emergent pillage

sojrone blames Christians, using bad argument

2012-02-07T10:01:00.000-08:00

So, what else is new?

'Dexter Theology': Shedding Blood in God's Name

I’ll admit I’m a sucker for stories about the malleability of human morality. From the mob movies, where a guy can whack his cousin but better not show his Patron any “disrespect,” to justice-seeking serial killers like “Dexter,” there’s plenty of justified violence to be found.

Where do such seemingly contradictory value systems come from? And do they actually happen in the real world today?

How about the politician who claims a platform that values a respect for “all life,” while justifying war and advocating for capital punishment? Or those who celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? And the list goes on.

Oh, boy, and there we go...

So, somehow, it's the fault of those who are think there are good reasons for going to war and executing murders that we have "Dexter"?

Sorry, I'm laughing my head off here. Or I would be, if I weren't in a library.

Because, really, how does that work?

I haven't watched "Dexter", and frankly have no wish to. Why should I watch anything that glorifies what is essentially murder, and the glorification of a serial killer no matter his reasons?

So, let's change this argument a bit, shall we? How about if we call it "NCIS theology"? That being one of my favorite shows, I'm a bit more familiar with it.

"NCIS" is essentially a detective show about usually military situations and issues. The team of investigators are law-enforcement officers. They use investigative techniques and technology to solve crimes. Sometimes, that also involves pulling out guns and having to shoot people, and sometimes that means the criminal is killed.

So, we have law-enforcement officers, abiding by the law and rules of their organization (even if they sometimes bend those rules a lot sometimes) and who sometimes have to use lethal force. A far cry from "Dexter", I would guess.

Do they show a disrespect for life when they try to bring criminals to justice and sometimes have to use lethal force? I would say, no. There is nothing in the position that supports capital punishment that leads to a lack of respect for life.

(and would one dare point out that those on the left are the ones who advocate for the real killing of innocents, the unborn, in the form of abortion?)

So, yes, I respect all life, and am pro-life in that I am against abortion, and wish to see it's legality ended. I am also pro-capital punishment, because there are crimes that deserve that punishment.

But, I think this sojrone has a bigger fish to fry.

Some even suggest that a culture of justified violence was applied to Jesus’ own crucifixion. This can even be found in the writings of Paul, who came from a culture in which blood was used to purify one of sinfulness. The sacrifice of life, was a common practice in ancient Judaism as well. So it’s understandable when this same model is applied to Jesus’ death.

His "bigger fish" is the substitutionary atonement of Christ, that "Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures tell us".

Jesus forgave sin while he was still alive. Was this a lie? A Mistake? Or did he actually present a grace to the world that was greater than sin, even then?

How does Jesus forgiving sins while He was alive contradict anything? Christ was going to lay down His life for us. Forgiveness, then, was likely based on Him doing that, just like all other sins before His death were forgiven through it. There is nothing contradictory there.

I believe that Walter Wink’s interpretation of Jesus’ message rings the most true, and it can be summed up in three simple words:

Violence never redeems.

We come to it, the real point of this whole sad sojo post--the death of Christ is needless.

It’s love that redeems, and love requires no blood to be spilled in order to exist, or else it’s not really love. There’s no such thing as conditional love; love never comes with an asterisk, a caveat or fine print. It is whole, complete and absolute in and of itself.

Justified violence may be culturally acceptable. It may even be considered Biblical in some cases. But it’s not Christ-like.

"Without shedding of blood there is no redemption of sins". That is God's Word, and if the words of Walter Wink or this sojrone contradict it, then they are wrong. "Let God be true, and every man a liar".

Even heathens honor those who sacrifice their own lives for their family or countries, but this sojrone belittles and dishonors the Christ who gave His life for us by his trite and unscriptural positions. This is blasphemy, pure and simple. He is one who trods upon the blood of Christ, calling it an accursed thing.

the impossible standard

2012-02-04T12:47:00.000-08:00

Deuteronomy 28 tells us what it looks like to be the head:

Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out. The LORD will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come against you one way and flee before you seven ways. The LORD will command the blessing on you in your storehouses, and in all which you set your hand, and He will bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
-DEUTERONOMY 28:3-8

The Lord describes blessing in every conceivable way. It even extends to the defeat of all enemies who rise against them. This is clearly and pointedly what life in the promised land is supposed to look like. The enemy will "flee before you seven ways." Though the seven nations are greater and mightier than you, they will run away in seven directions. This promise of blessing is not something to be "named and claimed" while we are committed only to life in the wilderness. That's the central error of the prosperity message-that God wants us to have and be all these things in the wilderness. Only in the active conquest of the seven greater nations will He bless us like this. And there's more:

The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. Then all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers to give to you.
-DEUTERONOMY 28:9-11

Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (pp. 183-184). Kindle Edition.

A few things to point out here.

First, who is God talking to here? This is recorded in Deuteronomy, God made this statement to Israel at the of Moses, which means it was said roughly 3,500 years ago. That's a long time ago. I hadn't been born yet, my father hadn't yet been born, even my grandfathers were not yet born. God was speaking to the people alive at that time, and more particularly to the people of Israel, and one could say by extension their descendents after them. It was a promise to a particular people, Israel.

As such, then, this promise is not to the church. The church does not have some kind of metaphorical or spiritual land that we must conquer, somehow analogous to Israel's conquest of Canaan, the Promised Land.

Second, look at this passage. It has a stipulation to it, an "if". I'll single it out here, but keep in mind the context above.

if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.

The promises Enlow refers to are not without condition. They are promises based on Law, conditioned on the obedience of Israel to the Law God had given to them. And dare I say, it had to be a perfect obedience, for as it is written, to keep the whole Law but to violate it on one point is to break the whole Law.

So, Enlow makes a couple of errors here. One is that he's claiming a promise not addressed to him or to the church, and the other is that he is claiming a promise that's conditioned on perfect obedience to the Law, which he as a fallen sinful man cannot accomplish, nor can anyone in the church today.

Only one has lived a sinless life, has lived in perfect obedience to the Law, and that would be Christ.

Israel could not live up to the stipulation of this promise. They failed, and so they did not receive these blessings. But I think that the Bible says that God is not finished with His dealings with Israel, but that's another topic.

This rhetoric of "We should be the head and not the foot" is an insult. It insults those who over the years have had faith in Christ but have struggled in regards to material things because of their beliefs--they were outcast, they were persecuted, they were robbed and beaten, they were persecuted and even martyred. It insults the early church and the Apostles. It is about the Apostles that Paul wrote in I Corinthians 4, "1co.4.9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.† 1co.4.10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 1co.4.11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 1co.4.12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 1co.4.13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day." The Apostles certainly weren't treated like the head and not the foot, and in fact did not seem to have much expected to be.

Finally, it is an insult to Christ, who humbled himself to become a man, and became obedient to the point of death by crucifixion, one of the most shameful and painful and humiliating deaths man has deviced. By his own words, He came to serve and to be served. Here is what Isaiah wrote concerning Him.

is.53.1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?† is.53.2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. is.53.3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.† is.53.4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. is.53.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.† is.53.6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.† is.53.7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. is.53.8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.† is.53.9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.† is.53.10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.† is.53.11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. is.53.12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 144642-144666). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Christ did not live His life on Earth as the head, but the day is coming when He will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But we the church are not called to rule in such a way. As it is written somewhere, let us go outside the camp, bearing his reproach. And as Christ Himself said, If they hated Him, they will hate those who love Him.

not something to ask for

2012-02-04T12:44:00.000-08:00

Every nation has a redemptive destiny, and the Lord is urging us to ask Him for the nations as an inheritance (Psalm 2:8).

Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (p. 26). Kindle Edition.

Sadly, Enlow's mistake here is quite the popular one. In my time with YWAM, it was quite common for someone in prayer to use this bit from Psalm, "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations", and to ask for some nation or another themselves. In their understand, and in that of Enlow, it is us who are being addressed in the Psalm, we who are suppose to ask for the nations, and they will be given to us as an inheritance.

So, let's look at this verse in context.

ps.2.1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?† ps.2.2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, ps.2.3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. ps.2.4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. ps.2.5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.† ps.2.6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.† ps.2.7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.† ps.2.8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. ps.2.9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. ps.2.10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. ps.2.11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. ps.2.12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 136830-136847). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Look at the verse before 8, v 7, " I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." This is obviously a messianic statement, the Lord is speaking to His Son, Christ. Once that is established, we can see when He says to someone "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession", He is still speaking to Christ.

God wasn't and isn't speaking to us in this Psalm. We can learn from it, yes, but let's not pretend that simply because v. 8 has an implied "you" in it that that "you" means, well, you.

It doesn't. You weren't there, the church hadn't even yet been formed, and the Psalms were written several hundreds of years before Pentacost. God is not urging us to ask for the nations as an inheritance, that's just arrogance to even think He would. This Psalm is about Christ, not us.

good for him!!

2012-02-03T09:28:00.001-08:00

I've said nothing about things Tebow here, for a few reasons. 1. He was a Gator. 2. Did I mention Gators? 3. Everyone else is saying everything anyway. 4. Gators. 5. The whole Gators thing. 6. I did cheer for him some (as a Bronco, not a Gator). 7. Like I said, everyone and his brother was voicing opinions all over the place.

Ok, having said all that, I must give him major props for this.

Why Is Tim Tebow Backing Out of a Speech at Rod Parsley’s Christian Conference?

Tebow was scheduled to appear in March at the three-day Columbus, Ohio, event being hosted by televangelist Rod Parsley. In a phone interview with the Associated Press, Tebow’s brother Robbie confirmed that his brother is canceling. ABC6 reports that this decision is based on Parsley’s controversial teachings...

Apparently, the Tebow camp hadn’t looked into the event prior to committing. And now, something has led the player — perhaps the aforementioned elements — to backtrack on his commitment.

The page has a photo of the website for the event, and along with Parsley it also has Kenneth Copeland.

I'm glad Tebow is getting out of that thing. There's nothing there he should be getting involved in.

seven mountains of nonsense

2012-02-03T09:06:00.000-08:00

In the chapters of this book I will refer to these foundations of culture, or sectors of society, as "mountains." Revelation 17 describes a "harlot" who sits on a "beast with seven heads" that are "seven mountains." This demonic entity, described as a woman, must be displaced from the mountains, or seats of power. This is our mission that we were co-missioned by Jesus to do.

Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (p. 9). Kindle Edition.

In some episodes of his Fighting for the Faith podcast, Chris Rosebrough has discussed the Seven Mountains dominionist teaching and movement, and one thing he's pointed out that in the Bible the idea of seven mountains is not something good. It is associated with this passage, Revelation 17.

rev.17.1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: rev.17.2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. rev.17.3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. rev.17.4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:† rev.17.5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.† rev.17.6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. rev.17.7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. rev.17.8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. rev.17.9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. rev.17.10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. rev.17.11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17.14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. rev.17.15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. rev.17.17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. rev.17.18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 175321-175352). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Keep in mind what Enlow said, that it is out job, the church's job, to "displace" the woman in the vision from the mountains represented by the beast's heads. Remembering that, look at the rest of the prophecy.

According to the prophecy, who "displaces" the woman? "rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17...rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. " If we are to take Enlow at his words, this these ten kings would represent the church, would they not? They are the ones who displace this woman from her position, though they do so in partnership with the beast.

If that seems suspect, consider a part of the passage that I left out.

rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17.14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. rev.17.15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. rev.17.17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. rev.17.18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

So, these ten kings who displace the woman also go to war against the Lamb, who is Christ.

Now, does that sound like the church to you? I have to say, no, it doesn't.

So, looked at in context, we can see pretty plainly that what Enlow is claiming the passage says is not actually in the passage at all.

DTS and nonsense about the Holy Spirit, part 3

2012-01-28T12:25:00.000-08:00

This will likely be the last I'll do on "Prophetic Session". Not much left, anyway.

The Necessity of Faith
We need to recognize that every aspect of God’s work requires us to walk in faith.
Prophesying, like any ministry, is a step of faith that usually requires us to get past our feelings and our fears.
Since prophetic ministry is telling people things we do not know by our own knowledge, it is like walking on water every time we dot it. If we are insecure in the Lord’s willingness to cover us, we will struggle as we give prophetic words.
Faith and humility are two primary requirements for prophetic ministry.
Cheating is prophesying things you already know in the natural, which is characteristic of a false prophet.
However, mistakes are not optional. Although no one enjoys the process, the way most of us learn in through trial and error.

It is like walking on water? Another strange analogy, and one that seems to be rather questionable, too.

Remember that when Peter walked on water, he did so at Jesus' invitation. One may rightly point out that Peter did ask first, but then, there are some instances in the Gospel when Peter asked to do something that Jesus refused; for example, at Jesus' transfiguration, Peter asked to be allowed to build tabernacles for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, and his perhaps rash request was refused. The point is, though, that Peter walking on water is not an account designed for us to focus on Peter's great, if rather brief, faith, but rather on the Christ who was already walking on the waters, who came to the disciples as they were sailing in the storm, and who calmed the waters as He rescued Peter and both of them entered the boat.

If Peter had been presumptuous in this instance, if he for example had tried to walk on the water without Jesus' permission, I have my doubts that he would have done little more than make a small splash.

Faith is one thing, but presumption is something else entirely. And I would contend that what Sollars is encouraging here is presumption.

For example, "If we are insecure in the Lord’s willingness to cover us, we will struggle as we give prophetic words". Now, if all of these supposed "prophetic words" are based solely on vague feelings and experiences, or from straining with might and main to hear some kind of still quiet inner voice that Scripture says nothing about, and it isn't based on God giving us a clear and sure message to give to someone else, then upon what basis are we to assume or presume that God will "cover us" when we dare to say that God has told us to say something when God hasn't?

And this is where her statment "Mistakes are not optional" is so misleading. If you're making mistakes, telling people that God is saying things to them that He isn't telling you to say to them, then God is not blase about that. And you're not making a mistake, you are absolutely sinning. In fact, if there is any kind of scale upon which sins could be measured from bad to worst, then presuming to say that God has spoken to you when He hasn't has to up there among the very worst of sins.

So what happens when we see something that is bad? Now we have to say something that is strengthening, encouraging and comforting.

1 Corinthians 14:32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; NAS

And here we have spin-control. Not only are we to not know for sure that what we think we've received from God is really from God, it may simply be our own imaginations or whatever, but if it's something we consider a bit too harsh, well, we have to figure out a shiny happy way of phrasing it. Apparently, rebuke is not "strengthening, encouraging, and comforting".

Judging Prophecy
The word must be congruent with the scriptures as well as the hearer of the Father God.
It must bear witness with the spirit of the one who receives it.
The fruit of the prophetic word must be that the person receiving it is brought closer to God and His people.
The prophets and leadership should be in an agreement with the word and its interpretation and application.
The interpretation of any prophetic revelation belongs to God, not to man. Therefore, we also need the Holy Spirit’s anointing to know the meaning of the word as well as what to do with it.

A prophetic word must agree with Scripture? Ok, I'm fine with that, though considering how Sollars has butchered Scripture in her message, well, I have to ask upon what basis she is to be considered one who can determine whether anything she receives really agrees with Scripture or not.

"It must bear witness with the spirit of the one who receives it." Translated: Oh, I have to agree with it. Well, that's a new one. Heaven (or maybe hell) forbid that God, or our inner feelings or whatever, should tells us something we don't like or agree with.

I like that next one, it's hilarious. "The fruit of the prophetic word must be that the person receiving it is brought closer to God and His people." Where does Scripture tell us that that is only fruit of a prophetic word? It may be the most ideal and best, but the only? Based on that, almost all of the prophets in the Old Testament would be disqualified, because very often their message was rejected. Based on that, even Jesus would have been rejected.

"The prophets and leadership should be in an agreement with the word and its interpretation and application." Prophecy by democracy? Everyone has to vote on what was said or not?

Traditionally, the church had a single dimensional way in which we judge prophecy. But God is calling us into a deeper relationship with Him. This will lead us into new ways of judging prophetic ministry.

"New ways of judging prophetic ministry". Well, there's some rear-covering for you. Apparently, in these "new ways...", well, it's ok to listen to things Scripture says nothing about, and it's ok to get it wrong. But that doesn't mean you common people can go around just poo-pooing what we maybe-not-quite-right prophetic types are saying. Sure, we may not be any more accurate than your local palm-reader or the carnival crystal-ball gazer, but you'd better take us seriously.

"We need to realize that God seldom does things all by Himself. He often requires us to be involved with Him to see our destinies fulfilled." Oh, yeah, poor helpless God. It's not we are so pathetically weak and helpless, it's God who's just waiting and hoping on us to finally let Him do something. It's not we who are need of salvation, but God who needs us to save Him from his helplessness.

Ok, so, how helpless is God?

Isaiah
is.63.1 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.† is.63.2 Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? is.63.3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. is.63.4 For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. is.63.5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. is.63.6 And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 144962-144972). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

We have to understand this--God is NOT helpless, God does NOT need our permission. We are the ones who are to say that when we have done all He tells us to do, we need to realize that we are still unprofitable servants. We humans are fallen, dead in trespasses and sins, completely unrighteous, and it is God who came, it was while we were still sinners that Christ died for us, it is by God's grace that we who have been given faith are saved, and that salvation is not from our own works but the gift of God.

God seldom does things all by Himself? Rather, it is we who could do nothing without God. He is not the helpless one, we are the ones who cannot help or save ourselves.

DTS and nonsense about the Holy Spirit, part 2

2012-01-27T10:12:00.000-08:00

So, continuing with the stuff in "Prophetic Session".

What Prophecy is?
1 Corinthians 14:3
3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. (from New International Version)

Ok, so, how does she see this verse.

Now this is the guidelines for prophesy (strengthening, encouragement, and comfort). If the word you receive for someone fits in those three things then it’s ok to speak, if its not then you need to seek God on how to make it fit into those three things.

And right about here, we start running into problems. When, for example, the Old Testament prophets spoke the words God gave to them, they didn't really seem to go about the process of editing it, or putting some kind of positive spin on it, and I would guess such a thing was rather discouraged. When, for example, God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, with all those "Thou shalt nots..." in the Hebrew of that day, it seems that Moses wasn't allowed to make those rules say anything else, like "How about if you did X".

Nope, it was all "Thou shalt not...".

And when, for example, the prophet Samuel was sent to King Saul when the king had fouled up in not obeying the explicit command of the Lord, Samuel wasn't allowed to put a nice spin to what God had told him to say. Nothing like "I know you did a good job in the battle, but God says he's a bit unhappy with you for not doing exactly as he commanded." Nope, it was all rebuke, straightforward and simple.

Using her take on it, I can't help but think that she would have problems with Peter in the account early in Acts when the couple Ananias and Saphira lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter publicly rebuked them, and even predicted that the wife would join her husband in death for their sin. And she sure wouldn't go along with what John wrote in Revelation, with Jesus rebuking the churches like that. I can imagine she would have insisted that John "seek God on how to make it fit into those three things".

Prophecy should be happy and positive. Wow.

And now, for a bit of double-speak.

Now once you receive something from the Lord sometimes you have to interpret it.
It is just important to ask the Lord the interpretation of something as it is asking for the word.
It is important we don’t put our own interpretation in it.
Don’t judge by what we see in the natural.
If you don’t get an interpretation and you know God wants you to share it with someone then go ahead and give the word.

So, on the one hand, "It is just important to ask the Lord the interpretation of something as it is asking for the word". On the other hand, "If you don’t get an interpretation and you know God wants you to share it with someone then go ahead and give the word". Which kinda puts the kabosh on the first statement, doesn't it.

How we say a word is also very important.
Our tone of voice.
Our wording.
Don’t say “thus says the Lord”

Oh, of course. God's speaking to you, telling you to say something (even if you are having to come up with a way to phrase in a positive, listener-friendly, politically- or religiously-correct way), but you shouldn't really say "Thus says the Lord" or anything similar, right?

Really? Why? If it's really God telling you to say something, don't you think God wants to be credited with the message? Didn't the prophets of old say that God had told them to speak, and that the words were God's and not their own?

But...wait for it...

Mistakes Will Happen
When people first begin launching out into the prophetic they will make mistakes.
God is not critical and harsh with us as we are learning to minister.
Ministering prophetically is obeying God and serving His children in love
God does not expect instant maturity from us.
We must understand that the Lord not only allows, but also expects us to make mistakes as we begin in ministry.

Ooooooooohhhh. Now I see. All this reliance on vague feelings, inner and quiet voices, and all that jazz, well, it just means you maybe-possibly-hopefully-almost positively-mathematically certainly-don't quote me on it-not completely sure-wouldn't swear by it in court that God was the one really speaking to you.

In other words, it may not have been God. Or if it was God, you may not have heard Him correctly. You know, it's just so hard to understand Him when He speaking with the still small inner quiet voice that Scripture says nothing about. You really have to have your spiritual hearing aid cranked up in your spirit ear to hear that still small inner quiet voice.

Now, what does the Bible say about this?

Deuteronomy
de.18.15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; de.18.16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. de.18.17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. de.18.18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. de.18.19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. de.18.20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. de.18.21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? de.18.22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 120747-120761). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Jeremiah
je.28.1 And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, and in the fifth month, that Hananiah the son of Azur the prophet, which was of Gibeon, spake unto me in the house of the LORD, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, saying, je.28.2 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. je.28.3 Within two full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the LORD's house, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place, and carried them to Babylon:† je.28.4 And I will bring again to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, with all the captives of Judah, that went into Babylon, saith the LORD: for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon...je.28.15 Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie. je.28.16 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD.† je.28.17 So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 146481-146516). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Ezekial
eze.13.1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, eze.13.2 Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD;† eze.13.3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!† eze.13.4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. eze.13.5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.† eze.13.6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word. eze.13.7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken? eze.13.8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord GOD. eze.13.9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD. eze.13.10 Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered morter:† eze.13.11 Say unto them which daub it with untempered morter, that it shall fall: there shall be an overflowing shower; and ye, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall rend it. eze.13.12 Lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where is the daubing wherewith ye have daubed it? eze.13.13 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even rend it with a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in my fury to consume it. eze.13.14 So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered morter, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. eze.13.15 Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered morter, and will say unto you, The wall is no more, neither they that daubed it; eze.13.16 To wit, the prophets of Israel which prophesy concerning Jerusalem, and which see visions of peace for her, and there is no peace, saith the Lord GOD.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 148662-148694). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Read those passages, and see that God does not take so lightly the giving of false words of prophecy as Amy Sollars wants us to believe. See that God really was and is very critical and even harsh when people presume to say that God has told them to say something when He really hasn't. God isn't as blase about it as Sollars, and I presume those she learned from (hi, false apostles and prophets at IHOP KC).

And Sollars telling people to not say "Thus sayeth the Lord" or words to that effect is simply a cop-out. Simply saying something wishy-washy like "I feel like God is saying to you that..." doesn't negate the fact that the person is presuming to speak for God. If anything, it's a cowardly way of trying to get the respect and even fear that true prophets had, without taking the responsibility that the true prophets lived under.

If I knew nothing else about Sollars, her statements like "God is not critical and harsh with us as we are learning to minister" and "We must understand that the Lord not only allows, but also expects us to make mistakes as we begin in ministry" would be enough to convince me that she is a false prophet and false teacher.

