarateed to give us health and wealth.
There're so many better books out there that will teach you what the Bible says. Look for those, and don't bother with this one.
Monday, February 18, 2013
en passant, and it's free
So, it looks like the time for the free offer has expired.
Well, for a few days.
En Passant
It's only in the Kindle format, and it'll be free for only a few days, but I do hope you'll take a gander of it, and maybe give some feedback, good or ill. Either would be welcomed, and appreciated.
Well, for a few days.
En Passant
It's only in the Kindle format, and it'll be free for only a few days, but I do hope you'll take a gander of it, and maybe give some feedback, good or ill. Either would be welcomed, and appreciated.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
a bit of something funny
I found this amusing.
I think Hobbes sums it up best at the end of this comic strip.
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2010/06/02
I think Hobbes sums it up best at the end of this comic strip.
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2010/06/02
Friday, February 15, 2013
book review--Growing in the Prophetic by Mike Bickle
one reason the prophetic is a joke
Assuming, at least for the moment, that the prophetic is still something for today (debatable), it would still be true that no small amount of what Bickle writes in this book is not just unhelpful, but damaging, and I've little doubt that it is one of the reasons that the prophetic has deservedly earned itself a bad name.
For example, take this statement, "The primary way that the Father will show us what He is doing is by speaking to us in the “still, small voice.” The Father will also give us whispers or hints of what He is about to do. The “divine hint” may come as a subtle prophetic impression on our mind." (Kindle Locations 3386-3389). He tries to tie this to the account of the prophet Elijah hearing a still, small voice while he was on the mountain, but what happened to the prophet is not what Bickle says he and others experience. Elijah heard a real voice, not some kind of vague internal 'voice' that's actually little more than a feeling that can be interpreted any number of ways.
I would dare say that few modern-day teachings has been the source of more confusion, mistakes, hesitancy, and just all-around goofiness than the stress so many put on trying to hear some kind of quiet, inner voice. The Bible teaches nothing about our need to hear such a thing.
Another example is how he waters down the biblical requirement that anyone who prophecies be 100% accurate. "The New Testament doesn’t require the same standard of its prophets who prophesy by faith and often from subtle impressions of the Holy Spirit. (Kindle Locations 1121-1123). He gives no place where that is stated in the New Testament, but simply tries to extrapolate it. "In the New Testament, Paul taught us specifically to “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Cor. 14:29, emphasis added). The Revised Standard Version translates the passage this way: “ . . . let the others weigh what is said.”" (Kindle Locations 1124-1126). But he does not explain how that means that prophetic accuracy is no longer required, or how it downplays the importance of accuracy, or for that matter what the church was to do to those who prophecied falsely.
And in the New Testament, we are not given any instances of someone prophecying something wrong. All of the prophets in the New Testament were just as accurate as those in the Old. If one is going to say that prophecy is still for today, then watering down the need and requirement for absolute accuracy is dangerous.
But to work around this, Bickle spend much of this book explain his rather convoluted measures for determining who can prophesy, what kinds of prophecies they can give when, who has what level of prophetic ability, how to handle it when prophecies are wrong, and so on. It makes one long for the blunt simplicity of the Old Testament--you'd better be right, or the consequences will be serious. In other words, you'd better be very sure it's God telling you to say this and that. If all you got is a vague inner feeling, you'd best keep your trap shut.
One serious warning sign about Bickle's teachings has to do with what he says about a false prophet and teacher of yesteryear, "However, Branham ended up preaching some doctrinal heresy, although never to the extent of denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or doubting the authority of the Scriptures." (Kindle Locations 2244-2246). But the truth is, those are the very things Branham got very wrong. He was a modalist who even taught that "In the beginning He (Jesus) wasn't even God", and he taught that the Zodiac and the pyramids were equal to the Bible. Bickle is flat-out wrong in his statement about Branham.
All in all, this book is a theological mess.
Assuming, at least for the moment, that the prophetic is still something for today (debatable), it would still be true that no small amount of what Bickle writes in this book is not just unhelpful, but damaging, and I've little doubt that it is one of the reasons that the prophetic has deservedly earned itself a bad name.
For example, take this statement, "The primary way that the Father will show us what He is doing is by speaking to us in the “still, small voice.” The Father will also give us whispers or hints of what He is about to do. The “divine hint” may come as a subtle prophetic impression on our mind." (Kindle Locations 3386-3389). He tries to tie this to the account of the prophet Elijah hearing a still, small voice while he was on the mountain, but what happened to the prophet is not what Bickle says he and others experience. Elijah heard a real voice, not some kind of vague internal 'voice' that's actually little more than a feeling that can be interpreted any number of ways.
I would dare say that few modern-day teachings has been the source of more confusion, mistakes, hesitancy, and just all-around goofiness than the stress so many put on trying to hear some kind of quiet, inner voice. The Bible teaches nothing about our need to hear such a thing.
Another example is how he waters down the biblical requirement that anyone who prophecies be 100% accurate. "The New Testament doesn’t require the same standard of its prophets who prophesy by faith and often from subtle impressions of the Holy Spirit. (Kindle Locations 1121-1123). He gives no place where that is stated in the New Testament, but simply tries to extrapolate it. "In the New Testament, Paul taught us specifically to “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Cor. 14:29, emphasis added). The Revised Standard Version translates the passage this way: “ . . . let the others weigh what is said.”" (Kindle Locations 1124-1126). But he does not explain how that means that prophetic accuracy is no longer required, or how it downplays the importance of accuracy, or for that matter what the church was to do to those who prophecied falsely.
And in the New Testament, we are not given any instances of someone prophecying something wrong. All of the prophets in the New Testament were just as accurate as those in the Old. If one is going to say that prophecy is still for today, then watering down the need and requirement for absolute accuracy is dangerous.
But to work around this, Bickle spend much of this book explain his rather convoluted measures for determining who can prophesy, what kinds of prophecies they can give when, who has what level of prophetic ability, how to handle it when prophecies are wrong, and so on. It makes one long for the blunt simplicity of the Old Testament--you'd better be right, or the consequences will be serious. In other words, you'd better be very sure it's God telling you to say this and that. If all you got is a vague inner feeling, you'd best keep your trap shut.
One serious warning sign about Bickle's teachings has to do with what he says about a false prophet and teacher of yesteryear, "However, Branham ended up preaching some doctrinal heresy, although never to the extent of denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or doubting the authority of the Scriptures." (Kindle Locations 2244-2246). But the truth is, those are the very things Branham got very wrong. He was a modalist who even taught that "In the beginning He (Jesus) wasn't even God", and he taught that the Zodiac and the pyramids were equal to the Bible. Bickle is flat-out wrong in his statement about Branham.
All in all, this book is a theological mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)