And this woman presumes to teach DTS skulls-full-of-mush about the Holy Spirit. That is unacceptable. Youth With A Mission needs to look at this woman's teachings, see how unscriptural they are, and keep her from spreading her false ideas to the people who attend their schools and expect to be taught biblical truth. Because with her teachings, they are not learn anything biblical at all. YWAM needs to hold her accountable for misleading those who spend thousands of dollars to listen to this kind of garbage, and YWAM needs to hold itself accountable, or someone needs to hold YWAM accountable for allowing such nonsense to find a place in its midst.

It is to YWAM's shame that this woman is allowed to spread her nonsense in their schools, and they need to repent of that and ensure that all that is taught in their schools is biblically sound, and that such purveyors of false doctrine either accept correction or are given the heave-ho.

DTS and nonsense about the Holy Spirit, part 1

2012-01-26T10:00:00.000-08:00

I have heard something to the effect that "The best of lies have a kernel of truth in them". It means that the most convincing lies are those that are clothed in the truth, or that even are composed of truth but that have certain things left out that make the words spoken untrue.

I came on this woman a bit ago, listening to some podcasts of lectures. In order to become a full-fledged member of Youth With A Mission, one must take a course called the Discipleship Training School (DTS). Apparently, you're run-of-the-mill DTS is becoming rather blase, so various YWAM bases are coming up with various flavors of DTS, and this one is called the Fire and Fragrance DTS. I'm not sure why. A part of me that knows enough about the hippie subculture to know what the use of burning incense is meant to cover up wants to make some jokes along those lines, but I'll refrain.

Anyway, this woman, Amy Sollars, is in YWAM. From her words in one of the lectures, she's also spent some time at the Kansas City International House of Prayer. And since she didn't say it in a way that seemed to say that she was repentent of having associated with such false apostles and prophets and spiritual power-brokers, I assume she still buys into whatever they are peddling.

On her website, she has some documents that seem to be lecture notes. The fourth one is about "Prophetic Session".

Just as a convincing lie is clothed in the truth, so it seems that false teachings, when thinly coated in Scripture, can somehow be convincing, at least to those who are not willing to dig. I suppose I should be all the more critical, having been such a sheeple at one time, too.

At any rate, here is a bit of Sollars' teachings from "Prophetic Session".

Still small voice of God

This is the soft and gentle voice of God, which comes as wait on the Lord in prayer or meditation.
God speaks this way for personal instruction and encouragement. It comes internally and quietly.
It must be judged in light of the desire of our own hearts

Another abuse of the account of Elijah

I Kings 19:9-13.
And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah? And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

Elijah heard a real voice, one speaking outside of himself, not some voice that speaks "internally and quietly". The Bible does not teach that the Spirit speaks "internally and quietly".

So, right off, Sollars is teaching false things, things not in Scripture, things she should not teach.

Prophetic Impressions
Thoughts and Feelings
The simplest form of prophetic revelation.
He uses our thoughts and feelings.
What many people think are coincidences are actually valid prophetic impressions from God.
Acts 14:9
9 This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze upon him, and had perceived that he had faith to be made well, NAS
Acts 27:10
10 And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives. KJV
Impressions are the entry-level prophetic revelation for most people.
A Knowing

Ok, let's see.

ac.14.5 And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them, ac.14.6 They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about: ac.14.7 And there they preached the gospel. ac.14.8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked: ac.14.9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, ac.14.10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 169557-169565). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition

.

And here is what this same commentary says about this event.

and perceiving that he had faith to be healed — Paul may have been led by the sight of this cripple to dwell on the Saviour's miracles of healing, and His present power; and perceiving from the eagerness with which the patient drank in his words, that he was prepared to put his own case into the Redeemer's hands, the Spirit of the glorified Physician came all upon Paul, and "with a loud voice" he bade him "stand upright upon his feet." The effect was instantaneous — he sprang to his feet "and walked."

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 77329-77333). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

And for her second supposed supporting passage.

ac.27.7 And when we had sailed slowly many days, and scarce were come over against Cnidus, the wind not suffering us, we sailed under Crete, over against Salmone;† ac.27.8 And, hardly passing it, came unto a place which is called The fair havens; nigh whereunto was the city of Lasea. ac.27.9 Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them,† ac.27.10 And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives.† ac.27.11 Nevertheless the centurion believed the master and the owner of the ship, more than those things which were spoken by Paul. ac.27.12 And because the haven was not commodious to winter in, the more part advised to depart thence also, if by any means they might attain to Phenice, and there to winter; which is an haven of Crete, and lieth toward the south west and north west.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 170288-170299). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

And again, what the commentary says.

10. Sirs, I perceive, that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, etc. — not by any divine communication, but simply in the exercise of a good judgment aided by some experience. The event justified his decision.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 79254-79255). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Paul's perceptions in both cases seem to be more by observation than by any kind of "entry-level prophetic revelation". Paul had eyes, he'd been around, he could observe and make decisions just like anyone else. Did he need divine revelation to know that it was a bad idea to continue sailing, when the voyage had already been difficult? Did he need divine revelation to see that a crippled man was especially interested in what he was teaching?

Moreover, you will notice that there is no plain scriptural teaching on this "entry-level prophetic revelation" of thoughts and feelings. Once we know that there is no Scripture about the idea of an internal and quiet voice, we can see that this teaching about feelings and thoughts is also nonsense. It's all internal stuff, it's all focused inwardly, which is not what the prophets did. They heard God's voice, a real voice actually speaking to them. They had real visions and dreams.

Prophetic Senses
Spiritual Sight
2 Kings 2:15
15 Now when the sons of the prophets who were at Jericho opposite him saw him, they said, "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha." And they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him. NAS
They saw in the spirit with there spirit eyes.
Example of seeing someone you think that looks like someone else and get a word for them about that other person. Then later they don’t look like that person.
Sometimes we do see things in this natural realm from the spiritual realm.

This one is hilarious. "They saw in the spirit with there spirit eyes." Really? Wow, I think Sollars must have taken reading comprehension from the same people who taught Mark Batterson.

2ki.2.5 And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he answered, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace. 2ki.2.6 And Elijah said unto him, Tarry, I pray thee, here; for the LORD hath sent me to Jordan. And he said, As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. And they two went on. 2ki.2.7 And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan.† 2ki.2.8 And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground. 2ki.2.9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. 2ki.2.10 And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so.† 2ki.2.11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 2ki.2.12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. 2ki.2.13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan;† 2ki.2.14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over. 2ki.2.15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him. 2ki.2.16 And they said unto him, Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley. And he said, Ye shall not send.† 2ki.2.17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not. 2ki.2.18 And when they came again to him, (for he tarried at Jericho,) he said unto them, Did I not say unto you, Go not?

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 128927-128956). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Read the entire account, please. It says nothing about them using "there spirit eyes", whatever those may be. They had seen with their regular eyes Elijah and Elisha cross the river, the had seen Elijah part the waters, they saw Elisha return alone, they could see that he had Elijah cloak with him now, maybe they could hear Elisha's words as he used Elijah's cloak and then God parted to waters for him as he had done so for Elijah not long before. They didn't need "their spirit eyes" to see what had happened.

There's more nonsense here, I don't have time to get more into it right now, I hope to do so later.

poor pitiful him

2012-01-24T09:49:00.000-08:00

Sale Cereal

Much of this post an account, autobiographical I suppose though fiction isn't completely ruled out, of his attempt to get coffee from a Starbucks when his bank account was too low. Yeah, major bummer, he's just so oppressed.

For my middle-class friends — the ones who have snuggled into comfortably paying, socially respected careers—the post-grad years of scraping by, of wrangling coins for groceries and beer — become cutely nostalgic. “Remember when we’d eat Ramen all the time, and could only go out during happy hour, and got clothes at Target?” Now sipping $60 bottles of wine and donning designer jeans, these years become testament to their ability to do it—the whole poverty thing—as if it’s some sort of game, some trial-by-fire, a stepping stone to real, adult life.

Oh, of course, those sell-outs. How dare they "snuggle into comfortably paying, socially respected careers". How dare they do without for a time so they could get educated and trained, so that they could find work that really paid well (thus earning the money that people like this Sojrone want to tax so very badly), so they could afford $60 bottles of win and designer jeans, if that's what they wish to purchase and can afford.

For what it's worth, I doubt they were going around saying things as a testament to their ability to do poverty, but rather to the effect that they rose above it. And maybe some sympathy to the bud who whines about not being able to get coffee-house coffee.

My problem is that, for many, it’s not seasonal: the lights go off every month for years, the cards are always declined, pulling on those mythical bootstraps isn’t really an option. Aside from the whole I-want-to-get-married-someday thing, this is probably why I’m a democrat, because I work in the communities that are supposed to benefit from trickle-down economics. Here’s a little secret, though: they don’t. They’re stuck, and not because they lack motivation, but because they haven’t been afforded the same opportunities for success. Poverty preys on their prayers.

So, those communities have benefit from social welfare? Really?

Here's a little secret. They haven't. They're stuck.

Which is why I'm a Republican, because I don't want to get caught in the food-stamp dependency trap.

And because I find it distasteful that whiners like this get so upset because they can't afford Starbucks. Since he works for Americorps, it's my tax money that's paying his salary, and frankly if he can't afford Starbucks, he can go down to the store and buy instant. Maybe doing without Starbucks will allow him to pay his electric bill on time.

I like how one commentor to the post put it. Since Sojo comments now have like and dislike buttons, they comment predictable has been severely disliked by the denizens. All the more reason for me to like it.

If you don't even have $1.85 for a cup of coffee, perhaps you don't need to be in Starbucks. And that $4.59 you had leftover after the transfer will no doubt go towards an overdraft fee. But of course, it's not your fault for not knowing your available balance. You're just way too busy to be concerned about how your failure to manage your own life has negative consequences. It's sad how a lack of personal responsibility in your life has made you unmarketable, but it's nobody's fault but your own. The world doesn't owe you a living, so please do something about it instead of just complaining.

That comment is at -8 right now, and I've no doubt will go down further. This is, after all, Sojo, where all hints of personal responsibility are to be condemned.

part 2 of good article on "spiritual warfare"

2012-01-23T10:26:00.000-08:00

Gladiator-style takedown of demonic forces, Part 2

And some excerpts.

The person we have to thank for the SWM/NAR is the "Super Apostle" of the International Coalition of Apostles (ICoA), C. Peter Wagner. This demon-battling gladiator has done enormous damage to the cause of Christ. He and his "apostles" and "prophets" have made a mockery of the good news of the gospel and are spreading a false gospel. A few of Wagner's fellow gladiators are: Cindy Jacobs, Chuck Pierce, Rick Joyner, Lance Wallnau (7-mountains), Lou Engle (TheCall), Samuel Rodriguez, Che Ahn, John and Carol Arnott, Bill Johnson, Dutch Sheets, Todd Bentley, Mike Bickle (IHOP), Patricia King, and Kim Clement. Remember their names. Flee from them!

In closing, it is important to understand that the NAR/DOM's agenda. Their intent is to take "dominion" over societal institutions and government...and then they will take over the kingdoms of this world and build a literal Kingdom of God on earth. Peter Wagner boasts:

Once we have the apostles in place we will then bring the intercessors and the prophets into the inner circle, and we will end up with the spiritual core we need to move ahead for retaking the dominion that is rightfully ours.

I really hope some people in groups like YWAM will look at this, and consider that their own group is a part of this take-over attempt. It's sad, really, because I've little doubt that many rank-and-file YWAMers are simply ignorant of what the rhetoric they hear is all about.

would they prefer 'cowardly' instead?

2012-01-22T14:25:00.000-08:00

"Courageous": A Sermon Wrapped in a Movie

This is a Sojo article from a few months. But I remembered a bit about it, and I only recently saw the movie "Courageous".

First, my own take on the movie.

First, I've seen much worse movies. "Land of the Lost" from a few years ago comes most readily to mind.

I've seen better movies. On the whole, though, "Courageous" wasn't half bad, and at the least had welcomed dearth of wince-worthy things in it. No sex, no bad language. Some action and violence.

Now, on the down side, I think it dealt a bit shallowly with some things. Signing some kind of commitment to be a good husband and father may be fine and dandy, but the overall message seemed to be that everything would be more-or-less ok if you do that and live by the commitment.

But the truth is, we can't do it. A man may want badly to be a good husband and father, but he is still an imperfect human, a sinful person, he will fall and fail. And not just as the one did in the movie, in an obvious way, but in small ways, common and every day ways.

Plus, let's be honest, kids aren't robots. Do the best you can, try to teach them as best you can, but they themselves are still fallen, still themselves sinful, and they can still go against all the things good parents can teach them.

What do we do when we don't live up to our commitments? To quote a prayer I've heard and said a few times, what do we do when we "sin against you in though, word, and deed; by what we have done, and by what we have left undone"? I guess I wish the movie had done a better job along that line, of presenting grace and Gospel instead of coming off like a sermon on commitment and law only.

Now, what about Sojo?

You've probably noticed that I've used the words 'man' and 'men' a lot so far. The film's major flaw is its unrelenting message that families need fathers, a message so heavy-handed that the role of mothers in the family dynamic is all but ignored entirely. The wives and mothers of Courageous are, sadly, two-dimensional characters, employed as little more than sounding boards for the profound musings of their courageous husbands.

Wow, a movie about men trying to good fathers actually focuses on fathers. Isn't that like complaining that, let's say, a movie about a dog focuses on the dog?

Or, maybe families don't need fathers? Now, Sojo is very big into the whole alternative lifestyles things, so maybe the notion that mothers and kids needing husbands and fathers is a message they don't really approve of. Would that be an unfairl way of seeing this criticism?

At so many points, Courageous felt terribly hackneyed. From the faux manly banter that permeates the dialogue to the "strong man getting in touch with his emotions" scenes, the film doesn't say much that is new, interesting, or remotely revolutionary. The climactic shoot-out between the officers and the local drug dealers is labored and clichéd, when it very easily could have been a gripping scene.

Well, did the movie need to say much of anything "new, interesting, or remotely revolutionary"? I don't think so. It's message, so far as it went, was not a bad one--husbands should be good to their wives, and fathers should take care of their kids.

There is the one father, for example, who is trying to keep his teen daughter falling victim to boys who don't care for her. He wants to make sure the boy who dates his daughter, and later the man who marries her, is a good and godly man. Is that so bad? Another works hard to provide for his family, but risks losing his job when he thinks his boss wants him to do something dishonest. That may not be new, interesting, or revolutionary, but it's a pretty good message anyway.

Despite its well-meaning intentions, Courageous fails to say anything new about fatherhood, family, faith or anything else, for that matter.

Personally, I'm fine with it not saying anything new about anything. We need less of supposedly clever people trying to come up with something new to say, when we can't even do the most basic things right.

Some of the Sojrone's criticisms are valid. The acting is not the best, though not horrible either. the plot was a bit scattered, it may have been better served to have focused more on two or three men and their families rather than five. It did get rather maudlin at times. But I suspect such things would have been overlooked if, for example, it had been about same-sex families, or the men had been liberal non-men who wouldn't dare think of telling their kids what to do, or if the Dad so concerned about his teenage daughter had given her a pack of condoms or some birth control pills instead of a purity ring.

It's not a perfect movie, but you could do a lot worse.

chandler's sermon

2012-01-21T13:04:00.000-08:00

I've listened to this sermon a couple of times, and it's solid. Not that such events as Code Orange are big on my radar, I'm just not into the whole "going where God's doing something" thing, and overall such events seem to be more about the church or organization than anything else, more about boosting egos than anything godly.

After listening to all or parts of some of the 'sermons' at this Code Orange event, I'm pretty well convinced that this whole thing is an ego trip. And the fact that this one sermon of Chandler's, which has some elements of rebuke to how the church and its pastor misuses Scriptre, was not replayed at it's scheduled replay times tells me that Chandler burned some egos instead of coddling them. And considering how much fawning sycophantic praise some of the latter 'preachers' have heaped on the church and its pastor, this event is less about godly revival than a meeting of the mutual admiration society.

pots and kettles

2012-01-18T09:51:00.000-08:00

Christianity, conceived of as a system, begins with a religious or political mode of thinking and then seeks to impose it upon the world. Here a strong Platonic influence is at work whereby we mold the particular (the individual) into the Universal (the idea), and if the individual can’t—or won’t—be molded, then he or she is rejected. For instance, if a certain lifestyle is perceived to be wrong within the system’s framework, the individual in question will be asked to change or leave. The disavowed obverse of “all humans are part of my family” is then, “if you will not be part of my family you are not human.”

Various systems or worldviews fight for power and authority. Yet Christianity, as a religion without religion, offers a radically different approach. Christ opens up the idea of a system that seeks always to find those who are excluded from the system that is in power. The Christian “worldview” is thus manifested as always seeking out those who have been rejected from the worldviews that have authority. The way this works itself out in practice is that whatever political or religious idea is dominating the society at any given time, Christianity seeks out those who are excluded by it, the one sheep who is not in the pen, the one coin not in the purse, those who have not been invited to the party, the nobodies, the nothings. The Christian “system” can thus never take power for, by definition, it is always that which stands against power, seeking to identify with the powerless and the voiceless. It is a system in the sense that it systematically seeks out those who do not fit into the system offered up by the currently prevailing political and religious authorities.

What we see being worked out within Christianity can thus be said to be a prejudice toward those who are excluded and marginalized, those who are oppressed by our religious and political systems. This means that every time a “Christian” system is created, the Christian is the one who seeks out those who are excluded from it. Christianity, as a religion without religion, affirms a system that undermines every system of power by seeking those who are oppressed. The Christian critique is not then directed at the people in power so much as at the place of power itself. When a system of thought, however great, is given authority over all, it becomes oppressive and undermines its own liberative elements. The point then is not to find the “right” way of thinking and then give it a place of power and influence, but rather to question the place of power and influence itself. Is this not what we learn from the following biblical insight?

Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1929-1948). Paraclete Press. Kindle Edition.

First, a bit of a personal gripe. Rollins here goes on about "those who are excluded". Very well, but then, the past few times I've tried to leave comments at his little blog, they have not been posted. The comments of some other people have been, usually comments containing sycophantic praise. Now, my proposed comments have not contained praise, sycophantic or otherwise. Is that why Rollins or whomever the gatekeepers at his blog are do not allow such questioning and critical comments be allowed to stand?

But perhaps that exposes what he means above in a nutshell--the "excluded" whom his version of Christianity is suppose to seek out are only those "excluded" ones who do not voice much disagreement with him and those like him. To give an extreme example, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't bother him much the neo-Nazis are excluded from power and don't have that much of a voice, and in fact I would bet that if such people were to be put in power it would likely disturb him very much. In that, I hope he and I may find a rare bit of something to agree upon.

But given this extreme example, what about other, less extreme examples? That is one of the things that is most disturbing about the Left when they talk or write like this--they mean it only for themselves and those they agree with, but woe betide those who oppose them. One can see it, for example, in the lying accusation hurled at the conservative Tea Party that it is racist, violent, hateful, and should not be listened to or taken seriously. There is rather scant proof of any of that, if any proof at all, but it has become an established meme that is believed without question by those who oppose it.

As well, we should ask what is meant by these excluded whom the church should seek out. What about, for example, murderers in prisons? Again, an extreme example, but come along anyway. Certainly they are among the voiceless and powerless in regards to politics and religion. What does it mean that the church should seek them out? Should the Christian critique be directed at those who think that murderers should be put in prison, away from society, so that they should not be able to practice murder any more? Should the Christian system stand against those who have put the murderers into these prisons, such as the detectives and policemen who have arrested them, the lawyers who in trial put forth the evidence for their crimes, and the judge who sentenced them to prison?

Now, the idea that murder is a crime is a religious idea--"Thou shalt not murder". Should the church stand against this teaching that you should not murder, because it is the idea that is in power?

As I said, this is an extreme example, but I think it is one that's pointed. I doubt that Rollins would want murderers to be set free from prison. But this shows just how shallow what Rollins is saying really is, because the church's job is not to validate something simply because it's not in political or religious power. It's not the church's job to validate people like neo-Nazis and murderers, no matter how isolated they are, no matter much people don't pay attention to them, no matter how much they may feel oppressed because no one takes their looney beliefs seriously or because they are put into small concrete cells and kept away from innocent people so they can't murder any more of them.

But let us give Rollins a partial point, a good bit less than half a point, maybe about a quarter if we are to be generous. There are people on the outside, and the church does have a commission from Christ to take the Gospel to the world, that Christ came to seek and save the lost. Those lost may not be in power, but then maybe they are. Both the king and the peasant are equal in one thing, in being sinners whose every attempt at a good work is like the vilest of rags to God.

Rollins wants to make this about politics, which is blasphemy. It's about much more than that. It's about the condition we all find ourselves in, that we are separated from God, that we are enemies of God, that we are under God's wrath and rightfully so, that all we deserve is physical and spiritual death. It is about Christ being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, doing the thing recorded of Him in the Gospels, being crucified as a sacrifice for out sins, and rising from the dead.

The church doesn't go to the lost to proclaim what we can do for anyone. We proclaim what God has done for us. It isn't about being against power and authority, for then we would be going against God, but rather that we point to the one who has ultimate power, to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Don't doubt that Rollins' rhetoric is simply a cheat, a bait and switch. His main concern, and those like him on the Left, is simply that they should be the only voices, the only 'advocates' for whatever they espouse. Why else would they try to silence dissenters and opposing information? There're reasons why his book is called "The Fidelity of Betrayal", why he tries to make the traitor Judas into a hero.

good article on 'spiritual warfare'

2012-01-10T10:32:00.000-08:00

There are many distractions out there. And in the church, we Christians tend to create our own distractions. It seems that we want desperately to feel like we're doing something, anything, for whatever we consider a good cause--changing the world, winning people for Christ, stopping the decline of society, you name it.

In doing this, though, are we really doing anything? Or anything good?

Let's say, for example, that you are a part of a group of people going to a city that has few churches, few Christians, and many people who need to hear the Gospel. Let's say that your group is only going to be there a couple of weeks. The leaders of your group, of whom you are not, decide that they want to engage in spiritual warfare instead of preaching and teaching the Gospel. So, you spend your time going to supposedly spiritually significant places in the city or surrounding areas--the top of the highest hillside or mountain, for example, or the exact center of the city, some place where something happened long ago that someone decided was spiritually significant, or what have you. At those places, you sing and pray and do things like "binding the strong man", and sometimes someone gets the feeling that something of spiritual significance has happened, or something has a verse come to mind that supposedly has something to say about what they're doing.

Maybe you visit a few places for preaching, but overall you're doing this kind of spiritual warfare stuff. And your group goes home, thinking they've done something significant. The Gospel wasn't preached all that much, few people heard about Christ dying for their sins, but your and your group did 'spiritual warfare', so hey, it wasn't a wasted trip at all.

For those who would think something like that, I submit this article to them.

Gladiator-style takedown of demonic forces, Part 1

Many spiritual warfare prayer warriors are sincere people who believe what they're doing is serious work, thus they don't enter into it lightly and are very cautious when they engage in intercessory prayer. They also admit that they're still learning the process of warfare prayer. The process they go through to rid the "client" of demons is called "therapy." A person who's cleansed of "cosmic beings" is deemed a "survivor."

Some in the deliverance ministries put their focus on so-called demon possessed people. As I said, many of them are serious sincere people who do not take exorcism lightly — but the fact remains that they're involved in an unbiblical practice...

Later Beardsley says:

In the book of Revelation, demonic activity picks up again. But even in the sections which are addressed to the churches (chapters 1-3), there are no directions for speaking to demons. Even with the Church living under demonic pressure, where Satan's throne was (Rev. 2:13), there were no commands to bind and/or cast out Satan and his demons. When Jesus spoke to the church at Thyatira, He did not say, "Bind Satan" or "You have a territorial demon, drive him out." Even those believers who were under the influence of the wicked Jezebel were not told to break her demonic power. Revelation gives us a glimpse into the demonic world and what is taking place behind the scenes. However, we do not have any situation where believers are running around binding and casting out demons.

It's time, past time, the church stops doing what I call "spiritual busy work". It's a distraction from doing our real work, proclaiming the Gospel and living godly lives. There are things Scripture tells us to do, and among the things we are not told to do is to get all into taking down spiritual strongholds.

for whom the bells toll?

2012-01-09T10:07:00.000-08:00

So, Sojo is purging once again. As a victim, of sorts, of one of their last purges, I'm not really surprised.

Dear SoJo Commenters: "This Aggression Will Not Stand, Man."

Of course, it's phrased in gushy language. Here's a bit from a letter they say was one reason for this move.

"I'm a 'refugee from conservative fundamentalism' who was initially pleased to discover Sojourners, your website and your blogs, and a social gospel — justice with a spiritual basis. I was also encouraged to see your blog comment posting policy. After reading a few excellent and thought-provoking blog entries, I was then very disturbed to read your comment streams and find out that despite your policy, they are in fact nastier than many of the non-Christian blogs out there... If I wanted to argue with conservative fundamentalists, I could have stayed in that church. I'd like this to be a site where those of us committed to a social gospel can talk about it and not have to engage in the same nasty culture wars that are happening everywhere else.

First, I have to wonder how a group so committed to the uncivility and outright lawlessness of the Occupy Wherever brats has any leg to stand on criticizing others for being to their minds uncivil.

Second, let's see now, what is ok at Sojourners now...

The mocking of a great piece of sacred music that is sung by men who engage in open sexual immorality, singing the work while dressed as nuns? Check.

Posting a video of 'jesus' calling a presidential primary candidate an a--hole? Check.

Ill-informed hit pieces against Republican president primary contenders? Check.

Posts in honor on the death of the bastion of political corruption and moral sliminess, Ted Kennedy? Check.

Making false claims that Conservatives have a war on the poor or however they want to phrase it, but deny the cultural war on Christmas? Check.

Decrying violence while heaping praise upon the violent movie "Red State"? Check.

In other words, a site filled with hate and loathing for those who disagree with it and what it thinks God wants in politics? That's Sojo to the core.

And now, those who disagree are to be denied their voice there.

Odd, that just last week I wrote a bit about blogs that essentially become echo chambers, where only those who sound just like each other are heard. Were I a betting man, I'd bet that this is what Sojo is trying to become, a place where people can come to not debate with those nasty conservatives, and where they only have to hear and read what they want to hear and read.

In other words, I think I may be hearing the bells tolling the coming slow death of Sojourners. Probably not quickly, no doubt there will be small life there for a long time, but it seems almost a truism that when sites like that try to purge opposing voices, they actualy only hurt themselves.

And I'll be over here, nodding my head in agreement to the bells, hoping it happens sooner rather than later.

what an event, sorry you missed it

2012-01-07T16:24:00.000-08:00

Wow, this must have been about like Y2K, only without all the press coverage and panic.

A Buzz Is In the Air…

I’m not sure if anyone else feels it but my spirit is EXPLODING over the global outcry of worship that will take place in just five days from today! But after many revelations, dreams and words from so many people….11.11.11 is finally almost here! It is so much more than another meeting, conference or initiative, but the culmination of the longing heart of God to be invited once again back restoring Edenic communion to humanity!

Oh, wow. So, two months ago, simply because the date read 11-11-11, we not only the release of the movie Immortals (haven't seen it, can't comment on it), but we also have a poor forlorn God finally get "once again back restoring Edenic communion to humanity!"

Yeah, I'm so glad that god can stop feeling like he's not invited to the party. He must hate gate-crashing so much.

So, God has now restored Edenic communion? Really? Pray tell, where?

Oh, no doubt you can find people running around in the woods wearing only a smile, but if you'll excuse me, I'll keep my distance from them.

On 11.11.11, we are partnering with many organizations, houses of prayer, churches, movements across the globe to launch the GLOBAL DAY OF WORSHIP (http://www.globaldayofworship.com/) and mobilizing literally hundreds of thousands of 24 hour Burn gatherings across the globe! Every major city all at one time releasing their voice, sound and burning hearts of extravagant love to JESUS! WHOAAAA!!! Just the thought of it overwhelms and fills me with endless expectation of what God will in response to this widespread BLAST of affection!

Hmmmmm. So, anyone else out there not hear about this? Anyone else not notice the people doing this day of worship? Anyone else underwhelmed by what is suppose to have happened.

Anyone else look at the blog, and see that he makes little mention of it? He has one post that had a live stream, but that's about it. And the Global Day of Worship website itself seems to have little to say about the event. But they're already pushing the 12-12-12 event, because, hey, when the day, month, and year all have the same number (even though the year is actually 2012) it must mean something.

At least, that's what the Mayans calendar says. Or their alien overlords.

sickening misapplication

2012-01-05T09:57:00.000-08:00

During those desperate days, they went to visit their pastor for counsel and encouragement. While praying for them, the pastor received a promise from God. He jotted Isaiah 59:21 on a sticky note and handed it to them.

“As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants — from this time on and forever,” says the LORD.

The pastor shut his Bible and said, “I guess that settles it. Your child will talk.”

Zondervan, (2011-12-13). The Circle Maker: Praying Circles Around Your Biggest Dreams and Greatest Fears (Kindle Locations 1311-1317). Zondervan. Kindle Edition, Mark Batterson

What this pastor did was sickening.

Isaiah 59
11We roar all like bears, and moan sore
like doves: we look for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far
off from us. 12For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our
sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and as for our
iniquities, we know them: 13transgressing and denying Jehovah, and
turning away from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt,
conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. 14And justice is
turned away backward, and righteousness standeth afar off; for truth is
fallen in the street, and uprightness cannot enter. 15Yea, truth is lacking;
and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey. And Jehovah saw
it, and it displeased him that there was no justice.
16And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no
intercessor: therefore his own arm brought salvation unto him; and his
righteousness, it upheld him. 17And he put on righteousness as a
breastplate, and a helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on
garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a mantle.
18According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, wrath to his
adversaries, recompense to his enemies; to the islands he will repay
recompense. 19So shall they fear the name of Jehovah from the west, and
his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come as a rushing stream,
which the breath of Jehovah driveth. 20And a Redeemer will come to Zion,
and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah. 21And
as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith Jehovah: my Spirit that is
upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart
out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth
of thy seed’s seed, saith Jehovah, from henceforth and for ever.

Batterson in his book explains that the couple have a son who while very young stopped communicating, no reason is given in the book. Such a thing understandably was upsetting to the parents, and as the excerpt says they went to their pastor for help.

And this what that pastor gave them, an out-of-context verse to give them false hope.

For the past ten years, their prayers have been hyperlinked to that promise. In that moment, John and Heidi said “a wall came crashing down” and “a promise came rushing in.” It was the most naturally supernatural moment of their lives. Has it been clear sailing since then? No. Have they experienced disappointments? Yes. But that promise is circled in their Bible. “God gave us a promise, and no matter how many times we have to keep circling, it’s settled.”
(Kindle Locations 1317-1321)

As someone who has fought his own speech problems over the years, even though it was never as bad a situation as it seems this child suffers from, I can't think of many things more cruel than to take a biblical verse like this out of context, and use it to give false hope and comfort.

Shall we take that verse, go to a speech therapy center, and tell it to the people there, or the parents of the children in those places? Shall we go the parents of a child that is severely mentally handicapped, one barely able to communicate at all, and tell them that by this verse their child will talk normally someday?

Can you see now how what this pastor did was not comfort, but cruelty?

down memory gutter

2012-01-04T09:42:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, I wound up going back to a place online that I frequented a few years ago, and went back over a bit of an exchange I had with some of the regulars there at that time. It was interesting, and a bit amusing. It'd been a while since I'd been there, and judging by how most of their recent posts have comments turned off, I doubt I'll frequent it much again, except out of morbid curiosity, maybe.

Here's the main entry, the point around which we were discussing or debating or something worse.

WASHINGTON, DC — April 1, 2009 — In an announcement that stunned the nation, Barack Obama called a press conference today to state that he is stepping down as President of the United States. Effective immediately, Hugh Beaumont will assume the role. Mr Obama also said that Joe Biden is being replaced by Ozzie Nelson. Similar replacements are taking place throughout Congress, although it is reported that Nancy Pelosi has locked herself in her office.

Given their obvious recent distaste for trusting in God, Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country.

In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.

I'll not give much in the way of what the exchanges were like in the comments area, as it pretty much quickly degenerated into a gang-up. They are still on the site, if you wish to read them. My tactic or strategy was, well, pretty interesting, even now. Mostly, I insisted on asking the same questions over and over, in an insistence on getting the others to answer those questions, while also refuting in as simple a way as possible their attempts to attribute wrong motives to me.

Take a look at the contents of the blog entry. I said that this entry showed the hate that was in them, both the one who wrote it and those who approved it. It showed the hatred they had towards those who dared to disagree with them, and attributes to those people the vilest of things. It was a hateful attack on those who dare to disagree with, among other things, the election of Obama, accusing them of having a distrust in God and trusting instead in government and the country (rather a silly claim, really, when you consider that it is people like Obama and those who support him who are pushing for the government to become the main provider of all things). And it claims that those types of people would kick Jewish people out of country clubs (would they send them to prison camps, too) and kill black people. The hate in this piece of "satire" is blindingly obvious.

Amazing how impossible it was to get them to see that.

It was C.S. Lewis who somewhere in his writings made a bit of a comment about humor, something along the lines that one could get approval for almost anything, could get approval for evil acts, if one could get others to laugh at it. Is this not almost self-evident? From the clever word-play of "Who's On First", we have degenerated to the place where profanity and comedy are almost synonymous, to the place were comedy is used to make less offensive the most immoral of sexual acts and lifestyles, where those who oppose those acts and lifestyles are held up for ridicule in those same comedies, where we are encouraged to laugh at things that should offend and shame us.

So, when the other commentors tried to defend the entry by calling it a satire, it didn't really matter to me. It's kind of like saying "Hey, I'm going to write something comparing those who disagree with me of wanting to ban Jewish people and kill black people, but hey, don't take me seriously, I'm only joking". Yeah, I wasn't going to let them off the hook that easily.

Honestly, I had been commenting there for some time, and things had already degenerated. I can't remember all the things leading to this degeneration, but one I do remember quite clearly is when they got on the case, I thought unfairly, of one of their favorite targets, and I came to her defense.

Strange, how right she has been proven, concerning the young celebrity in question. Sad, yes, but also right. But concerning myself, it was eye-opening to see how much vitriol and hate the commentors at this blog had towards this woman. It wasn't just simple disagreement, it was personal, and they were personally attacking her.

So, when I starting making the comment that "You become what you hate", I knew what I was seeing, and how true that statement was. It would have been one thing if they had voiced reasoned and considered disagreement, but these people were not just crossing lines but running full-tilt over them while laughing about it and denying that they were doing it. And the hatred they denied having became directed at commentors like myself who dared to disagree with them, question them, say that they were wrong.

I don't think it's too very wrong of me to feel some satisfaction at the state of that online place now. They've changed the name, and it looks like it's not near as busy as it was. The problem with an echo-chamber is that it becomes really dull after a while, hearing the same things over and over again. Why else have places like Emergent Village come almost to a stand-still? Why do they have to go to more and more extremes to try to maintain interest? For example, EV's attempt last year to portray God as being an unfaithful lover. Perhaps they should thank the occasional person like myself who stumbles over their sites, voices a bit of disagrement, and gives the hangers-on an enemy to rally against for a while.

Perhaps the best thing people like me can do is to keep away from places like the old and new Emergent Village, the theOoze, this 3Ps blog I've linked to above, or what have you, and let them die away from boredom, fade away from the silence resounding through the echo chamber, and let the people there feel the existential angst of knowing that they are no longer relevant, while they get sick of trying to top each other in writing the most ridiculous things.

It's a thought, and not a bad one, either.

the village--new place, same nonsense

2011-12-31T10:24:00.000-08:00

I guess I'm a bit behind on things, but it looks like Emergent Village has moved, insofar as a basically virtual nonentity can be said to move. Perhaps there are still hangers-on at the old site, but there's a new one up now, too.

Ok, so, but as they say, the more things change...

Mary, Joseph, and Mysticism: by Bruce Epperly

Many years ago, during my days as a university chaplain, I led a weekly prayer and meditation group. We practiced centering prayer, Quaker silence, visualizations, and lectio divina.

Well, there's a whole mess of mess right there.

First, I'll say that you should go here, The Inventor of Centering Prayer Teaches Us What It is For, to learn what this is all about.

Next, read this by Thomas Keating, one of the guys who started the practice of centering prayer. The is the quote from the web page, "Father Thomas says, "If you don't want to become God, you've missed the boat. If you're too humble to think you can become God, if you think you are not worthy, that is a false humility, because it's not yours to decide." It's God's choice. According to Father Thomas, it is your duty to become God. Centering Prayer and contemplation are the only modern methods that we have to listen to God, to perceive God, and to see the world as God sees it. Listen in as Father Thomas offers you the invitation to become God."

Centering prayer, then, is a continuation of the temptation of Satan in the Garden--that you should become like God. Centering prayer is evil and blasphemy, and should be avoided.

There is no better example of this active mysticism than Mary and Joseph’s responses to God’s invitation to be partners in the incarnation.

Funny, but in the biblical accounts, there is a very distinct lack of mention that Mary and Joseph practiced any things like centering prayer or other supposed spiritual practices or mystical whoop-de-doo.

We don’t know how Mary was chosen to bear this special child. Was she the first one that the angel asked? Had others been overwhelmed or resistant, knowing the personal and social cost of an unplanned pregnancy? Did Mary exemplify certain character traits worthy of divine interest? I don’t know the answer although I think all three options have some plausibility. God’s call to Mary and us is always personal and contextual, time bound but with everlasting consequences. Our response always bears our own individual signature and creativity.

Another example of reading into what the text says.

Luke 1
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed[b] to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”[c] 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”[d]

35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[e] will be called holy—the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant[f] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

So, see anywhere that says the angel got it wrong before? Or, let's be honest, that God got it wrong? Does it say that Mary was better than anyone else? About the only virtue she could be said to have had was that she was still sexually pure, a virgin. The passage says nothing about her being especially virtuous. She was, in fact, just like the rest of us--a sinner, in need of a Savior. The passage mentions nothing about her supposed worthiness, but she had none, it was by God's grace that she was favored to bear the Christ-child. just as it was by God's grace the He chose the exiled Moses to free his people from Egypt, chose the boy David to become king of His people Israel, and so on. It was not a matter of worth.

Well, back to the announcement to Mary. When the angel came, she was inquisitive and surprised. In words later echoed by the Beatles, Mary responds, “Let it be.” In other words, I am open to following God’s vision, embracing it in my own flesh and blood. She is no passive clay manipulated by the unilateral potter. She joins agency and receptivity as she opens to God’s movements in the birth of her child. She is an active mystic – encountering divinity and then choosing to follow God’s vision in her life. She chooses incarnation, the holiness of birthing, for herself, Joseph, and the coming child. But, it is clear that “she chooses.”

Look at the passage above. The angel declares what is going to happen. He askes no question, he seeks no permission. That Mary was willing for the child to be born of her is evident and commendable of her, but there is no hint in the passage that she chose it.

Mary is perplexed, and so is Joseph. The exact details of this child’s birth are less important than the responses of the actors involved. As many biblical scholars assert, unusual births are common in the annals of great spiritual and military leaders. They are somehow set apart by the divine for a special mission and this begins at conception. This fact does not nullify the Christian affirmation of the virgin birth, but it invites us to ask whether or not the virgin birth is essential to the story. Is the incarnation about supernatural interventions or the natural holiness of flesh and blood and the world in which God’s quest for healing and salvation take place?

So, while this guy doesn't necessarily deny the virgin conception and birth of Christ, he's attitude is "No big deal". If Mary had slept with a real guy and gotten pregnant, no big deal, either, I suppose.

The 'holiness of natural flesh and blood'? Remember what Keating said, and see how that view is polluting this EV writers views. The supernatural, things like the virgin birth, are downplayed, to the elevation of the natural.

First, we can experience God in life-transforming ways. God is not aloof, but present in cells, souls, and communities. A one-dimensional faith – defining everything according the tenets of the modern world view – robs life of beauty, wonder, and amazement. The incarnation raises all life to revelation; each moment – even tragic moments – as a potential theophany. Sleepers awake! God is with us!

So, the incarnation of Jesus become about God being somehow accessible by mystical exercises. Yikes. All life is revelation? Yeah, not in the Bible.

Second, God comes to us through many ways – personal visitations (Fatima, Medjugorje), visionary experiences, dreams, intuitions, synchronous encounters).

Apparently, though, not through His Word. Any strange and bizarre experience is ok, but looking at the biblical text and studying it, apparently that's optional.

Third, divine encounters enhance rather than diminish freedom and creativity. Graceful visitations invite us to greater agency. God wants us to be companions in healing the earth, whether in the process of conception, child-bearing, and our ongoing care for the safety of our children and all children.

Oh, yes, the emphasis on creativity. I'm almost to the point of thinking the creativity is the real god of postmodernism.

Where does the Bible say that God wants us to be companions in healing the earth? Is that what the Great Commission was about?

Oh, well, the Village has moved, but it's taken the whackiness with it. If the sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result, then shouldn't the failure of the original Village have told these guys something?

One last thing. Read this guy's article in full, see how he spends more time reading what he wants to read into the text of the conception of Jesus, and see how his method is not really all that much different than what Mark Batterson does in The Circle Maker. And see what that book is such a wreck.

a rather dull and boring edge

2011-12-30T16:50:00.000-08:00

One of the things that puts any kabosh on any attempts I may want to make to trust the people in 24-7 Prayer, and that overrides my attempts to give them the benefit of the doubt, has to so simply with those they insist upon partnering with. For example, there is this church, which is connected with their organization in New Zealand.

Edge City Church, the link goes to the page where the audio for this sermon can be found.

The sermon I'm listening to is by a woman named Julia. She "exegizes" the biblical account of Mary and the conception and birth of Jesus. What is she saying?

Well, let's see...

The accounts were definitely written from a man's point of view, as they just don't give the kinds of details women would want. Men just don't see a lot of detail, or at least the types of details women would notice. The Bible gives only "a man's amount of information".

If women had written the Bible, it would have been a lot longer, with a lot more detail, and somehow the book of Numbers would have been more interesting. Don't ask me why any of that is true, or even relevant to the topic of the conception and birth of Jesus. Hey, I'm just a guy.

Maybe the reason Moses wrote the Bible instead of Miriam was because the scribe, the guy putting words into the clay tablets, just couldn't keep up with Miriam as she was talking. I'll assume all of that was, somehow, meant for humor. But the fake stammer, apparently in an attempt to imitate Moses, was rather off-putting for one like myself, who has suffered from much that same kind of problem.

Advent means pregnancy. Actually, I thought Advent meant arriving. Like when the one guy a few years ago was making a big deal about the advent of Google, he certainly meant that the advent or arrival of Google was the big deal, at least in his own mind. Advent, in the Christian calendar, has to do with the birth of Christ, His arrival.

The life of Christ in us is like the pregnancy of Mary. Oh, joy, unfounded and unsupported assumptions and metaphors. This lady claims almost complete ignorance of "exegizing", so is it any wonder that her attempts at it wind up really being eisegesis, or reading into the text, and not exegesis, reading and understanding what the text itself is saying.

At least she admits it's a metaphor, for any credit that may be worth (precious little, if any).

She must be using The Message, because she's reading a verse from Luke 1that says that Mary said "I'm bursting with God-news". Really, why is the Message such a popular translation? I've read parts of it before, and it's style isn't modern, it's stilted. Like that. Who would use a word like "God-news"?

Apparently, all women who are pregnant are bursting with God-news. Nope, Mary being pregnant, no big deal. Oh, btw, I guess that explains why so many of those pregnant women go get aborted that child in them that causes them to be bursting with God-news.

And, apparently, the passage in Luke 1 in whatever translation she's using also has Mary saying "He took one look at me, and look what happened". To this lady's mind, apparently that's an excuse many women have made when in the same condition. This part of the message is very distasteful.

I'll agree with her some that we may tend to idealize Mary's pregnancy, not to mention the birth of Christ. Concerning the latter, we have carols that have lyrics like "Silent Night", when very likely it wasn't really a very quiet night at all, or "Little Lord Jesus no crying he makes", when Jesus as a newborn would likely have cried if He had been awakened by the nearby cows. So, a bit of a point for her, but, seriously, this is still not exegeting the text at all.

Apparently, being pregnant or having just given birth means people will talk about all kinds of bizarre things with you in public. I'll take her word for it. She's had a lot more experience at that than I, being just a guy, will ever have. Or, hopefully, that's just a Kiwi thing.

As she points out, the Bible doesn't talk about that stuff all that much. Why she is, while "exegizing" the text, I'm not sure, either.

Now, she'll continue using the metaphor of Mary's pregnancy, or maybe pregnancy in general, to discuss the idea of the life of Christ inside of us.

Pregnancy is uncomfortable, but it will be worth it. I've no doubt.

She's "exegizing" the cankle now. Again, she admits it's not in the Bible. For whatever reason, she's showing pictures, anyway.

The life of Christ inside of us can require discipline, and what she calls the uncomfortable process of change.

To kind of pause things a bit, I've made a bit of a search of the few resources I have, to see what the Bible say about this idea of "the life of Christ". It seems to be a surprising rare phrase, at least in the one concordance I've looked in, which is a fairly good one but, I'll admit, not exhaustive. Only one verse seems to have that phrase, in II Corinthians 4. Here's some context.

1Therefore seeing we have this ministry, even as we obtained mercy, we
faint not: 2but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking
in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the
manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s
conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is
veiled in them that perish: 4in whom the god of this world hath blinded the
minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 5For we preach not
ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for
Jesus’ sake. 6Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness,
who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of
God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7But we have this treasure in earthen
vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not
from ourselves;

8we are pressed on every side, yet not straitened; perplexed, yet not unto
despair; 9pursued, yet not forsaken; smitten down, yet not destroyed;
10always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of
Jesus may be manifested in our body. 11For we who live are always
delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus may be
manifested in our mortal flesh. 12So then death worketh in us, but life in
you. 13But having the same spirit of faith, according to that which is
written, I believed, and therefore did I speak; we also believe, and therefore
also we speak; 14knowing that he that raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise
up us also with Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15For all things are
for your sakes, that the grace, being multiplied through the many, may
cause the thanksgiving to abound unto the glory of God. 16Wherefore we
faint not; but though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is
renewed day by day. 17For our light affliction, which is for the moment,
worketh for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory;
18while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which
are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things
which are not seen are eternal.

So, there is mention of "the life of Christ" in that passage. It still seems, though, that she is using it in a slightly different way than that passage does. For one thing, this passage doesn't liken it to pregnancy at all. We are not pregnant with the life of Christ, but rather as the passage says, we are delivered over to death so that the life of Christ may be manifest in our bodies.

She's treating this "life of Christ in you" in an almost therapeutic, Oprah-fied way. We should allow it stretch and grow us. Again, look in the passage above. It is in bearing about in our bodies the dying of Jesus that this life of Christ may be manifest in our bodies. When we are delivered to death for Jesus' sake, the life of Jesus may be manifest in our bodies. Here's an excerpt from a commentary about this passage.

10. bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus — that is, having my body exposed to being put to death in the cause of Jesus (the oldest manuscripts omit "the Lord"), and having in it the marks of such sufferings, I thus bear about wheresoever I go, an image of the suffering Saviour in my own person (2 Cor 4:11; 2 Cor 1:5; compare 1 Cor 15:31). Doubtless, Paul was exposed to more dangers than are recorded in Acts (compare 2 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 11:26). The Greek for "the dying" is literally, "the being made a corpse," such Paul regarded his body, yet a corpse which shares in the life-giving power of Christ's resurrection, as it has shared in His dying and death.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 86449-86455). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

A pregnancy will speak for itself. Well, yeah, after a while, it will.

People out there, lost people, people you work with if you work with lost people, are not looking for lectures of sermons, but just looking for you to be you. I'm not sure exactly what that means. The real me is a despicable, sinful person, full of evil, whose attempts are righteous works are merely putrid rags. Those aren't just words, I know rather well how evil and sinful I am. I do at times give an echo of sorts to Paul's words about doing what I know I should not do, and not doing what I know I should do, and realizing over and again how wretched I am, wanting to be saved from this flesh of death.

Don't be boring. Really? That's what the pregnancy of Mary is about, not being boring?

Hold faith in the story of God inside of you. What? Isn't that putting faith in the wrong thing?

But thing big thing is, at least so far, to make sure that what you say or do meets the approval of all those other people around you. Don't be boring to them, don't force your beliefs on them, don't talk about things too very much to them.

Sometimes we don't allow God to be God in those around us. That is a rather strange phrase.

There is a place for community, or rather the Church. We are told to not forsake the assembly.

She believes the story of Christ inside of each of us is more powerful and more compelling than we may realize. What is this? Faith in the story of God, the story of Christ inside of us? What about faith in God, the life of Christ in us?

Apparently, hugging etiquette among Christians in New Zealand is very complicated.

In the most disturbing part of this 'sermon', a bit before the end, she tells about giving a friend of hers, who is not a Christian, a CD of her music. The friend admits that she uses the CD in meditation that involved crystals and incense, her CD is this woman's meditation music. And this speakers response to this? "That's awesome! I love it! Because she is finding His face, she's locked the door, she's trying to get away, and in every way that she knows she's looking for a little bit of a God-moment, and she's actually looking for a spiritual peace time-out, and something I've created off the God inside of me brings peace". Much of this 'sermon' has been ridiculous, but this is blasphemy.

And here we have it, basically a waste of a sermon, exegeting pregnancy far more than anything said in the Word of God, with the topper that it is cool to practice unbiblical mediation so long as it is done with her music that was created off the God (or maybe god) inside of her. Outside of an occasional random good point, all who heard this 'sermon' basically wasted their time.

they had jaw-clenching faith?

2011-12-28T11:34:00.000-08:00

Sometimes you have to get out of your routine so God can speak to you in a nonroutine ways. I knew that I couldn’t just preach a sermon that weekend; I needed a word from the Lord. And God gave me one. During one of the teaching sessions, God gave me a promise to stand on and I put every ounce of my weight on Exodus 14:13 – 14:

“Don’t be afraid. Just stand still and watch the LORD rescue you today. The Egyptians you see today will never be seen again. The LORD himself will fight for you. Just stay calm.”

What would be the hardest thing to do with the Egyptian army charging straight at you at full speed? The hardest thing to do is precisely what God told them to do: stand still. God doesn’t just play chicken; He also plays flinch. When we find ourselves in this kind of situation, we want to do something, anything. We have a nervous energy that wants to solve the problem as quickly as possible. But God tells them to do nothing but pray. The closer the Egyptian army got, the more intense their prayers became. They clenched their jaws. They stood their holy ground. They prayed like they had never prayed before.

Zondervan, (2011-12-13). The Circle Maker: Praying Circles Around Your Biggest Dreams and Greatest Fears (Kindle Locations 1912-1921). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Mark Batterson

Here, let's look at the account in question.

Exodus 14
1And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto the children of
Israel, that they turn back and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol
and the sea, before Baal-zephon: over against it shall ye encamp by the
sea. 3And Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in
the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. 4And I will harden Pharaoh’s
heart, and he shall follow after them; and I will get me honor upon
Pharaoh, and upon all his host: and the Egyptians shall know that I am
Jehovah. And they did so. 5And it was told the king of Egypt that the
people were fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was changed
towards the people, and they said, What is this we have done, that we
have let Israel go from serving us? 6And he made ready his chariot, and
took his people with him: 7and he took six hundred chosen chariots, and
all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over all of them. 8And Jehovah
hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the
children of Israel: for the children of Israel went out with a high hand.
9And the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of
Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping
by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baal-zephon.

10And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes,
and, behold, the Egyptians were marching after them; and they were sore
afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto Jehovah. 11And they said
unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us
away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to
bring us forth out of Egypt? 12Is not this the word that we spake unto
thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For
it were better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the
wilderness. 13And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still,
and see the salvation of Jehovah, which he will work for you to-day: for
the Egyptians whom ye have seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more
for ever. 14Jehovah will fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

15And Jehovah said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak
unto the children of Israel, that they go forward. 16And lift thou up thy
rod, and stretch out thy hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children
of Israel shall go into the midst of the sea on dry ground. 17And I, behold,
I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall go in after them:
and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his
chariots, and upon his horsemen. 18And the Egyptians shall know that I
am Jehovah, when I have gotten me honor upon Pharaoh, upon his
chariots, and upon his horsemen. 19And the angel of God, who went
before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of
cloud removed from before them, and stood behind them: 20and it came
between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel; and there was the
cloud and the darkness, yet gave it light by night: and the one came not
near the other all the night.

21And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and Jehovah caused the
sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry
land, and the waters were divided. 22And the children of Israel went into
the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto
them on their right hand, and on their left. 23And the Egyptians pursued,
and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his
chariots, and his horsemen. 24And it came to pass in the morning watch,
that Jehovah looked forth upon the host of the Egyptians through the
pillar of fire and of cloud, and discomfited the host of the Egyptians.
25And he took off their chariot wheels, and they drove them heavily; so
that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for Jehovah
fighteth for them against the Egyptians. 26And Jehovah said unto Moses,
Stretch out thy hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon
the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. 27And
Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its
strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and
Jehovah overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. 28And the
waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, even all the
host of Pharaoh that went in after them into the sea; there remained not so
much as one of them. 29But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in
the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right
hand, and on their left. 30Thus Jehovah saved Israel that day out of the
hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the
sea-shore. 31And Israel saw the great work which Jehovah did upon the
Egyptians, and the people feared Jehovah: and they believed in Jehovah,
and in his servant Moses.

So, please read that scriptural excerpt, and if you can, show me where it says that "The closer the Egyptian army got, the more intense their (the people of Israel's) prayers became. They clenched their jaws. They stood their holy ground. They prayed like they had never prayed before."

Now, it does say in v. 10 that "the children of Israel cried out unto Jehovah", but when you look at the next few verses, it was likely not them crying out in faith. They weren't clenching their jaws, standing their ground (holy or otherwise, and likely otherwise in this case), and while I'm not sure if they had ever prayed like that before, maybe it could be said that it was among the first in a long line of complainings that the Books of Moses record that they did.

In other words, God didn't do anything here because of them. If anything, He worked His miracles in spite of them. They were the ones complaining, saying it would have been better to have stayed as slaves in Egypt. Moses stretched out his hand, and God parted the waters of the sea and dried up the land. Outside of complaining, the only thing the people did was to cross through on the dry ground God had supplied for them.

In more other words, Batterson is misrepresenting things in this account. It does not say that the people prayed, except maybe to complain of their lot. It does not say that their prayers became more intense as the Egyptians approached, except maybe in the whining index. It does not say that they clenched their jaws, but opened them in laments of impending doom. It does not say that they stood their holy ground, but that God provided them dry ground to walk upon. It does not say that they prayed like never before.

Nothing God did was in response to their prayers or faith, because they didn't pray, and they had no faith. God was the one who told Moses to move the people to a place where Pharoah would decide to pursue them. God was the one who hardened Pharoah's heart, so that he decided to follow Israel. God was the one who put the angel between the camps to protect Israel. God was the one who told Moses to lift his hands, and God was the one who sent the wind that parted the water and dried up the land. God was the one who caused problem among the Egyptians, then told Moses to lift his hands again so that the waters came together again and killed the Egyptians.

As v. 30 says, "Thus Jehovah saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians."

What is remarkable in this account is that the people did nothing to help themselves, even their prayers seemed to have been merely complaints. It was God who saved them, they themselves did nothing to save themselves.

Batterson simply doesn't impress me as one who so much reads what's written as much as he reads into what is written what he wants to be there. Oh, he may take a pen and circle phrases or verses all over his Bible, but he doesn't seem to understand content or context. Here, he simply completely reads into this account the jaw-clenching faith of Israel, which is completely absent in the account itself.

become a yoda of prayer?

2011-12-28T11:07:00.000-08:00

It is a habit to be cultivated. It is a discipline to be developed. It is a skill to be practiced. And while I don’t want to reduce praying hard to time logged, if you want to achieve mastery, it might take ten thousand hours. This I know for sure: the bigger the dream the harder you will have to pray.
Zondervan, (2011-12-13). The Circle Maker: Praying Circles Around Your Biggest Dreams and Greatest Fears (Kindle Locations 1209-1211). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Mark Batterson

In this section or subsection, as it looks to be only a couple or three pages if it were in print, Batterson writes some things about people mastering things like playing a musical instrument, writing, some athletic things, and so one. He writes that the thing the people who master these things have in common is that they have put in over ten thousand hours of practice.

So, to understand what Batterson is saying in the paragraph above, you have to keep that in mind--he is likening prayer to a natural endeavor, one that can be practiced and mastered.

Sickening, isn't it.

What, for example, constitutes prayer "mastery"? To look at Jesus' parable of the prayers of the Pharaisee and the publican, the Pharisee had no doubt logged in many hours of prayer. It was a part of the job. The publican, being rather a social outcast due to his occupation, likely didn't pray all that much, certainly not as much as the person whose job was religious leadership. Yet, it was the prayer of the publican, who simply begged God for mercy, that was acceptable, and the publican who left justified.

I'm not sure where the Bible says that God keeps some kind of a clock, and when we've reached 10,000 hours God levels up our prayers, and we get a "Prayer Master Jedi" plaque to put on the wall, or maybe a black belt in prayer. And we can look with kindly condescension on those who have only put in about, oh, 1,734 hours. They're trying, they'll get there, while we get busy going up to 50,000 hours and leveling up even further.

For most of my life, it seems I've heard about these people who have been called "prayer warriors". I've come to where I'm no longer convinced there are such people. Oh, there may be people whose prayer rhetoric gives the impression of being authoritative, that they come off like God is or should be listening especially closely to them. But simply because someone can sound like that doesn't mean that their prayers have a special line to God, that they can get God to answer their prayers when He doesn't seem to be listening to anyone else you ask for prayer.

Nor is there such a thing as prayer "mastery". All of us who believe begin in the same place, repenting of our sins, and we continue to do that until the time we die. We all thank God for His blessings, we all bring our petitions to Him.

THE HORROR!!! THE HORROR!!!!!!

2011-12-27T13:05:00.000-08:00

Madonna Confirmed as Halftime Act of 2012 Super Bowl

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

(Really, what is it with the Super Bowl and horrid halftime shows?)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

(They've had a few pretty good ones, but the last one I really liked us the one with U2.)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

(And last years was awful. But Madonna? I fear that will be a noticeable step down from BEP, which is saying something.)

OOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

needless circles

2011-12-26T10:03:00.000-08:00

The earth has circled the sun more than two thousand times since the day Honi drew his circle in the sand, but God is still looking for circle makers.
Mark Batterson, Zondervan, (2011-12-13). The Circle Maker: Praying Circles Around Your Biggest Dreams and Greatest Fears (Kindle Locations 80-81). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

This is one of those statements that, biblically, makes no sense. The story of Honi's drawing a circles in the ground and praying while standing in it does not appear in the Bible at all. Honi seems to have lived in the time between the Testaments, and the stories about him seem to have a mythical element to them; for example, there is the story about falling asleep and waking up 70 years later. The story about him praying the circle also has a mythical flavor to it, as it has him having to correct God about the rain, as God seemed to having a klutzy day 'cause he kept making it rain either too softer or way too hard.

So, the idea that "...God is still looking for circle makers" seems rather strange, because there is no notion in the Bible that God ever looked for circle makers in the first place. The practice of drawing circles either while prayer or to pray within is nowhere commanded in Scripture, either Old Testament or New. When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, there is no mention that they should kneel to ground and somehow ascribe a circle around themselves. When Paul went to a city to preach the Gospel, there is no mention of him awakening early each morning and hiking around the city as if such a practice should have somehow grown the church in that city and made his efforts at evangelism that much more effective.

And the timeless truth secreted within this ancient legend is as true now as it was then: Bold prayers honor God, and God honors bold prayers. God isn’t offended by your biggest dreams or boldest prayers. He is offended by anything less. If your prayers aren’t impossible to you, they are insulting to God. Why? Because they don’t require divine intervention. But ask God to part the Red Sea or make the sun stand still or float an iron axhead, and God is moved to omnipotent action.
The Circle Maker: Praying Circles Around Your Biggest Dreams and Greatest Fears (Kindle Locations 81-84).

There are several statements in that excerpt written with an air of absolute certainty, yet to me they seem to lack any biblical support at all.

For example, if "Bold prayers honor God, and God honors bold prayers", then one would think it would be stated pretty plainly, in so many words, in the Bible. Yet there is no such thing stated; in fact, one could say that the New Testament teaches rather the opposite, with one exception. Jesus, for example, tells the disciples to pray for the rather mundane need of food to eat each day. When Jesus prayed before His death, his prayer was a petition that the cup should be passed from Him, but also an acceptance that the Father's will be done. When Christ in Revelation sends a message to the poor and persecuted church in Smyrna, He says nothing about them needing to engage in bold prayers that they should be delivered from their poverty and persecutions. When Paul addressed the many offenses of the Corinthians, he says nothing about them need to honor God by praying more boldly for whatever they would want. Rather, things like contentment are stressed and encouraged, and enduring to the end. Among the types of people whom Jesus called "Blessed", there were the meek, the persecuted because of righteousness, the hungry and thirsty for righteousness, the mourners, the poor in spirit. There is no mention of the bold in prayers.

As I said, there is one exception. In one of His parables, Jesus contrasts the prayer of a Pharisee and that of a publican. The Pharisee boldly praised God for his righteousness, but the publican humbly begged for mercy. But it was the publican, whose prayer was far from bold, who was justified. I will write more about this in a moment.

If "...God isn’t offended by your biggest dreams or boldest prayers. He is offended by anything less", then should we not expect such a thing to be fairly plainly stated in Scripture? We have a good idea of the things that are offensive to God, all the sins we commit, both plainly and secretly, things socially acceptable and socially rejected, things we know look bad and things that feed our self-righteousness by making us look good. The committing, for example, of blatant adultery, and the secret adulteries of lusting after another. But I have not seen anywhere that states that a lack of big dreams or bold prayers is anywhere considered offensive to Him.

If "...your prayers aren’t impossible to you, they are insulting to God", then where is such a thing stated in Scripture? Is having food for each day an impossible task for us? For some it may be, for others it really is almost routine. For the disciples, I must say that it doesn't seem like they were hurting on that front.

But I wonder what, really, Batterson means by praying for what is "impossible to you". In the book, he mentions things like his church acquiring a building for a coffee house, his church purchasing a whole city block, his church finding places to meet. But are these things really impossible? Those who do not worship God start up coffee shops, buy buildings, even find places places to hold religious ceremonies and worship whatever false gods they worship. Nothing in the book is necessarily impossible for a person with reasonable gifts and talents to do--maybe not easy, but not in itself impossible.

There is one impossible thing, though, that we can pray to God for. There is something impossible for any human to do, something only God can do. Christ came to earth to suffer and die as a sacrifice for our sins, for we could not rid ourselves of them. We can repent of sins and believe in Christ, and God will forgive us of our sins and give us eternal life, in much the same way as the publican was justified for his humble prayer for mercy on himself as a sinner.

There is a sense in which we may bodly approach the throne of grace, to receive help in time of need. But there is no guarantee that that help will be a new building, a larger church, a dream come true. Paul was right to pray to God concerning what he called a "thorn in the flesh", but God did not take it from him, but rather gave him the grace sufficient to endure it, and so Paul came to rejoice in his weakness. There is a sense in which we may pray for boldness, as the Apostles did early in Acts, praying that they should boldly proclaim the Gospel as the powers in Jerusalem began roughing them up some.

But there is no guarantee in Scripture that your dream of having a 10,000 member church will be honored, no matter how much you think it would honor God to have it and pray for it. There is no guarantee that you will prosper. There are guarantees that those who live godly in Christ will suffer persecutions. There are guarantees that just as the world hated Christ so will it hate those who love Him.

wallis attacks fox with bad theology

2011-12-17T10:01:00.000-08:00

Continuing the tirades against Rick Perry's statements about the War of Christmas, head Sojrone himself Jim Wallis weighs in with a hit piece.

The Real War on Christmas ... by Fox News

Fox News’ “war” is designed to criticize the “secularization” of our culture wrought by atheists, agnostics, liberals, leftists, progressives, and separation of church and state zealots— i.e. Democrats. This irreligious coalition force is allegedly waging a strategic offensive on Christmas, trying to banish the sacred symbols of the season, denying our religious heritage, and even undermining the spiritual rubrics upon which our great nation is built.

Well, at least Wallis has the list of usual suspects correct. But, in typical liberal fashion, it's the perpetrators who are the actualy victims, while the people crying foul about it are the ungodly oppressors.

But, on to the bad theology.

What is Christmas? It is the celebration of the Incarnation, God’s becoming flesh — human — and entering into history in the form of a vulnerable baby born to a poor, teenage mother in a dirty animal stall. Simply amazing. That Mary was homeless at the time,a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country whose local political leader, Herod, was so threatened by the baby’s birth that he killed countless children in a vain attempt to destroy the Christ child, all adds compelling historical and political context to the Advent season.

Now, as you man know, the most convincing lies contain a bit of truth in them. Some parts of the first part of that paragraph are fine, as far as they go. Christmas is the celebration of God becoming flesh, of the birth of Christ. After that, well...

I'm trying to remember where in the biblical accounts of the birth of Christ it is said the Mary was a teenage girl. I know the popular depictions--young, pretty, and all that. And maybe they're right. But I can't remember it being said, that way or this. At the risk of sounding like McLaren, what if Mary was actually in her twenties or thirties, and rather on the homely side? Would that add or take away anything from the account?

Now, concerning the economic status of Joseph and Mary. From the account Matthew 1, where we are told that after the dream Joseph took Mary as his wife, are to we assume that they were a homeless couple? It seems to hint rather that he had a place for his wife and family. They may not have been very wealthy, as some have hinted at concerning the sacrifice in Luke 2, but they were not homeless, as Wallis wants us to think.

When Wallis starts going about Jesus being "...a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country...", we can see his own politics coming in. It's a true enough statement, Israel was under Roman rule and occupation, and that seems to be almost a non-issue in much of what Jesus said and did in the Gospels. It does seem that the people were expecting the Messiah to come and liberate them from people like the Romans, but Jesus had a much more serious thing to liberate them from--their sins.

This is important. Jesus was not leading some kind of Occupy Jerusalem nonsense. He was not interested in trying to throw down Herod. When asked about paying taxes, He said that they should pay to Casear was is due to him. Some at Sojo try to read a dismissive or sarcastic tone into Jesus' statement here, but that is not hinted at in the text.

And, finally, Herod did indeed kill many children in trying to kill Jesus. Later, the Israelites were the ones wanting to kill the adult Christ. Roman and Jerusalem, Jews and Gentiles, all stand condemned for the unspeakable crime of rejecting the Messiah.

It is theologically and spiritually significant that the Incarnation came to our poorest streets. That Jesus was born poor, later announces his mission at Nazareth as “bringing good news to the poor,” and finally tells us that how we treat “the least of these” is his measure of how we treat him and how he will judge us as the Son of God, radically defines the social context and meaning of the Incarnation of God in Christ. And it clearly reveals the real meaning of Christmas.

Wallis is not the first person I've heard make a big thing about Jesus not being born in a palace, or being born in a rural area, or whatever. I remember a few years ago watching a church's Christmas play, where a character depicting the innkeeper mad a speech about the gift he was giving the Christ child was indifference. I don't know it that innkeeper was indifferent, busy, or what have you what not. Angels appeared to the shepherds, though I would guess none came to the innkeeper to tell him who was to be born that night near to him.

Later in life, Jesus did claim the prophecy in Isaiah to Himself, saying it was fulfille that day in their midst. The sick were to be healed, and the poor were to have the Gospel preached to them. We would be wrong, though, to say that this was some statement of class warfare on His part. Many people of means and power, like Nicodemus and Zacchaeus and Lazarus and the rich young ruler and the Roman centurion, seem to have heard His message and found it at least interesting, even if at least one went away saddened by His demands for him. It seemed the materially well-off had the Gospel preached to them, too, along with the poor. Because, ultimately, all of us are paupers in spirit, dead in sins, helpless to help ourselves, and in need of forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice.

And, finally, Wallis tries to throw in the social gospel--that "the least of these" are somehow all the poor or prisoners or whomever is suppose to be, in the eyes of ones like Wallis, that least. It's always funny how context is never brought in here, for example that Jesus' statement was "the least of these my brothers". If any are brothers of Christ, it is those who believe in Him. Many Christians are in hard situations, persecuted for their faith in Christ while living in cultures that are actively against those beliefs, in prisons, denied jobs and forced into poverty, sick for various reasons. In one of the epistles, we are told to do good to everyone, but especially to those of the household of faith. The Church is to look after it's own first, while not neglecting the needs of those outside.

The theological claim that sets Christianity apart from any other faith tradition is the Incarnation. God has come into the world to save us. God became like us to bring us back to God and show us what it means to be truly human.

There may be a good bit of truth in Wallis first couple of sentences there, except that I wonder about what he means by some of the words he's using. But Christ came to "show us what it means to be truly human"? What does that mean? Rather, as Paul said, "Christ Jesus came to save sinners".

Last year, Americans spent $450 billion on Christmas. Clean water for the whole world, including every poor person on the planet, would cost about $20 billion. Let’s just call that what it is: A material blasphemy of the Christmas season.

Well, let's go here, shall we? What, for example, is Sojourners' budget? How much do they spend on, for example, their magazine? How much during the year do people donate to them? How much to they pay their staff? How about the head Sojrone himself? He doesn't look like he's struggling, and he's had a few books that have sold big. How much have people like Soros donated to Sojo? Maybe Sojo can release their books, and Wallis his own, so that we can stand and be amazed by their amazing generosity as they condemn Americans of spending to give gifts during Christmas?

Whether Americans, or anyone else for the matter, are as generous as they could or should be, is an interest question, and perhaps one impossible to answer. But it does seem that, whenever a disaster happens in the world, Americans by and large are generous in trying to help--donating to send aid to those places, sending the aid themselves, even going their themselves to work. No doubt people from other nations do the same things, I've no wish to hint otherwise, but Wallis' claim that Americans are somehow unspeakably greedy among all the peoples of the world seems to fall flat.

I am not judged by Wallis' standards and shoddy interpretations. Before God, I am condemned as a sinner, but in Christ I have forgiveness of sins.

stop making it about us

2011-12-14T09:40:00.000-08:00

There's something in us as human beings that needs to know that the impossible is possible. Have you ever thought about that? You need to know that you're not restricted to the boundaries of time and space and possibility. And that's really what's going on in this reading today. John is asking of Jesus, 'Are you the one? Are you the Messiah?'. And Jesus doesn't give him a kind of a theological expose on his Messianic qualities, he just says 'Do you know what, John? The impossible is happening. And that, we imagine that when the news gets back to John, that's what we imagine fills his heart with hope. Yes, the one we've been expecting is here. He's on his way. What's the impossible in your own life that you need God to do? What's the impossible that you're still waiting for?
24-7 Spaces 2011 Advent videos, day 6

First, the passage.

Matthew 11:2-6
Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

The lady speaking the video is using the rather questionable The Message version of this passage, with some problematic wording in places. But that may be something for later. It is her own statements that are here in question.

For example, she says that we humans need to know that the impossible is possible. Not sure where that is ever stated, or where it may be at in the Bible. Very likely, what is considered "impossible" is not really impossible; for example, me getting an ace while playing disc golf. It's not impossible, but considering that I'm a rather bad player who rarely even gets birdies, an ace is very unlikely.

Now, God healing a person, very possible. God made us, God is all-powerful, Him healing the sick or raising the dead is very possible for Him. He made the worlds simply be speaking, healing an ear drum or skin disease would be no problem.

What, then, is the issue? God is a person, He has a will, He decides what He will do. If God wants to heal a person, He can do so, and whether they believe in Him or not, or have faith that He can do so or not, is not an issue. God does not need your permission to heal you or anyone else.

To sound like your annoying grade-school English teacher, it's not a question of "Can God heal?", because He certainly can, but "Will God heal?".

But, what is this reading, this passage, about? It's for sure not about God being able to do the impossible for us.

First, it's not about us. It's not that we can't learn something it, but the people mentioned in the passage are John, Jesus, and some of John's disciples. I don't see myself in it, nor do I see the lady in the video, nor any of the rest of us.

Now, let's see Jesus' answer. He lists some things that He was doing--healing people, raising the dead, and preaching the good news to the poor. The lady in the video seems to think there is not much theological in it.

By contrast, let me take a bit from a commentary on Matthew.

Jesus shows a tactful kindness in dealing with the questioners: No sharp rebuke for their tardiness in acknowledging Him, no dogmatic reply to cause resentment. He appeals to their and their master’s knowledge of the Old Testament prophecy concerning the characteristic work of the Messiah. They could believe the evidence of their eyes and ears: The blind were receiving sight, the lame were cheerfully walking about, the deaf were enabled to hear, the dead were being awakened, the poor were being gospeled, were receiving the glad message of their salvation through the preaching of Jesus, Is. 35:4-6; 61:1-2; Ezek. 36 and 37.
Dr. Paul Kretzmann (0101-01-01 00:00:00+00:00). The Popular Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Kindle Locations 2768-2772). Pirate Christian Media. Kindle Edition.

Let's look at some of the passages he references here.

Isaiah 35:4-6
Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

Isaiah 61:1-2
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

The commentator points out that Jesus' list is of the things that are "the characteristic work of the Messiah", a far cry from what the lady in the video said about it not being "a kind of a theological expose on his Messianic qualities". It seems that Jesus, then, is not just giving a random list of his deeds, but rather pointing out to the disciples of John and to John himself that He was doing the things that the prophets had said the Messiah would do. It was, to that effect, a very theological expose.

To make this passage about what supposedly impossible thing we need God to do for us is to absolutely cheapen the message in it, that Jesus is confirming to John and these disciples that He was indeed the one they had been waiting for, the Messiah, the Christ.

Indeed, John, who it could was in need of some impossible things happening, was not going to have those impossible things happen. He was in prison, and Jesus was not going to do the impossible things for him by somehow breaking him out of prison. John was going to be beheaded, and Jesus was not going to find his body and bring him back to life. Jesus was not telling John to expect anything impossible like that.

Rather, Jesus was going to do the thing closest to the impossible that any person could imagine. A God who could create the universe with just His words, who could cause the sun to stop in the sky and even go backwards at one point, who did the wonders in Egypt, what could be so difficult for Him? But the redemption of mankind, the forgiveness of our sins, the saving of our souls, that took the breaking of the body of the Son of God. Let mankind find a cure for any disease imaginable, let man use science to make the human body as perfect as possible, yet this one thing, the forgivenss of sins, would be far beyond anything man could do to accomplish. That is the thing Christ did for us, by sacrficing Himself for us.

sojo descends to open blasphemy

2011-12-12T09:13:00.000-08:00

I though Sojo showing a video a men dressed as nuns singing Handel was bad enough for one week, but leave it to Sojo to prove that I'm not yet cynical enough.

This is a continuation of Sojo's attacks on Rick Perry, and the most distasteful of the bunch. As far as I know, no Sojrone was involved in the making of this blasphemous video, but boy, do they ever approve its message. And though there are few comments, they are all for it, too.

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth would like to take this opportunity to refute Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's most recent TV ad."

FunnyOrDie.com for the win!

And the message of the video is pathetic.

Not that it's new or news, but let it be known that Sojo is indeed shameless, and since Wallis condones this type of thing by allowing it on his blog and not removing it in a reasonable time, he is party to it.

can we stop misusing I Kings 19?

2011-12-11T15:09:00.000-08:00

We always expect God to speak dramatically because He's God--booming voices, earthqukes. And this passage reminds us that we have a God who whispers, a God who speaks between the lines, a God whose voice is easy to miss. Where might I hear the whisper of God today?...Who do you know that is in the wrong place? Pray for them now, that they hear God whisper this Christmas, somehow, somewhere, saying "What are you doing here?"...God, we pray that you would whisper this Christmas, to prodigal, to people who are far from you. Would you bring them home? Would you whisper into their consciences, into their families, and into their dreams?
Peter Grieg, in Day 11 of the 2011 Advent videos from 24-7 Prayer

These statement are based on I Kings 19:9-13.

And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah? And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

Ok, let's look at this.

I'm trying to think of what things were like when God spoke to other people in the Bible. There was the time He addressed Moses from the burning bush. There was the time He (likely Christ) came with a couple of angels to Abraham and they talked concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. There was the time He came in a cloud to Sinai when He gave the law to Moses. There were times, such as with Gideon and Daniel, when He sent angels to give His Words. There were other times with the prophets when He gave them visions. And there were other ways in which God spoke to the prophets but that weren't really expounded upon.

So, given the various and sundry ways that God spoke to people, why is it that this one time with Elijah is taken out from all those others, and treated as if it were and is normative?

Plus, look at the passage itself. Grieg can make a big deal about God whispering, or at least speaking in a still small voice as other translations put it. But the thing is, when God spoke to Elijah, Elijah heard a real voice, not some kind of voice speaking between the lines or whatever, or to his conscience. It was a voice he heard with his ears, not a vaguely-there feeling.

In a sense, I'm in an awkward position. On the one hand, I'm not a cessationist. On the other hand, charismatics have made an absolute embarrassment of the spiritual gifts. And this emphasis on things like hearing God's whispers, based on the misapplication of this I Kings passage, is an example.

Getting into whether or not God talks to people to tell them to go into ministry, or to move somewhere else, or whatever, is not something I want to go into here, probably because my own mind is still not settled on it. But I no longer buy the idea that the voice of God is some kind of inner voice or whisper to the conscience. That sounds very new-agey.

Rather, it seems it would be wisest to point out that God has already spoken, and we have that in God's Word, the Bible. The truth is, in most things, we already know what to do. We don't have to stand in the toothpaste aisle at the grocery store, trying to hear some strange inner voice to tell you to get Colgate or Ultrabrite or the generic store brand or maybe not to brush your teath at all.

So, can we please stop with the misinterpretations and misapplications of Elijah hearing God speak to him. Please.

verbal gaffe bias

2011-12-10T14:31:00.000-08:00

Well, the bias is in how, when one person makes such a gaffe, it's big news and used against him, while when another person makes the kinds of gaffes, it's pretty much ignored.

For example...

Perry's gaffes continue to add up

Ok, Perry has made some gaffes. Acknowledged. And so what? Given that he has proven himself a capable governor, not perfect but capable, I'm willing to overlook a few slips like that.

If the press wants to make a big deal out of Perry's gaffes, all well and good. But, then, there is another person in power out there (probably more than one, but let's focus on only one for right now) who has proven himself equally inept, if not more so. Particularly when away from his trusted teleprompter.

Barack Obama: Gaffe machine

Even President Obama makes verbal gaffes

So, if you find any media person out there at a place like MSNBC saying that this person's gaffe show he is not qualified for his current position of power, please let me know. But if his, usually more serious gaffes aren't disqualifiers, then neither are Perry's.

perry doesn't back down!

2011-12-09T09:54:00.000-08:00

That's honking off the Sojrones.

God's Politics BlogPerry Defends his "War on Religion" Attack Ad

PERRY: Well if you sit down with the bishops and archbishops of the Catholic Church, they can give you a very clear understanding of how this administration has gone after their charitable operations, on whether it’s trafficking in individuals or whether it’s those hospitals and those clinics that choose not to do abortions because they have a conscious reason not to and it’s their belief and their faith not to give those abortions – so there’s a clear attack on the Catholics in particular from that perspective.

But when you think about the left in general, which the president is obviously a great part of – not allowing our kids to pray in school, not allowing to celebrate Christmas. I mean, the idea that the left continues to send the message of listen – we, our First Amendment right is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And that’s what the left has tried to do, is force all of us who are people of faith to basically say you can’t be involved in the public arena. And that is just wrong.

And dippy sojo comments.

When Governor Perry--I'm sorry to say he's my governor--and other "culture warriors" perpetuate the falsehood about children not being allowed to pray in school, they are either ignorant, or they are intentionally lying. I don't think Governor Perry is ignorant

Governor Perry (I wish he were my governor, but sadly my state seems to like lib-inspired misery) is spot-on. There is no myth about kids not being allowed to pray in schools, because it isn't a myth. Oh, sure, if you want to do it quietly and on-the-sly, so be it. Or, as I remember during a college graduation ceremony, you give a rather lame PC type of prayer to some unnamed power out there somewhere.

And when it is allowed, it certainly isn't because the people on Sojo's side of the issues aren't trying to ban it. This article also has a bit more on the issue.

We included the following quote from the U.S. Department of Education Secretarys Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, which specifically addresses student prayer during non-instructional time:

Prayer During Noninstructional Time

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

So, yes, kids are still technically allowed to pray, but this is a far cry from the prayer and religious instruction schools could give.

Before 1949, public schools were actually allowed to have religious education teachers, who would instruct the students in the Christian faith and moral values. In that year, the Court stated that public schools could no longer do this because it “breached the historical separation of church and state.” However, the Court did allow a “released time” program, which permitted students to leave school early in order to attend religious instruction given at their churches [2]. By having the students leave school grounds to receive religious instruction, the Court believed that it had reached an acceptable compromise by preventing the violation of the establishment of religion in public schools but still allowing everyone’s religious freedom.

So, kudos to Perry.

so, no war on Christmas?

2011-12-09T09:36:00.000-08:00

Kinda a follow-up to yesterday's post.

Media Finally Outraged Over Christmas Censorship – When It Involves the Word ‘Gay’

While the overall premise of the piece is interesting, this is what I want to focus on.

What you may not have heard covered in the MSM was an essay penned by one Colin Curran, a 16-year-old high school junior from New Jersey. Taking to the Huffington Post during this same time period, Colin told a story about a high school assignment which involved creating a music playlist for a young children’s holiday breakfast. There was one catch – none of the songs could contain a certain set of offending words, such as Christmas, Hanukah, Jesus, God, or Santa Clause. The reason, Colin explains, is that the “principal does not want to offend anyone with belief-specific music”.

So, this kid couldn't choose songs that had anything to do with the One whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Heck, even Santa was verbotin, because I guess what with the word "santa" meaning "saint", that just wouldn't be PC.

Wow.

So, let's see...there goes "Silver Bells", because it mentions Santa. No "Rudolph", though I guess "Frosty" may survive the cut so long as it isn't too closely linked to the cartoon. "The Twelve Days of Christmas" gets axed. Ah, but wait, this kid could still put "Jingle Bells" on the list. Can't offend anyone with that one.

Oh, wait, maybe the PETA kids. After all, it's about riding in a one-horse open sleigh, which means that the poor little horsey is pulling the sleigh, running around and probably cold. Can't have that, gotta nix that one.

Wow, I'm struggling to find any songs at all that this kid could have put in this program. But we must press on, because woe betide if we offend anyone at all in our seasonal music, except those religious people who wonder what happened to anything about the Christ child whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Don't worry about them.

rick perry must NOT apologize

2011-12-08T09:08:00.000-08:00

Rick Perry Must Apologize

Oh, dear, and what did Perry say that Wallis thinks is oh-so horrible???

In case you didn't quite catch it all, here's the text:

"I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian. But you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again."

Sounds to me like Perry's pretty much spot-on. No wonder Wallis objects vehemently.

Wallis' response is full of LOL fail.

Governor Perry and President Obama, like millions of other Americans, are Christians. Both of them.

See. Told you. LOL!!!

I'm not on board with everything Perry seems to believe or all he has associated with, he seems a bit too cozy with some of the KC false prophets and apostles, but compared to Obama he's pretty solid. At the least, he hasn't had a pastor going around spewing "God d--- America!!".

Not all Americans believe the same things or worship in the same way, but that doesn’t mean there is a “war on religion”

In America, we respect and support religious liberty.

Oh, maybe we used to. But thanks to people like you, Mr. Wallis, Perry is right that kids can't openly pray in school or, at least in some places, can't celebrate Christmas. Heck, just this past year, one school was even offended by the idea of Easter eggs. What did they call them instead, Spring Spheres?

What denigrates our religious heritage is to accuse someone of sincere faith who disagrees with you by perpetuating the myth of the “war on religion” and accusing him of being a foot soldier in the battle.

No, it doesn't. People like you, Mr. Wallis, who claim to be Christian but mock everything the Bible teaches, are the ones who dengrate Christian heritage.

Diversity of opinion and beliefs is also what makes this country strong.

Coming from someone who's constantly claiming that everyone must agree with him, and who claims that he speaks for God in regards to politics (what else does the title "God's Politics" mean?), you're the one who seems to not welcome diversity of opinions and beliefs. Of, sure, you'll claim to be ecumenical, Mr. Wallis, but isn't it odd that your ecumenism is based on agreement in political aims and means?

Governor Perry should take the ad down, apologize both to President Obama and the American people, ask God for forgiveness and make amends for perpetuating polarization and disharmony in the body of Christ.

Candidate Perry should NOT apoligize. He is simply speaking truth, and offending people like Wallis is part and parcel with speaking truth. Wallis is the one who should be asking God for forgiveness, for misrepresenting Him and His Word into somehow supporting the leftist socialist agenda, supporting sloth while punishing work, promoting class warfare, and openly claiming Christ was a socialist. He is the one who is "perpetuating polariszation and disharmony in the body of Christ".

And if Perry were to repent of listening to and supporting false apostles and prophets, all the better for him.

making a mockery of the Hallelujah Chorus

2011-12-07T09:43:00.000-08:00

Let it be known that the decadence of Sojourners and those they support no know bounds.

Hit the Hallelujah Button: Sing it, Mr. Sister!

Each day leading until Christmas we will post a different video rendition of the "Hallelujah Chorus" for your holiday enjoyment and edification.

Today's installment comes from an unlikely gaggle of nuns — in full habits. They are members of the Turtle Creek Chorale, an all-men's chorus from Dallas, Texas. The Chorale has traveled to Europe, performing sold out concerts in Barcelona, Berlin and Prague; as well as two appearances a Carnegie Hall.

So, men dressed as nuns singing the Hallelujah Chorus is a rendition worthy of Sojo approving and displaying.

Now, who is this Turtle Creek Chorale? From their website's mission statement.

Celebrating a positive image of the gay community and partnering with artists and organizations that share our values and mission.

Although the website itself has little information about them, it does mention a smaller group that is a part of them, the Strangerettes. Basically, a group of men who dress up like show cowgirls and perform in, perhaps among other things, gay pride events. Look them up, if you're curious.

So, basically, TCC is a bunch of people living in open sexual sin, encouraging others to accept them in their open sexual sinfulness, and thus mocking the message of the music like the Hallelujah Chorus by dressing in religious drag while singing it.

No wonder Sojo approves.

This is why I always wonder why some people insist on playing nice with people like the head Sojrone, Jim Wallis. For example, in a recent debate between him and Albert Mohler, a man for whom I have great respect, while I thought Dr. Mohler made great points against many of the things Wallis tries to teach, in the end there was still a sense that they were playing nice. It was mentioned a few times that before the debate they prayed together.

Why? What makes anyone think that Wallis prays to the God of the Bible? His entire "God's Politics" thing engages in open mockery of the Bible, Sojourners' Sojrones can't dig deep or far enough to find things that are contrary to biblical teachings and morality, and hold those things up as things to accept and celebrate. A while ago, they held up for approval a calendar of Unitarian churchmen who posed in the nude. They approved the bloody movie "Red State", while of course coming out against such movies as "Courageous". They have lent unquestioning support to the rabble and lawbreakers of Occupy Wherever, encouraging them in their disruptions.

The impression I get from the early church is that they were not so nice when it came to those who taught things contrary to the Scriptures. When, for example, a man in Corinth engaged in sexual immorality, Paul told them to cast him out (later, that man repented, and Paul said they were to accept him back). Paul's words were unsparing when he addressed the Galatians about those who were trying to say that they needed works as well as faith in order to have salvation.

This Sojrone's promotion of this Chorale's mockery of Handel's work is an attempt on this Sojrone's part to support this Chorale's agenda. If Wallis is truly a Bible-believing Christian as he claimed in his debate with Dr. Mohler, let him start policing his blog more vigorously, so that sin and immorality are not encouraged.

(yeah, like that's gonna happen)

so, don't attend the game

2011-12-05T14:48:00.000-08:00

Well, it's that time of year again. The time when we really have to raise the question "What on earth are the college football people thinking?"

Now, granting, I think that having LSU-Alabama in the Championship game makes a lot of sense. But, still, I can see how OSU is rather unhappy with it. And there are a few other schools that could be considered reasonable contenders, too.

But, like the last few years, we're going to have lots of bowls, from the smallest ones with 6-6 teams to the so-called Bowl Championship Series games, which while most will have good games and be meaningful to the ones playing, in the end they will be essentially meaningless, except the Championship game.

(Btw why is it called the Bowl Championship Series? After all, there is only one championship bowl game, and there is no series of games that decide which teams play in it.)

Now, concerning the other bowl games, I completely understand why fans of schools in some lesser bowl will attend the game and go nuts there. If, for example, your team has made it to the Music City Bowl, which is kinda a lower-level bowl, well, the game is gravy. Likely, your team is not a serious Championship contender, so making any bowl game at all is an accomplishment. Go, and enjoy.

But if you're the fan of a team that is in a BCS bowl, especially a regular in such bowls, maybe it's time to rethink it.

Look, college football needs a tournament system. Period. This "championship by polls" thing just isn't working. Too many teams that should get a shot at the crown are denied it, and consigned to playing in games that mean nothing.

But the current system does one thing--it makes money. That's not a bad thing, but it's working against any hope of having a playoff system set up anytime soon. We can cry about it, but why would anyone change something that, while not perfect, is working well enough?

But what to do?

You, the fan, have one vote. It's not an official vote, but it's important, nonetheless. That vote is something like this, to not attend the meaningless games that the BCS has put your team in.

(Granted, it would I think be even more powerful if the teams themselves didn't play, but there may be things like contracts and agreements involved, and I'd rather not go there).

The point is this--such events are spectacles. They rely on having huge stadiums filled to overflowing with loud, enthusiastic fans. And, of course, fans want to attend. Very understandable.

But if these big, nationally-televised games were played before chirping crickets, well, the BCS folks may actually think that they need to finally listen to what the fans really want. And soon, too.

It's an idea. I do think that not attending, having the games played before mostly empty seats, people not watching the games on TV and not spending money in the cities where the games are played, will certainly draw attention to some fan unhappiness with the current system. Especially if you're an OSU or Stanford type of school, and you have been a serious contender the whole year but kept out for having one sour game (and because you lost later in the year than 'Bama did), you should really not support the thinking that puts your team in a meaningless exhibition.

Well, that's my idea, for what it's worth.

peter rollins' broken bible

2011-12-04T16:16:00.000-08:00

Ah, yes, more Rollins philosophical drivel. This time, somehow seeing the Bible as literal and inerrant is somehow impossible. Yawn.

Philosophically speaking the claim that the Bible in its entirety is literal and inerrant (i.e. self-evident, internally coherent, and a reflection of the mind of God) operates as a ‘master signifier’. This means that it is a claim without any specific content that is worn as a badge to let you know what team you play for. It doesn’t matter too much how you actually fill in this empty container as long as you make the claim. It functions then as a shibboleth that identifies you as being in a certain tribe.

Wow. Yawn.

So, saying the Bible is true in all it records and inerrant is somehow an empyt claim, "whith any specific content"? Really? I'd say Rollins was speaking in ignorancy, except I don't believe it of one so miseducated; rather, I think he knows that what he's saying is false, but wants to believe it anyway.

Just to show you how empty it isn't, take a look at this.

THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To Stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.

There is much more to it than the couple of paragraphs above.

So, no, the only empty thing here is Rollins' claim that biblical literal truth and inerrancy are empty. His claims are empty of any truth.

I've found it a truism, that when people like Rollins' accuse their opposition of something, you will find that they are themselves doing the things they accuse others of doing. Rollins' non-literal bible, where for example God is not allowed to explain Himself and where fictions like Lilith are somehow useful for explaining away the Bible's claims, is the real attempt to cut up the Bible and make it an object of human creation, something he and others like him may praise to the heights as they cast it down to the depths, may claim to love even as they slice and dice and abuse it.

I will take the literally true and inerrant Word of God over the illogical musings of Rollins any day.

celebrate or not, as you wish

2011-12-04T15:54:00.000-08:00

Thanks to the time I've spent on the internet, I've learned a few things. One of them, which seems to pop up this time of year, is that there are Christians out there who are simply not comfortable with Christmas. My ideas concerning this are as such.

1. There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us to observe Christmas as the birth of Christ; therefore, to observe or not is up to each person, family, or church. Those who think it would be wrong for them to observe it are free to do so, so far as I'm concerned, as those who are ok with it, like myself, are free to continue doing so.

2. Just as I offer no condemnation to those who do not observe Christmas, so I expect them to not condemn me and people and like me who do.

Various argument are given concerning why or why not. Certainly, some aspects of how the holiday is popularly celebrated are worthy of questioning and even discarding. One could make the case that the shops start far too early in pushing for Christmas, though I'm tempered a bit in my criticism of that by the idea that stores are simply acting like stores. Still, it was a bit unsettling to see so much Christmas stuff up a few days even before Thanksgiving.

Some will go on about "commercialism" and "consumerism". I'm starting the doubt the existence of those thing, and to consider that it may be better to call them what they really are should they actually exist, things like greed and covetousness. Those things really do exist, but the point is, they exist in all of us, all year round. If anything, considering how much Christmas shopping can be about giving, one could say that at the least those things are tempered to a degree, though being fallen humans they are not completely absent.

And I could almost support a moratorium on any movie or show with the title "X Saves Christmas", X meaning any character or group or whatever. Yes, even something like VeggieTales' "The Toy that Saved Christmas". Enough, already.

And R&B and rap artists should refrain from ruining any more Christmas songs.

Anyway, to my mind and for what it's worth, Christmas is optional, and you may or may not celebrate it if you wish.

because it means you're too independent?

2011-11-27T10:34:00.000-08:00

Sojo seems to have it in for Black Friday this year.

Politics BlogBlack Friday: The Anti-Thanksgiving

Yet, even if Black Friday were not so terrible for working families, and even if it did not threaten to steamroll Thanksgiving under the weight of Christmas-season merchandising, I would still be opposed to it. Black Friday is the Anti-Thanksgiving. The Thanksgiving holiday is traditionally a time to gather with family and friends and practice gratitude for our blessings. It is a time to cultivate awareness of all the ways in which God provides for us, and to pay special attention to providing hospitality to others who are hurting. Black Friday, on the other hand, is a celebration of greed, unbridled consumerism and disregard for others.

Now, I have to admit, I haven't been one of those who gets up early in the morning the day after Thanksgiving to be among the first in any store's doors. Just not a great interest of mine. On the other hand, I have done some similar types of things, like stay in line all day to get into the first practice for the nearby college basketball team.

So, I'm don't have anything against people who do the early-morning Black Friday thing. I think of it as being kind of like those who, for example, insist on camping out in order to get in early when the Star Wars movies were released--it's rather silly, it's not necessary, but, hey, there is a certain amount of camaraderie and fun to it, and so long as they behave themselves, then no big deal.

Thanksgiving is, at its best, a fleeting incarnation of the peaceable kingdom, where we can all come together in peace and mutual respect. Black Friday, on the other hand, is an intensification of the hyper-capitalist, corporate order that already dominates most of our lives. Rather than gratitude, it promotes greed; instead of cooperation, competition. While Thanksgiving fosters brotherhood and peace, Black Friday is a celebration of self-centeredness and bickering.

Wow, one would think that the people at Black Friday were as bad as those of Generation Brats who make up OWS.

If you need evidence of this, examine the fruits of the Black Friday rush for the latest consumer items. There was gunfire in a shopping mall. And at a Los Angeles Wal-Mart, the "competitive shopping strategy" of one woman involved the pepper-spraying fellow customers. Amazingly - though perhaps not surprising - the Wal-Mart remained open through the entire incident, and the woman was allowed to buy her merchandise and leave the store. Nothing, not even outright violence, was allowed to stop the flow of consumption.

Considering how many millions of people were out and about that time all over the country, I have to admit if there were only these few incidents, people were rather well-behaved. At the least, compared to those of Occupy Wherever, they were rather civilized.

To begin with - and, I confess, it is a modest beginning - I commit myself to resisting Black Friday. I will not participate in this anti-holiday.

And when the businesses you don't support go out of business, they should send you a thank-you card. But...wait on it...

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Yes, that's right, Sojo has a donate button. So, while you're evil for shopping on Black Friday, just make sure you give (that's right, give) money to Sojo, so they can continue to cause your businesses to fail.

not-so-great expectations

2011-11-27T10:18:00.000-08:00

When my friend Floyd finished preaching and called for repentance, I was the first to my feet. During the message I had seen myself clearly, and I was ashamed. I publicly confessed my sin that day and asked the others at the conference for prayer.

What was my sin? Embezzlement? Adultery? No, the Holy Spirit was convicting me of the sin of unbelief. In that stark moment of honesty I realized that I really had low expectations of what God would do in my city.
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 367-369). Kindle Edition.

Well, glad he had his moment. I suppose we could be glad as well that it wasn't anything, you know, really big, like the things he first mentioned. How very spiritual of him.

So, I'm trying to think--what exactly would " low expectations of what God would do in my city" mean? For example, when Jesus prophecied that Jerusalem would be left desolate, was He guilty of having such low expectation? What about the OT prophets, to whom God often gave words of judgment for them to speak?

What do you expect God to do in your city? Or to put it another way, who is your God? Is He the God of the Bible? Your God is only as big as what you expect of Him in space and time. What do you expect Him to do here on earth in this generation? Don't tell me about the God of your theology. It's easy to say that He's all-powerful, but do you expect Him to do powerful things here and now?
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 369-371)

"Your God is only as big as what you expect of Him in space and time"? Really? God is limited by how I think? What a weak and pathetic God He would be, almost as bad as the gods of Emergents like Rollins and McLaren.

What do I expect Him to do here on earth in this generation? What does the Bible say He will do? What prophecies in the Bible specifically address this generation? Perhaps God has given rather negative prophecies concerning this generation. Would I be suffering from this sin of low expectations by believing God's prophecies of sin and judgment?

Now, I'm trying to think where in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, anything is given to us concerning what we should expect God to do in any particular generation. Where does Jesus tell the disciples that if they don't have such great expectations, then they were guilty of unbelief? I can't think of anywhere. Where does Paul or any other epistle writer tell the churches to have great expectations of what God can do in their city or their generation? If anything, they were told rather the opposite. They were told to expect hard times, suffering and persecution and rejection. Concerning future generations, they were told such things as that in the last days there would be dangerous times, people would fall away from the faith, lawlessness would abound. On top of that, there is Revelation, which speaks of people suffering great judgments from God, but not repenting.

In other words, it is only when Christ Himself returns that things will be set right.

So, no, Mr. Dawson, I do not have such great expectations of what's going to happen in the cities of the world and the people of this generation. I expect people to continue to largely reject the Gospel, embrace their favorite fakes that will make them feel good, try to water down the real Gospel to mean a feel-good self-help type of fluff you'd see and hear on an afternoon TV talk show. I believe a sinful and rebellious mankind will continue to be sinful and rebellious, yet in His grace God will save some, some will be brought to repentence. Evil people will grow worse and worse, but those who endure to the end will be saved.

it's been a while

2011-11-25T15:19:00.000-08:00

Probably 'cause hanging around Sojo much makes me itch. But here is another case of "dippy Sojo comment", this time from the one about Thanksgiving and Target. In fact, it's a twofer.

In the book of Exodus, which character told the the people to "get your lazy butt to work and stop your crazy" and which character established the Sabbath?

Well, that's interesting. Seems to me, when God established the Sabbath, He gave the people a day of rest. Now, since the Target workers had Thanksgiving off, how does having them come in to open at midnight mean any kind of sabbath-breaking?

Plus, the Sabbath was on what we call Saturday, not Friday, so this argument is basically empty.

I think the whole notion of Black Friday is sacreligious, and applaud all who avoid it. I would much prefer to give to some charitable organization such as Heifer or Dr.s w/o borders in lieu of gifts of junk. In one of his lines T. S. Eliot said the heritage of our civilization would be asphalt roads and a thousand lost golf balls. Not much of a heritage.

Well, let's see...

Asphalt roads. That would be a heritage to be proud of. Certainly a step up from rutted dirt roads, and much better for traveling than cobblestone or rock.

And a thousand lost golf balls. I suppose this comment could be considered anti-Scotch, but enough about alcohol or tape. The only thing wrong with a thousand lost golf balls is that most of them were mine. And, anyway, you can get those same golf balls in stores now, and should Sojo be celebrating the spirit of recycling that this shows?

don't let inconsistency stop a bad argument

2011-11-25T08:03:00.000-08:00

Remember a few days ago when I linked to an article at Sojo about how evil Thanksgiving is, and how we shouldn't celebrate it?

But, apparently, that doesn't mean people Thanksgiving can't be used to stop people from doing productive things, like, you know, working.

In Solidarity with Target Workers on Thanksgiving

Some people who work for Target, a major national retailer that plans to open its doors for Black Friday starting at midnight following Thanksgiving, have circulated a petition in protest. They are right to say enough. I stand in solidarity with them.

However, the idea that this society is willing to allow our materialism to go unchecked to the point that we want to force people to lose a significant portion of a day dedicated to giving thanks because some business does not want to lose a “competitive edge,” is shameful. It is a sad commentary on our values. People have been trampled to death in a rush to get into this or that store for the sake of the bargains. This is tragic. It is time to say enough. Let Thanksgiving Day remain sacred, set apart. We can stop the madness if we do not shop before sunrise on Friday morning. Stand in solidarity with the Target workers.

I remember a time I had to be at work at 12:00 AM the day after Thanksgiving. Of course, I had to be there a bit before midnight, in order to actually start on time. How evil of the I worked for. In fact, this year, I was actually at work for a few minutes Thanksgiving morning. What wickedness on the part of the people who pay me to work for them!!! I should return the money I earned from them!!

Well...no, I won't. Because as bothersome as it was, there is nothing morally wrong with it.

I'm not the biggest fan of Target, but if the people who are so honked off about this don't want to start work at midnight, well, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would be quite happy to take their places.

misadventure in badly missing the point

2011-11-25T07:41:00.000-08:00

Various systems or worldviews fight for power and authority. Yet Christianity, as a religion without religion, offers a radically different approach. Christ opens up the idea of a system that seeks always to find those who are excluded from the system that is in power. The Christian “worldview” is thus manifested as always seeking out those who have been rejected from the worldviews that have authority. The way this works itself out in practice is that whatever political or religious idea is dominating the society at any given time, Christianity seeks out those who are excluded by it, the one sheep who is not in the pen, the one coin not in the purse, those who have not been invited to the party, the nobodies, the nothings. The Christian “system” can thus never take power for, by definition, it is always that which stands against power, seeking to identify with the powerless and the voiceless. It is a system in the sense that it systematically seeks out those who do not fit into the system offered up by the currently prevailing political and religious authorities.
Rollins, Peter, Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1934-1941)

If one were to actually read the Gospels, how would one find any of that?

It could be pointed out that those who would likely have been considered on the outside, sick people and lepers and blind and Romans and Gentiles, did find Jesus usually welcoming. But then, it wasn't an exclusive thing. Jesus was welcoming to an 'insider' in the person of the Pharisee Nicodemus. He cared deeply for the young man who was rich and a ruler. He was very complimentary of the faith of the Roman centurion who wanted Him to heal his servant. Some of his closest friends seem to have been Lazarus and his sisters, people who had their own home and likely had some means and influence.

As well, we do not find any hint that Jesus was some kind of rebel. Jesus did not try to overthrow the Pharisees or other religious leaders, He did not try to overthrow the Romans. In fact, He tells the people to respect those in the seat of Moses, to do what they said, but to not live as they lived, for they were hypocrites. Jesus' problem, we can see, is not with religious authorities, but rather with those who have such authority and do not use it wisely and justly.

In the epistles, this respect for human authority continues. Peter tells us to obey the rulers. Another epistle explains that the rulers are ministers of God. The only time that the Apostles stood against the rulers was when they were told to not preach and teach in the name of Jesus, that in such a case they had the explicit command to Christ to take the Gospel to everyone, so they obeyed God rather than men.

Does Christianity stand against power? Where is that in the Bible?

Behind the convoluted nature of Rollins' words, his thinking is far too simplistic. Christianity is not an eternal game of being against whomever is in power, like some kind of perpetural counter-culture no matter what the culture is; rather, it's about right and wrong, righteousness and sin.

Rollins points to certain parables of Jesus', ones that are about someone seeking something of value. He wants to make this about outsiders, as if it's only about being counter-cultural or whatever. But what did Jesus Himself say? "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save those that are lost".

Because here is the truth--when it comes to God, we are all outsiders, we are all poor and miserable, we are all sinners. We can preach the Gospel in the poorest ghetto and the richest mansion, because the most abject addict and most successful billionaire are alike in their poverty before God. Peter can heal a lame beggar at the Temple one day, then later preach in the house of a Roman Centurion, because the Gospel he preached both times was applicable to the people present on both occasions.

Rollins wants to make this about human politics, which is asinine. It's not about such shallow and worldly things, but rather about Christ having been born of the virgin Mary, living a sinless perfect life, laying down His own life as a sacrifice for our sins and to appease the wrath of the Father, rising from the dead and ascending to Glory. It's about us through repentence of our sins and belief in Christ being made right with God.

It's not about works at all. We can do no work that will make we who are sinners in any way right with God; rather, God says that all of our works of righteousness are as putrid rags. He is not impressed with our works at all.

never have a sojrone over for the holiday

2011-11-23T09:53:00.000-08:00

Unless it may be something like the day the Bolshies took over Russia, or Castro's conquest of Cuba, or some such leftist day of celebration. May want to pass on the day the Berlin Wall fell, though.

Rewriting History: Thanksgiving or Genocide?

Well, we have the word 'genocide'. Guess we know where this is going.

Thanksgiving — in its original intent — was to mark a good harvest in the plight of the early Pilgrims. While there are disputes about specific dates, most point to the first gathering to the Fall of 1621 where the Pilgrims and [some] local Indians gathered (fewer than 100) to celebrate a feast. Most are in agreement that the Indians were invited simply because the Pilgrims knew that they would have died had it not been for the help of the local Indians.

While it is true that we’re not entirely sure all the specific details, those that we would now categorize as “illegal aliens” not only came without invitation but they came to take over. In fact, beyond the first joint “Thanksgiving,” there were no further meals of mutual peace, dependence, and friendship.

Wow. So, the Pilgrims were "illegal aliens". Should that mean the Sojrones should condone anything they do? But they were white illegal aliens, so they should have stayed in Europe, one may suppose.

But I'm thinking that, really, this Sojrone is afraid of the real story of Thanksgiving, one that puts paid to the things Sojo holds dear.

The True Story of Thanksgiving

The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense,'" without being paid for it, "'that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself?" That's what he was saying. " The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

"Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.' But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering-in-socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That's where the original Thanksgiving story stops, and the story basically doesn't even begin there. The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony. The bounty was shared with the Indians." They did sit down" and they did have free-range turkey and organic vegetables, "but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was capitalism and Scripture which saved the day," as acknowledged by George Washington in his first Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789.

So, the story of Thanksgiving is a cautionary tale of the failure of Socialism, which is what Sojo thinks is what is so good and great. No, that story of Thanksgiving must be silenced and not celebrated.

The Sojo article is aptly titled, if one keeps in mind that it is the Sojrone himself who is rewriting history.

peter rollins the postmodern pharisee

2011-11-14T10:12:00.000-08:00

In short, such an approach reveals that Christianity exhibits the structure of a religion without religion. Belief thus has an important place; however, it is ultimately subordinate to the event that it points toward. The result is the idea that living within the event that is testified to in Christianity is more important than the affirmation that one is a Christian, or in other words, the event contained in the affirmation of God is more important than the belief in God.
Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1555-1558)

Look at what he's saying here--"living within the event that is testified to in Christianity is more important than the affirmation that one is a Christian...the event contained in the affirmation is more important than the belief in God". What is he saying?

Unlike the former reading, which sees Christianity as a worldview that can somehow be compared and contrasted with other worldviews, this latter approach questions the idea that Christianity can be approached as a religious worldview at all; rather, in this approach Christianity operates within all worldviews, at least in those places where people’s lives reflect love, hope, and passionate commitment to one’s neighbor. While the first interpretation sees Jesus as the founder of the one true religion, the latter interpretation sees in Jesus one who would set an axe to all religion.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1487-1491).

Because a miracle takes place at a radically subjective level that cannot be objectified or analyzed, it is not, strictly speaking, something that is believed in. Rather it is lived. Indeed it can easily be lived and not believed in.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1746-1748).

Instead of rendering God present to the understanding, this way of reading the text interprets the phrase ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh as a means of describing the nature of God’s presence among us. Here God is presented neither as reducible to the status of other objects, nor as outside the world and eternally distant from it, but rather as one who is received by us without ever being directly conceived by us. Here the mystery of God is revealed as an incarnated mystery, that is, the mystery of God is revealed in the midst of God’s presence. God is here being presented as saying something akin to, “Do not try to name me. my name is above all names; I am present to you beyond all names.” Here we find a different way of approaching God: here we come across the idea that God is made manifest as a happening, an event, a blessing. God is here revealed as one who is made present through the acts of love and liberation rather than through the categories of human understanding. This does not mean that we will come to an understanding of God through closely observing the actions of God. Here the text goes further: God is made known only in action, only as blessing.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1276-1275).

When Jesus spoke of being “born again” he was not referring to some proposition that could be considered through logic, religious sermons, Bible reading, or through some kind reflection on religious experience; rather he was speaking of an event that opens up a whole new world of experience. Religious experience, in its fundamental form, is not then an experience at all but rather a counter-experience, one that transforms our mode of being in the world rather than being reduced to some strange feeling. With the incoming of this truth nothing necessarily changes in the physical world, no new object enters our horizon. But in its aftermath the person is never the same again, for everything has changed. This luminous life can never be captured, contained, or pulled apart; it is lived. This event in which nothing changes is an event so radical that nothing remains the same.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1346-1352).

Look at how he denigrates belief. This is a common theme throughout the book. He is constantly playing games with belief, claiming that belief in the truth claims of the Bible or even in God are not important, and even the questions of whether or not the Bible is true or if there is a God are not important. Something else is, something he calls the "miracle", and is something that, as he says in one of the quotes above, can "easily be lived and not believed in".

Looking at Rollins' words about this "miracle" and conversion, one is struck by a complete lack of the things the Bible places as central to this conversion--repentence from sins, belief and faith in Christ who was crucified as a sacrifice for our sins. Instead, he goes on about change and experience, using nonsense phrases about nothing being changed but everything being changed.

In his own convoluted way, he's simply repeating what the Pharisees in Jesus' day believed. His definition of righteousness is some combination of works and experience, that for example in regards to worldviews those worldviews are acceptable "...where people’s lives reflect love, hope, and passionate commitment to one’s neighbor".

But what does that mean? God cannot be understood, so he says. Thus, beliefs are essentially meaningless. What the Bible says about God is essentially meaningless; indeed, God cannot even interpret His own Word, because that would somehow be an untrue interpretation. There are no answer, only questions. Believe in Christ, or not; believe in God, or not; put your faith in the gods of Greek mythology, for all that it matters.

All we have are works that somehow God is pleased in, though we don't know how we know that or why. Why, after all, should a god about whom we cannot know anything by reason or logic be a god who wants us to be kind to people. Mankind has had many gods who wanted their priests to take other people and sacrifice them in bloody rituals. Why should not that be how this unknowable god is? Or why should people not worship this god in that way, as other do so through kindness? How can we know that this god prefers one or the other, because if the priest who sacrifices captives from another tribe thinks he being kind to his neighbor in doing so, then what argument can be made against it?

As soon as we start looking at Rollins' claims, that we can learn little or nothing about God through His Word, that God did not really speak to the prophets, that it's really not important whether or not Christ really died and rose again, then we are simply brought up against Rollins' own opinions and beliefs about what this god approves of. And let us be clear, they are simply the biases and presuppositions of Rollins and those like him. Why the bloody Aztec gods should be shunted aside is simply a matter of preference, not of any standard that says human sacrifices are wrong.

Rollins is playing as a Pharisee, but at least the Pharisees had the Law of Moses, even if they abused it and misused it. At least they would have claimed that belief in Jehovah was important, even if it was more a belief in their own supposed righteousness. All Rollins has is his own law, his own beliefs that no beliefs are important, yet somehow love and hope and caring for others is important, simply because the Christ he doesn't believe in said so, even if He may not really have said those words at all. And why this god spoke through Christ more than through the bloody Aztec prophets is not a question that can be answered.

peter rollins ridiculous

2011-11-12T13:26:00.000-08:00

In this parable we are reminded that a religious approach to the text is not one in which we attempt to find out its definitive meaning, but rather where we wrestle with it and are transformed by it. The parable tells us not that a God’s eye view is impossible, but rather that even if it were possible it would not be wanted. Why? Because a God’s-eye view of the truth would not be the truth. We can thus say that any interpretation of a verse that is given to us by God is not a true interpretation of the verse and must be rejected as such. For the problem resides not in having an interpretation but rather in the place that we give to our interpretation. No matter how wonderful our interpretation is, if it occupies an authoritative place then it undermines its own status.
Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1778-1784). Paraclete Press. Kindle Edition.

Really? A parable? Maybe one Jesus told? Well, let's see...

Is this not the wisdom that is contained in the Jewish parable that speaks of a heated debate taking place in a park between two old and learned rabbis? The conversation in question revolves around a particularly complex and obscure verse in the Torah. It is not the first time that these two intellectual giants have crossed swords over this verse; in fact they have debated it for years, sometimes changing their opinions but never finding a consensus. God is, of course, known to have the patience of a saint, but even God begins to tire of the endless discussion. So finally God decides to visit the two men and tell them once and for all what the parable means. God reaches down, pulls the clouds apart, and begins to speak: “You have been debating this verse endlessly for years; I will now tell you what it means. . . . ” But before God can continue, the two rabbis look up and say, in a rare moment of unity, “Who are you to tell us what the verse means? You have given us the words, now leave us in peace to wrestle with it.”
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1771-1778).

Umm...no. Nope, not one of Jesus'. In fact, we aren't told where it comes from, just that he calls it a "Jewish parable", which raises the eyebrows, as by and large the ancient Hebrews were noted for their great respect for the Scriptures, except when they were following all the rest of humanity in worshiping idols. One could well imagine that, for example, some ancient false prophet getting honked off at Jeremiah, and making some kind of argument like that.

But, well, moving on...

In my lack of researches, because only modernists care for verifying whether a historical statement is true or not, I've discovered in my imaginative reinterpretation of a biblical account of a time Jesus told a parable and then interpreted it for his disciples the nuclear shadow of an event (or is that an Event) that happened but for whatever reason (probably the fault of those nasty Nicenes) it didn't make into the Bible. But, thanks to me and my ability to deconstruct and find messages hiding in the gaps in the wounds of the text, here is a summary of it.

In Matthew 13, we have the account of Jesus telling several different parables. Verse 36 says that he left the multitude, and went into the house, and his disciples came unto him, say, "Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field"

Jesus is just getting ready to explain it when there was a sudden commotion, a strange throbbing noise and weird lights, and suddenly a strange, pale man appeared in their midst, wearing strange clothes, and he was speaking very loudly.

"Stop!!" The man said, and yes did so with two exclamation marks. "You can't do that!" This caused some consternation among the disciples, as he was speaking in the English language, which had not yet made it's way into the world. Jesus appeared unfazed.

"My name is Peter Rollins." Said the strange man. "And I've come from the future, because you cannot explain that parable, Jesus.

"No, you can't explain it to them, because if you do, your disciples and all the rest of us will not wrestle with it and be transformed by it. Don't you know that a God's eye view of your parable is impossible, even though you as God told the parable to the people. Even though they have asked you to explain it to them, they don't really want that, because even if it were possible, it is not really wanted. Because any explanation or interpretation you can give would not be the truth, even if you as God give them the God's eye view of the truth. Any interpretaion you as God give to your disciples is not the true interpretation, and so they would have to reject it. Because any interpretation you as God would give would be authoritative, and thus because it is authoritative it would undermine its own status as an authoritative interpretation.

"So, no, Jesus, you cannot explain your parable to them. I command you to be quiet, you traitor! Why, I know about your conspiracy, I know who the really hero of Bible is! It's Judas, I tell you, not you! Oh, no, I know about your conspiracy! You and Lilith and Pee Wee Herman and her little dog, too, and..."

Suddenly, something went "boink" in the time machine this strange man who called himself Peter Rollins was using, and he was shot back to the future very suddenly and more-or-less intact, though there are rumors that parts of his mind have been found floating around in the Mariachi Trench.

So, after a rather startled moment, the disciples looked among themselves and then finally turned to Jesus. Jesus began to speak, answering their original question, and said, "He that sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world. The good seed are the sons of the kingdom, the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed the weeds is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the world. The reapers are the angels. As the tares are gathered and thrown into the fire, so will it be at the end of the world. The Son of Man will send forth his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all thing that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and cast them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And the righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

So, yes, I did detect the nuclear shadow of a time-traveling Peter Rollins in that account. Hey, it's just as likely as the myths of Lilith and his conspiracy theory about Judas.

To be plain (I was serious, even in mocking), can one imagine the hubris and arrogance of Rollins' statements? Can you imagine him saying such a thing about any other person? If, let's say, he were a lawyer arguing a case in a courtroom, and he were to claim that the testimony of an expert witness should be ignored and discarded because it is the testimony of an expert? That a professor should be ignored for the simple reason that he's educated and experienced in his field? That, let's say, Gary Kasparov's analysis of a chess game should be discarded because it is given by a former world chess champion and one of the greatest players of all time?

To say that an interpretation that God would give would not be the truth is absolute nonsense, and let's be honest, it's blasphemy.

generation brats gets special treatment

2011-11-07T10:02:00.000-08:00

Occupier Outrages Omitted

MRC analysts reviewed the Big Three network evening (ABC’s World News, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning shows (Good Morning America, The Early Show, Today) for the month of October and found accounts of anti-Semitism and sexual assault arrests have been completely omitted from the Big Three broadcasts. And when confrontations erupted between the police and the protestors, the networks were much more likely to pin the blame on police for instigating the violence.

In fact, in the few stories of violence at the protests, like the one in Oakland, the Big Three networks took the side of the protestors against the police more often than not with 15 stories (54%) putting more blame on law enforcement officers. Only seven stories (25%) mostly faulted the protestors for acts of aggression. Six stories (6%) didn’t blame any particular side for the violence. Viewers of these stories were also far more likely to hear statements made by reporters or talking heads blaming law enforcement officials for the violence with 36 (71%) blaming officers to just 15 (29%) blaming the protestors.

Despite several charges of sexual assault and rape and instances of anti-Semitism the Big Three reporters have completely ignored these incidents. Not only did NBC’s Today show omit the ugly instances, but on their October 21 show, they actually preached that parents should use the OWS protest as a teachable moment for kids.

Not a single anchor or reporter brought up the anti-Semitic rants found at some of the rallies, like this one caught by MRC-TV cameras on October 21: “The Jews commit more white collar crime than any other ethnic group on the earth, and they go unprosecuted because they can buy their way out of it.... Whenever there’s a billion dollar fraud, there’s a Jew involved.”

So, while the Tea Party is given all kinds of bad labels without any evidential support, Generation Brats of Occupy (whatever) get their racism and violence covered over.

And who says the media isn't biased?

not in the Bible

2011-11-05T10:39:00.000-07:00

The prayer of a human being can alter history by releasing legions of angels into the earth. If we really grasped this truth, we would pray with intensity, and we would pray constantly.
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 1022-1023). Kindle Edition.

As someone who used to be in YWAM, reading this book, or maybe re-reading it after several years, was rather eye-opening, and not in a way that I fear YWAM would consider good.

For example, take that statement. Keep in mind, Dawson is one of the biggest of YWAM's bigwigs, a wig with big hair, if you would. He is a former president of the entire organization.

But this book of his, Taking Our Cities For God, is chock-full of statements that are, simply, bad. Like the one quoted here.

I simply can't think of any place in the Bible where we are taught that when we pray we are "releasing legions of angels into the earth". If I were to play word games, I would find his use of the word "legion" here more than a little suspect, because of it having been the name the spirit in the demoniac gave to Jesus right before he cast them into the herd of swine.

And Dawson gives no scriptural support for his assertions here.

In the years since leaving YWAM, there have been times I've wondered if I were right to have left. Most of those times of doubts had to do with difficult times I've had since then, when things haven't worked as I would have liked. But there are things I've heard or read concerning the organization that help to convince me that I should have left. Things like reading Dawson's book are among those things. There is no truth in his statement that we should grasp. To pray for the reason of supposedly releasing angels into the earth is not something Scripture tells us to do.

In what we call the Lord's Prayer, for example, there is a distinct lack of mention of angels being released. When Jesus was praying for his disciples just before He was crucified, He makes no mention of wanting angels to be released. The closest He comes to such an idea is when He on trial, and tells them that He could command thousands of angels to come and free Him. And the epistles are silent concerning this supposed reason to pray, too.

Again, there is no truth in Dawson's statement that we must "really grasp"; rather, it is at best a made-up idea that we must cast aside and reject.

generation brats plays dirty

2011-11-04T16:41:00.000-07:00

And I'm not referring to them not wanting their places of (often illegal) occupation cleaned.

Occupiers Attack Police with High-Tech Intimidation

Meanwhile, in Occupying events around the United States, police are mocked, screamed at, spat upon, confronted, pushed, knocked off motorcycles and loads more. New York confrontations resulted in hundreds of protesters arrested. While Occupiers attacked Oakland police with everything from “eggs” and “paint” to “feces” and “M-80” firecrackers, the bigger threat is a new tactic called “doxing.” It’s part of the culture that comes from hacker group Anonymous, which is one of the major organizers of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Doxing is a hacker tactic designed to dig up the public, and often not-so-public, information on an individual. “The time has come to retaliate against Oakland police via all non-violent means, beginning with doxing (releasing of documents and data) of individual officers and particularly higher-ups involved in the department's conduct of late,” reported CNET on an Occupy Wall Street statement.

So, attacking police officers by releasing information about officers and their families is "non-violent"? Putting their private information out there, I would guess things like credit card numbers, bank account numbers, social security numbers, their home address and phone numbers, is a "non-violent means"?

Apparently, women are entitled to the kind of privacy rights the allows them to kill their unborn children, but police officers who dare to keep the public peace against the obvious shenanigans of Generation Brats don't have any such rights.

Pathetic.

But, wait, it's not just the Occupiers who are getting into this act.

Larry O'Donnell Calls for Occupy D.C. to Bring 'Firestorm' to Nat'l Restaurant Association's HQ

Did MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell ignore President Obama's previous calls for civility? The late-night host, in a five-minute Thursday night tirade, called for violence by specifically telling Occupy D.C. protesters to bring a "firestorm" to the National Restaurant Association (NRA) headquarters nearby, as well as to the NRA's corporate sponsors which include Starbucks and 7-11.

O'Donnell insisted that the organization release presidential candidate Herman Cain's accuser from her confidentiality agreement and let her bring the allegations against Cain to the public. If by Friday they still refused to do so, "then a firestorm should be visited upon the 1200 17th Street Northwest and the members of the National Restaurant Association," ranted O'Donnell.

This is fear and intimidation, the use of threats, and it is violence. Every day brings more and more to light the lies these "non-violent" types hide behind.

sojo does not approve!

2011-11-04T09:37:00.000-07:00

Which is another good reason to support Samaritan's Purse.

Operation Christmas Child: Doing Good Isn’t Always Doing Best

Oh, why is giving a child a Christmas toy so horrible???

Exporting cheap consumerism, for instance. One of the reasons that Operation Christmas Child is so popular surely must be that we Americans (and Westerners, in general) love to shop. We associate Christmas with giving presents — lots of presents — to our children, so we fill those shoe boxes with lots of stuff, most of it purchased at big box, discount stores. That means it’s cheap stuff — cheaply made, but costly in countless hidden ways. Plastics won’t disintegrate for millenia; trinkets and kitch we wouldn’t give our own children that are, perhaps, even made by children working in unsafe conditions in the developing world.

Oh, dear, you mean we actually buy things that people have already made? Horrors!!! How dare you buy toys at "big box, discount stores"? Don't you know Satan shops at Wal-Mart?

Samaritan’s Purse CEO Franklin Graham draws a full-time salary from the organization while also receiving a full-time salary from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Two full-time jobs? Leading two organizations with hundreds of employees and multi-million dollar budgets? (Graham’s reported SP salary in 2010 was upwards of $530,000 — a handsome “purse” indeed — and the organization has more than 1,700 paid employees.

Yes, but did his organizations receive support for those evil Koch brothers? If Soros had supported him, would Sojo be so up-in-arms?

Or, is this just convienent class-warfare rhetoric?

Questions also have been raised about the proselytizing impulse of Samaritan’s Purse. It is an “evangelism organization,” after all, but it’s also a tax-exempt non-profit under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

But here’s the theological question: Should the shoe boxes be a means for making Christian converts (as Graham pretty much says they are) or ought they be gifts-in-themselves, unattached to any other agenda?

Ahhh...I'm betting we're getting to one of the things that really offends the Sojrones (though not to deny the offense caused by economy-assisting buying)--Samaritan's Purse and OCC are about actually helping kids and families experience Christian charity in the hope that they will be open to learning about Christ and come to repentence and faith in Him.

How awful!!! How not-PC!!! How not-extreme-ecumenical!!! How dare you Christians try to tell a Muslim child that Islam is evil, that salvation is found only through Jesus Christ!!! How dare you care about the eternal soul of that little child while also giving him or her a toy that they can play with in the here and now, too, or clothes he or she needs, !!!

Makes me want to go out to Wal-Mart, buy some things kids would like or need, and pack them in a shoebox for them. Sounds a lot more charitable than engaging the Occupy Wherever shenanigans.

there's a road rage devil?

2011-11-03T09:30:00.000-07:00

One brother told the story of his recent confrontation with a motorist. He had almost come to blows with the other driver when he remembered who he was-a pastor representing Christ. "I almost allowed myself to be overcome by the spirit of violence and lawlessness," he said during his prayer of repentance. Many present identified with his confession. As other pastors led the way to the throne of grace, a great cleansing took place that day in the life of the church. Then the pastors abandoned themselves to praise and intercession, which climaxed in a declaration of God's authority over Reno.
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 563-567). Kindle Edition.

In context, this comes from some kind of get-together Dawson had with some pastors of churches in Reno, Nevada, in 1988, so this was a while ago.

Now, this "brother", I assume a pastor, seemed to have had a case of road rage, though I don't know if it was called that back then.

I'm going to assume something, maybe not the wisest of things to do, but in this case I think fairly safe. I'm going to assume that, on the same day that this pastor had his bout with road rage, in all the cities in all the world millions of other people had cases of road rage, too, to greater or lesser degrees, expressed in ways from honking and gestures up to actually physical blows or even worse.

Next, I'm going to go a bit out on a limb, though I think a fairly safe one. I don't think this brother, this pastor, was almost "overcome by the spirit of violence and lawlessness". I think he may have been almost overcome by his own temper, maybe in combination with other frustrations and bad things happening to him or others he knew, and if one wants to posit that he was being tempted by an evil spirit, ok, fine.

As well, I don't think the fact that he was in Reno had much of anything to do with it. If he had been in, say, Helena, or Bangkok, and had suffered a similar situation, likely he would have had to fight his temper then, too. Being frustrated with other drivers is a pretty universal experience among drivers in cities all over the world.

I simply can't buy that this man's temper was the fault of anyone other than himself, let alone supposed evil spirits that somehow have some kind of special control of Reno.

generation brats does not respect

2011-10-27T09:59:00.000-07:00

Here's the deal--for the cause of their "greater good" or whatever they choose to call their agenda, the folks of Generation Brats will not let things like respect of private property, access to things like parks and shopping malls, and of course the ability to drive down the road get in their way. This is true for the religious side of Generation Brats as well, if not more so, since they can cloak their brattiness in spiritual garb.

Prayer and Meditation Flash Mob Upsets Officers

A group of occupiers and flash-mobbers in Salt Lake City organized an impromptu gathering in which protesters sat outside of the Gateway shopping mall in silent meditation and prayer. As you can see from this video, the mall officers weren’t too keen on the idea.

So, yes, never mind Christ's teachings about going to a private place, so that you don't do your praying for public show. Why, if you can do it for show, protest capitalism and shopping malls, and tick off mall security, you will get mega-brownie-points in heaven/nirvana/pick your afterlife destination. Not sure where that is in the Bible or whatever supposedly sacred text you choose, but hey, I'm sure Sojo can dig it up somewhere. It may be in Rules for Radicals, for all I know, a sacred text indeed among such, I would suppose.

peter rollins spews nonsense about prayer

2011-10-23T11:50:00.000-07:00

I think it is becoming more and more apparent that nothing is safe from whatever passes through the mind of Peter Rollins, that he can take the most holy and sacred things, and make them profane. Quite the accomplishment.

Take, for example, prayer. Here's what he has recently had to say on that matter.

Prayer Works

This little story can perhaps help us to understand the underlying structure of prayer. In prayer we speak out to another and yet there is a second form of communication taking place simultaneously: we are also speaking to ourselves.

You can go to his page to read his little story, but the point behind it all is right there. And I would contend that, as the article progresses, his little nod to the idea that we may be speaking to another (God?) is set aside.

The question of prayer so often revolves around specifically religious issues such as whether there is a being to hear the prayers or why one needs to say anything at all (after all, if God exists, then God would know already what we want). But by bracketing these questions out for a moment and examining the underlying structure of prayer – a mode of communicating to an other (real or imagined) that results in a revelation of our feelings to ourselves – we can see that this is a universal act, one that transcends the theistic/atheistic debates.

May I translate that? Basically, he's saying that the question of whether or not there is a God or god who hears our prayers is irrelevant, that the main point all can agree on is that when we pray we are really praying to ourselves, revealing things to ourselves.

I am a great advocate of this form of communication; indeed it has been a lifeline to me many times over the last few years. Every day has been filled with prayer as I take time to speak out in order to come into contact with what lies within. It has provided the backbone of my intellectual project over the years as well being invaluable to my emotional wellbeing

So, we see what is valuable for Rollins in prayring--it helps him find what is in himself, to "come into contact with what lies within". Actually speaking to a God who may or may not be there is, at best, secondary.

When we speak out to the divine, or to those from whom we are distant, the ones we have lost to death or misunderstanding, those who we long to communicate with and yet cannot, we speak to something deep within ourselves. In doing this we bring into language that part of us which otherwise would continue to fester within our being and poison us. We bring light to something that would otherwise continue to lurk in the darkness of our unconscious and continue to plague us. And so, regardless of ones belief in the supernatural, we might be able to all agree that this kind of prayer works.

So, prayer is a lot like imaging a conversation with someone else. Yeah, right.

And, of course, when you see prayer merely as a form of therapy and self-enlightnement, well, it doesn't really matter what you think about the supernatural, whether there really is a God to whom you're praying to, or if the god to whom you are praying is merely yourself. Even atheist can pray to themselves.

nonsense

2011-10-22T13:32:00.000-07:00

One of the most frustrating things about Charismatics today is the sheer amount of vapid nonsense they not only swallow whole-cloth, but attribute to the Holy Spirit and claim to have had revealed to them. Case in point...

Redeemed Students Pray: Kentucky to Texas, USA

As I crossed the border from Ohio to Kentucky, the Kentucky state sign jumped out at me. It had a picture of a horse and read "Unbridled Spirit." The Lord spoke to me in that moment… I knew that the spirit of religion had bound up the Holy Spirit in the state of Kentucky. I knew that the Lord wanted to unbridle the Holy Spirit to run free across the state. A timely realization as I was on my way to the first ever gathering of students and campus leaders who felt called to see a movement of prayer sweep Kentucky.

Wow. All that, from the sign greeting people as they cross into the state.

Nonsense. I'm going to say this...the Lord didn't speak a thing to her from that sign.

First, what is this "spirit of religion", and how is it strong enough it "bound up the Holy Spirit"? Considering that the Holy Spirit is God, by definition nothing is strong enough to bind Him; thus, the notion that anything like a "spirit of religion" has the Holy Spirit bound up is nonsense.

Second, what does it mean for the Holy Spirit to "run free across the state"? Really, what on Earth does that mean? It sounds spiritual, no doubt, but it's essentially meaningless.

And, third, doesn't it strike one as ...interesing, that the paragraph ends with a little plug for herself, people like her, and the things she and they are trying to do? Like, maybe those thing are the things that end up someone unbounding the Holy Spirit from the spirit of religion, so that it could run free, or whatever?

And what would this spirit running free look like?

I looked across at David, who was a student at Eastern Kentucky University last year. He's a brilliant percussionist whose life got wrecked by Jesus this last year. Since September he's lived in his car with the legend known as Curt, traveling around the nation, praying on campuses, leading worship, and preaching the gospel.

So, for one thing, I guess it means a life that could have been spent following the biblical command to live quietly and work, which a percussionists sure could do in his musical trade, is now spent living in his car. May we ask how he and this "legend known as Curt" make their living; you know, get food, get gas money, and the like?

I looked across at Chris, who graduated from the University of Kentucky a few years ago, and Jordan, who is a student at Eastern Kentucky University. Both of these guys have been experiencing more and more of God’s transformative power in their lives recently and spent spring break down in Florida loving on college students with the gospel.

Wow, Spring Break ministries. That's new...

Oh, wait, it's not. College ministries have done it, or an excuse for it, for years. I know of college groups that have gone to places like Hilton Head and Panama City Beach during Spring Break to minister, such as it was. I'll give them credit for trying, and even some success, though also some things done were a bit iffy, too.

Methinks this woman is not so informed. She really should try to find God's Word in more sure places than, say, roadside signs. Like, maybe, the Bible.

peter rollins demands what he already has

2011-10-15T11:07:00.000-07:00

It's amazing, really, the kinds of things people can whine and complain about. I've heard of instances where a child can be in a room filled with toys, and for reasons only speculated on begin to cry. Perhaps it's because the one kind of toy they wanted wasn't among the riches they had before them, maybe it's because there were so many option that they simply couldn't figure where to begin, but just like those kids, some people will cry about the wealth of things about them.

Peter Rollins does that here.

Please Give Me Freedom From The Pursuit of Happiness

Something that I am exploring at the moment in my writing is the way that the pursuit of that thing which we believe will satisfy our soul is deeply destructive. It is a common belief that society will function best when its population is able to pursue what they desire. A pursuit that is constrained in only minimal ways (protecting others, making sure that contracts are honored etc.). The idea is that a happy society is one in which we have the ability, hypothetically at least, to gain the fame, money, relationship, creative venture, lover etc. that we seek. If these dreams are not even unlikely but practically impossible to achieve then, whether we realize it or not, we effectively live in a type of oppressive, totalitarian society that will lead to nothing but a discontented, depressed and angry population.

So, considering how Rollins likes to rip things inside out--turning traitors into heroes, making defiance and disobedience the marks of true love for God, and the hope for Heaven into a selfish desire--we can imagine where he's going with this.

What we see here is the way that the freedom to pursue our highest ambitions is not experienced as a freedom from some oppressive system but is itself often felt to be deeply oppressive. This is something that Mother Teresa noted when she visited the US. During her time she noted a poverty and oppression that hid in the material wealth and political freedom enjoyed here. For such political freedom often leads to a society with greater material wealth and better opportunities for the population. Things that are to be valued highly. However unless we also have the freedom from the pursuit of our highest ambition this political freedom, far from offering us an escape from oppression, can be experienced as one of the most psychologically powerful forms of oppression.

Oh, so, the right to pursue happiness is actually a type of oppression and totalitarianism. Gotcha.

Coming up, how the right to life actually makes death a good thing, and the right liberty is actually slavery. How freedom of speech actually curtails speech, how the freedom to assemble peaceably actually means we can't assemble at all, and how the right to bear arms means we are all defenseless.

Hey, it's Peter Rollins' world, you're just not ripped open enough.

What if we had sites in our life where we could be free from the pursuit of our highest ambition?

This is amazing illogic because, quite simply, he just mangles the whole concept of the right to pursue happiness. He bring down to such things as money and fame, and that's about it. But the right to pursue happiness is not a guarantee one will find happiness, or for that matter that one will get money or become famoues or achieve the things one wants, and it certainly doesn't mean one will find happiness in money or fame or goals.

And the right to pursue happiness also means that one does not have to pursue money or fame or achievement.

That is the freedom Rollins already has--he doesn't have to pursue riches, fame, achievement, if he darned well doesn't want to. He's the one who's been putting himself forwards, speaking before groups, writing books, and basically trying to make a name for himself and get his ideas out there.

If Peter Rollins wants to stop pursuing these "highest ambitions", I'm all for him doing that. He can not write any more books, he can not go on any more speaking tours, he can not preach any more sermons in churches or bars where he spreads his unbiblical teachings, and I'd be pleased as can be if he were to do so.

So, Mr. Rollins, quit whining, and if you're not going to repent of thinking you're smarter than God, than at least fade away. We'll all be happier if you did so.

One more thing.

This is one of my visions for the reconfigured church – a community that is not a place where we go to pursue some highest pleasure (heaven, ecstatic experience, an escape from our everyday life) but rather the place where we lay all that down and learn how to smile deeply about the here and now.

What an absolute waste of church service that would be. Church is not about us, Mr. Rollins, and it's not about living in the here and now. It's about God. It's about Christ, who died as a sacrifice for our sins, even yours Mr. Rollins, even mine, so that through repentence and faith in Him we can have forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Church isn't about the here and now, except insofar as "today is the day of salvation, now is the accepted time".

sojo supports filth

2011-10-14T09:48:00.000-07:00

And not just any old Sojrone, either, but the Head Sojrone himself.

Statement from Jim Wallis on Friday’s “Cleaning” of NYC’s Zuccotti Park

Bloomberg’s office has said that this “cleaning” action, scheduled for Friday (10/14) morning, is not a shutdown of the protest and that Occupiers can return after the cleaning and if they agree to follow a set of rules. But these rules ban sleeping bags or tarps from the park and it is not clear if even laying down will still be allowed.

This is effectively a shutdown of the #OccupyWallStreet demonstration, which the Mayor Bloomberg promised just a few days ago not to do.

A group of clergy has decided to join that circle and is planning a press conference at 11 am at Judson Memorial Church to report on the morning’s events at the #OccupyWallStreet demonstrations in Zucotti Park, as well as to issue a multi-faith statement of support for the Occupiers.

Abuse of power should never be met with violence. We urge demonstrators to continue their principled and peaceful actions.

Sooooo...

The notion that asking or even telling the protestors to leave the park for a while, so that it can be cleaned up of the filth they have scattered about, is an "abuse of power"? A threat to shut down the protests, even if they will be allowed to return after the cleaning?

This is one of the sickest examples of illogic I've ever seen. But, then again, things like liberalism and postmodernism are founded on irrational philosophy. They couldn't survive in a world where people actually tried to make sense, so they have to try to create a world of nonsense.

Well, for what it's worth, this protest against cleaning has succeeded. The protestors are free to lie in their own filth, even as they deny others the freedom to enjoy the park they are trashing, cause traffic problems for others, and basically make brats of themselves.

Here's an addendum to the battle cry for Generation Brats, "Don't you dare change our diapers!!!".

that's not what happened

2011-10-13T09:54:00.000-07:00

24-7 Prayer vigils have always been used powerfully by God:
2000 years ago the church was born in a 24-7 prayer room.
2020 Vision, 24-7 Prayer, p 6

This seems to be something these 24-7 Prayer people seem to hold on to and believe. But is it true?

Acts 1
12Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey off. 13And when they were come in, they went up into the upper chamber, where they were abiding; both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Now, this passage does say that they were steadfast in prayer. But it doesn't say that they established some kind of all-day-and-night prayer vigil, or what have you. Furthermore, Christ had already promised that the Spirit was coming to them, before they entered this upper chamber and began waiting and praying.

1000 years ago Celtic monasteries prayed 24-7 and transformed Europe.

300 years ago Moravians prayed 24-7 for 100 years and took the gospel to many nations.

104 years ago a multi-racial 24-7 Prayer Room on Azusa Street in Los Angeles sparked the global Pentecostal and charismatic renewals.

I can't claim to know much about Celtic monasteries and Moravians, so I'll leave that be. But I'm kind of caught in a curious spot in regards to the charismania of today. On the one hand, I simply haven't found a good biblically-based argument against the spiritual gifts like tongues still being for today. The Bible does not explicitly say that it will end when John finishes the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, given how far too many of the leaders in the various forms of the charismatic churches are mindlessly following the words of charlatans, false prophets, false healers, false apostles, televangelists who preach more of people fulfilling their own desires than repentence and faith in Christ, I would contend that what came from Azusa Street has at least been perverted to an incredible degree, to the point even where too many in the charismatic churches, especially the leaders, are actively against God, even as they blasphemously use the names of God and Jesus to give their bizarre and false teachings a thin veil of legitimacy.

So, simply linking what their doing to Azusa Street may not mean much.

Finally, we simply have this plain fact--nowhere in the New Testament is any church commanded to set up some kind of all-day-and-all-night prayer thingy. Paul never mentions such a thing in any of his letters, the epistles of James and Peter and John are resoundingly silent on such a practice, and Jesus Himself doesn't mention the supposed need for it. There is nowhere any promise that if the churches were to put such a notion into practice, they would be blessed and their churches would grow and they would be cool.

So, I would contend that the notion that God has used such things powerfully is a bit of a stretch.

sojo idolators condemning supposed idolatry

2011-10-12T09:30:00.000-07:00

#OccupyWallStreet: Playing with Fire and Corraling the Golden Calf

And the biblical allusions were clear, even to those who hadn’t attended the church service at Judson beforehand: Wall Street (with its massive, raging bronze bull) is the idol of the day, and people of faith stand in solidarity with those who have had enough of such idolatry.

In her sermon, Schaper, Judson’s senior minister, went a little deeper. The Golden Calf is not only Wall Street, she said, but also all of capitalism. And we, the people, have helped erect this massive false god with our own treasures — the best and most valuable parts of ourselves.

I'm not going to put more of the article here than I have to, so you'll have to go there to do some reading, sorry about that. But this Sojrone is going on about how during her church service, I suppose this past weekend, the church had some effigy of the Wall Street bull on display, and had some ominous music playing, like in a movie I suppose (here that march, boys and girls, that's Darth Vader's theme, and we don't like Darth Vader, do we).

I don't know the story behind the Wall Street bull. I do know that a market doing well is called a bull market, while one doing poorly is a bear market, though maybe that's a simplistic understanding.

But this is mostly about another form of simplistic understanding--equating the golden calf in Exodus to the Wall Street bull, and saying that somehow means that Wall Street and capitalism have become idols.

Now, this is especially hypocritical of Sojo, because it is becoming plain that they are themselves idolators--they worship socialism; they consider it to be the economic system most in line with their version of the kingdom of god; they are the ones who are continually crying for what they consider to be 'economic justice', which is basically take from the rich and give to those who haven't earned it; they are the ones who are replacing God with something that is against Scripture, a god made of ideas they themselves consider good, a god of their own creation.

Consider this, from the article.

Later that day, dozens of church members marched with the papier mache golden calf to Zuccotti Square where they participated in a prayer vigil with faith leaders and faithful (of various religious traditions) from around the city.

"Varios religious traditions". Would I be correct in thinking that this means non-Christian religions? Maybe Muslims, Hindus, those of the Jewish religion, not to meniton heretical 'christians' like Unitarians?

But I am glad that this Sojrone saw fit to give the reference for the passage her pastorix misused, because context is revealing.

1When the people saw that Moses(A) delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him,(B) "Up, make us gods who shall(C) go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." 2So Aaron said to them, "Take off the(D) rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." 3So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 4(E) And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden[a] calf. And they said,(F) "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" 5When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron(G) made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD." 6And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And(H) the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up(I) to play.

Odd, isn't it--Aaron responds to pressure from the people, like these OWS folks expect people to cave to their demands. Aaron takes the gold from the people, like OWS expects gold to be taken from others. The people made offerings to their false god, just like OWS expects people to make offerings to their false gods and ideas. And, finally, the people descended into debauchery, like OWS has and will continue to do.

Occupy Wall Street: Darker Side Emerges

An article in the New York Post takes Occupiers to task for drug use, strewing litter and copulating in the out of doors. "Zuccotti Park," says the paper, smells "like an open sewer—with people urinating and defecating in public. "

ABC News reports that a faction of the computer hacker group Anonymous has threatened, in a gesture of sympathy with Occupy, to launch a cyber attack against the NYSE. In a YouTube video posted last weekend, a computer-generated voice warns, "Many people refuse to accept that Operation Invade Wall Street is a reality."

There still are postings that talk about taxing the 1 percent more severely or even throwing them in jail. "But then," says Schiavone, "there's an increase in 'let's kill' them. We see 'eat the rich,' 'kill the wealthy.' There are images circulating of senior executives being decapitated, images of blood. Artists are releasing images of banks on fire."

Oh, and should I also mention violence?That article mentions some, and here is another example of these people engaging in violence.

generation brats being bratty

2011-10-11T09:21:00.000-07:00

You ever been in a grocery store, and they may have a spot or two where they are giving out free samples of stuff, maybe chips or sausages? If you agree to have a sample, being considerate you likely limited yourself to, say, one piece of sausage, or one small cup of chips. And if someone were to try to take advantage of it, and either grab a handful of toothpicks with sausage pieces attached, or even take a couple of boxes of sausages that weren't prepared for the samples, you would likely consider such a person to be, at best, rude.

Consider that, then consider these antics by Generation Brats

D.C. Protesters: 'Freedom Plaza Is Now Ours, And We're Never Giving It Back'

When protesters refused to leave Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington on Monday after their permit expired, the U.S. Park Police extended that permit for another four months.

"Freedom Plaza is now ours, and we're never giving it back," said a protest organizer at the October2011 website: "We have not said that when the four months are over and the American Spring is here we will leave."

Why am I now hoping for a really serious winter? Something that would make parts of northern Siberia look tropical?

And why not? After all, it's not like these protestors are hurting.

We intend to make it possible for anyone to visit D.C. with free accommodations," says October2011l.org. "Just bring a sleeping bag and agree to work with us to pressure Congress, the White House, K Street, the Pentagon, and all the lobbyists and profiteers for peace and justice. We have free food, we have free drink, we have free trainings and seminars, we have tents, we have peace keepers, we have a big victory under out belts, and we welcome all peace makers for they shall inherit Freedom Plaza. We own it. It is ours. It shall remain ours world without end."

Oh, wow, what a liberal dream! All that free stuff, just for the taking!

Kinda makes you wonder who's really paying for it all. A bit of wisdom I heard some time ago said that nothing is really free. If they have food, how are they getting it? Are they breaking into grocery stores, and just taking what they want? I doubt it, though they do seem the types. If they aren't doing that, though, where is the food coming from?

sojo celebrates the tasteless

2011-10-10T10:20:00.000-07:00

Which isn't even mentioning that this things is put out by heretical Unitarians Universalists. I'd say it says something about UUs, but given how gimmicky and trend-following seeker and purpose churches have become, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if something like this winds up coming from such a church.

Actually, it does say a lot about UUs--their disregard for biblical morality and teachings about decence, for example. And the real fear that other types of churches would follow suit says a good bit about them, too.

Naked Before the Lord: Unitarians Have More Fun

A dozen men from First Parish (Unitarian Universalist of Framingham, Mass.), ages 64 to 87, got naked before the Lord (and everyone else, for that matter), for a fundraising calendar called “Celebration 2012.” The calendars, which sell for $15 apiece, feature “a year of dashing, accomplished First Parish gentlemen — Leo, Holly, Tony, John, Steve, Dick, Stan, Glenn, Larry, Ed, Walt and Jim,” according to the parish web site.

The church calendar is tastefully rendered, thanks to a strategically-placed bag of golf clubs, banjo, laptop computer and what appears to be a large-mouth bass. The eldest pin-up dude is a retired minister who says there is a “certain elegance” to the older male form.

This is simply pathetic logic. Let's look at another example, of sorts.

Bozell Column: Unzipping the Male 'X Factor'

“Idol” always airs wacky and untalented oddballs in its audition phase, but has featured nothing like the contestant named Geo Godley at the “X Factor” auditions in Seattle. As he began performing his own ridiculous song called “I’m a Stud,” he dropped his pants and displayed his male parts for the studio audience. Fox playfully covered his crotch with the show’s red X logo.

When the Parents Television Council filed a complaint against Fox with the FCC, a new line of defense emerged. The blog Reality Blurred claimed Godley wasn’t even naked. An audience member reported he was wearing a leopard-print thong. The blogger also noted Godley wore a thong in his...YouTube audition video, further removing the idea that anyone at Fox didn’t know what kind of indigestion they were manufacturing for the folks at home.

So now Fox is elaborately faking male nudity? That’s going to be their defense? They will do anything, including sending Abdul to fake-vomit over the fake-flasher.

So, by the definition of "tastefully rendered" given by the Sojrone above, strategically-placed stuff to cover certain areas, what X-Factor did fits in squarely in that definition.

But, hey, UUs are liberals, it would have been news if Sojo had been critical of them.

generation brats

2011-10-08T19:12:00.001-07:00

A bit ago, I wrote a bit about how someone wanted to call youth today "Generation Compassion". My own contention was that youth today are rather shallow and ostentatious. I may have been too kind.

Washington's Air & Space museum shut after protesters storm in

Washington's National Air and Space Museum was closed Saturday afternoon after sign-wielding demonstrators tried to storm the building on the National Mall.

Protesters included people from the October 2011 Stop the Machine group and Occupy D.C., an offshoot of the larger Occupy Wall Street movement in New York.

Ann Wilcox, a lawyer working with Stop the Machine, said a 19-year-old woman from Madison, Wisc., was arrested by police. She paid a fine and was released later Saturday. Wilcox said the protesters went to the Air and Space museum to demonstrate against a military drone exhibit.

So, there you have it--if you show anything that doesn't toe there line, they think themselves free to simply disrupt it, assault guards, and basically make a pest and even menace of themselves.

Plus, you may have a look at their 'demands', to get an idea of how bratty they are.

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

This is sad and pathetic. So, the gubmnts suppose to make sure you live comfortably, even if you're not working? The gubmnts suppose to make sure you can spend like a drunken sailor, max out your credit cards, get mounds of student loan debt, and you won't have to pay for it? Oh, and make sure just anyone can enter the country, no passport or screening needed?

Well, people, say hello to Generation Brats. Hear them whine and whimper, see them beg for handouts, watch them demand that anything they don't like not exist.

The battle cry of Generation Brats: WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!! WANNAWANNAWANNA!!! GIMMEGIMMEGIMME!!!

couldn't agree more

2011-10-07T08:48:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain: Wall Street Protesters 'Should Go Figure Out What America Is All About'

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain on Wednesday called the Occupy Wall Street protesters anti-American and anti-capitalistic.

"Don't be jealous, don't be envious," Cain said as he signed copies of his memoir. "I don't have much patience for someone who does not want to achieve their American dream the old-fashioned way."

When asked about the thousands of people that have been protesting in lower Manhattan, Cain said, "They're basically saying that somehow the government is supposed to take from those that have succeeded and give to those who want to protest. He added: "That's not the way America was built."

He added that the protesters "should go figure out what America is all about."

There's more in that article, go read it, it's great. Outside of a few hiccups, Cain has been spot-on for much of his campaign. I'm glad he's getting some success, and may even win the nomination. Romney's been a waffler, and while Perry has a lot going for him, his associations with KC-IHOP types is troubling to me.

Cain is right on with those remarks. The Occupy Wall Streets brats need to grow up and stop being used by the left push an agenda they'll come to regret.

so they emphasize the point, again

2011-10-07T08:35:00.000-07:00

Hey, Sojo, I think your marxism is showing, again.

Yep, scroll down that page, and you'll see a photo of a guy, sitting down (what kinda wussa protester is that, anyway), holding a sign, saying the exact same thing that was the Sojo photo from last week said. You know, the convenient fiction that Jesus was a socialist who gave out free health care and was anti-war, even though He wasn't, He didn't, and seemed to have a fondness for soldiers.

Which tells me that, if these Occupy Wall Street shenanigans have any religious aspect to them, it based on lies and really bad teachings. Just the sort of thing Sojo would be all in for.

now Rush is right, too

2011-10-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

Last week, Sojo got a bit miffed when they took a statement by Limbaugh, one that Media Matters of course took out of context, and put it on their site.

On his radio show today (9/27), Rush Limbaugh ranted against … wait for it … COMPASSION. “If i had to say one word that has had the most disastrous effect on the advancement of everybody in this culture, that word would be ‘compassion.’ “The crap that has been done in the name of compassion in this country has robbed people of their dignity, of their chance, or their opportunity at their own greatness, and using their own ambition and desire. It has taken it from them,” Limbaugh said. Really. He did. Out loud. Listen for yourself (via MediaMatters):

And today, they prove Rush right.

WARNING: No Compassion. Proceed with Caution.

Compassion, he says “is the thing that holds society together,” and what our society is sorely lacking.

Why?

Because it “brings the powerful down to the level of the weak,” Sachs says. There is no room for compassion in an economy where “everything is for the top,” he says.

This is rather telling. "Compassion", how people like the Sojrones define it, isn't about helping people up, helping them stand on their own, helping them not be dependent on some kind of all-benevolent government; rather, it's about taking people down, making everything level, no blade of grass rises higher than any other.

Socialism--the equal distribution of poverty.

Where is the compassion in our economy and our politics? It says much of the economic system that Sojourners even needs to campaign for a “moral budget.” How do we, as Christians, challenge structures that allow billions of dollars to be wasted via tax loopholes while 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty?

Umm...all it says is that Sojo wanted a name for their campaign, and that is the one they chose. A campaign, btw, that seems to have less to do with morality than with making sure people continue to be dependent on government handouts.

And, as one commentor to this entry said, how is the fact that people keep more of the money they themsselves earn "wasted"? Only if one thinks it should be taken by the government is it in any way wasted.

So, Sojo proves that Rush is right, that their definition of "compassion" really is the thing that robs people of dignity, incentive, the desire to better themselves, and makes them dependent, helpless, and most of all, liberal.

YWAM focusing on the unimportant

2011-10-02T09:56:00.000-07:00

At the 1988 YWAM International Strategy Conference held in Kona, Hawaii the 71 leaders present recognized that God was giving the Mission a specific new mandate: they were to actively work to release more nonwesterners, women and youth into greater leadership and decision making roles in Youth With A Mission (Thompson 1988). The understanding was that the inclusion of these groupings within more senior leadership levels in the Mission would bring a broader diversity of gifts and a better representation of the constituency of YWAM. But this integration would not just evolve into being: due to the fact that YWAM was born in North America in the 1962s and grew up in Europe in the 1970s, it was understandable that many of the current senior leaders were Caucasion males in their 40s and 50s. The achievement of this goal to involve more nonwesterners, women and youth--though fully embraced at the heart--would require intentional and possibly radical efforts.
Dawn E Gauslin, Principles Made Practical: a handbook for pioneering U of N courses, p 10

I'm really starting to find this kind of thing...odd. Weird. A little off. Maybe more than a little

Let's take, for example, what the Bible itself says about leaders in the church.

Titus 1
5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge; 6if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly. 7For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; 8but given to hospitality, as lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled; 9holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.

I Timothy 3
1Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; 4one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10And let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless. 11Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

When I take a look at these things that should be characteristic of church leaders, there are things I do not see. Paul, a Jewish man, does not tell either Timothy or Titus that they must make sure that they try to find non-Jewish men to fill those positions, or even Jewish men since they were in Gentile cities. He does not tell them to make sure that they find people from the various Gentile peoples to lead the churches. In fact, race plays no part all in any of the things he lists.

When it comes to gender, well, Paul makes it rather clear that the leaders are to be men. Women are mentioned in I Timothy 3:11, but that likely refers to the wives of the deacons. Church leadership is limited to men, but God's own Word. It's certainly not because men are such grand creatures, but that is how God has set things up for the church to be run.

And concerning their ages, while nothing is explicitly said about that, there is a good bit said about thier spiritual maturity. They are not to be novices, I suppose that means recent converts, which may mean young or old, but should most definitely mean the young, since in almost all things the young are indeed novices. There is also the criterion that they be good husbands and fathers, who rule their homes well, have children who believe and have been taught to honor and obey them and not act like wild animals. They are to be sober-minded, even grave, along with many other signs of maturity.

In other words, the shallow postmodern goal of making sure that a certain, often unspecified, quota of all given races should be shoehorned into church leadership is absolutely foreign to anything in the Bible. Throw in as well the goal of making sure that women and youth be in these positions, and we can kind of get the idea that YWAM is going beyond anything taught in Scripture, and that this supposed "mandate" they claimed to receive from God was really not something from God.

I remember hearing or reading something a few years ago, along the lines of how YWAM had finally elected the first non-American or non-European to lead their mission, and where likely they would never again select anyone from the US again for that position, but rather would continue to find Presidents from among the non-western nations. Why is that so important? Isn't that rather a form or racism? A spiritually mature man who is from the US is passed over, simply because he's from the US, no other reason?

If we were to say that it would be unjust to say that a Chinese man who is Christian, spiritually mature, and meets the criteria Paul writes about to Timothy and Titus, is not fit for leadership because he is not American or European, why is it just to reverse that discriminatory practice?

Church leadership positions are not to be used for such shallow political maneuverings, nor should they filled based on race or skin color simply because it may "bring a broader diversity of gifts" (whatever that means), and may somehow better represent YWAM's racial make-up. It is spiritual maturity and how it is shown in things like family life that are the things that should be used in deciding who shall be church leaders, not other things.

I will say this here and now--these 71 YWAM leaders received no such mandate from God. It strikes me more as something with roots more in postmodern quota-making with a dash of charismanic nonsense thrown in.

so, Beck was right, after all

2011-09-30T09:13:00.000-07:00

I think it was last year when Glenn Beck turned his attention to showing the solid red streak in Jim Wallis, and how Wallis tried to at least make it seem less than it claimed. See here.

Jim Wallis, yet another spiritual adviser to the president of the United States — a guy who believes a lot of the stuff that Jeremiah Wright does. He is a blatant redistribution of wealth advocate, a Marxist.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?

WALLIS: Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Being one who occasionally ventures over to Sojourners to see the latest wackiness there, I'd little doubt that Beck was on to something. Now, Wallis' little political blog, God's Politics, has a little something that makes me think Beck was indeed correct.

True Story.

Yes, that really is the article's title.

This Sojo entry is basically a photo of a sign, probably at some event. Here is what the sign says.

Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free health care. You're think of Jesus.

Rather odd, that the title "True Story" should be put to an entry that consists only of a photo of this sign, don't you think? Kinda like the Sojrone, going by the name of God's Politics Editor, thinks this sign neatly sums up what Jesus was all about.

It's interesting, too, that almost nothing on the sign is really true or verifiable. What color was Jesus' skin? Well, since photography wasn't around at that time, we really don't know. This may tell us something about Him, though.

Revelation 1
12Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw(AI) seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands(AJ) one like(AK) a son of man,(AL) clothed with a long robe and(AM) with a golden sash around his chest. 14(AN) The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow.(AO) His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15(AP) his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and(AQ) his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16(AR) In his right hand he held seven stars,(AS) from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and(AT) his face was like the sun shining(AU) in full strength.

It tells us that His feet were like bronze. Perhaps a tad on the brown side, then, though maybe more tan than anything else.

One would be hard-pressed to find anything in the Bible that says Jesus was anti-war (one would be hard-pressed to find anything in the Obama administration that says he is anti-war, either). In fact, consider this from Revelation as well, emphasis mine.

Revelation 19
11Then I saw(W) heaven opened, and behold,(X) a white horse! The one sitting on it is called(Y) Faithful and True, and(Z) in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12(AA) His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are(AB) many diadems, and he has(AC) a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in(AD) a robe dipped in[d] blood, and the name by which he is called is(AE) The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven,(AF) arrayed in fine linen, white and pure,(AG) were following him on white horses. 15(AH) From his mouth comes a sharp sword(AI) with which to strike down the nations, and(AJ) he will rule them with a rod of iron.(AK) He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh(AL) he has a name written,(AM) King of kings and Lord of lords.

Jesus does not seem to be anti-war here, and this is not the only place in the Bible that speaks of Christ returning as a warrior, despite the absurd attempt by Brian McLaren to make this passage speak of pacifism.

Did Jesus give out free health care? Jesus healed people, yes. But His healings really were free, in that sense--meaning, He didn't take the healings He would have given to the rich and give them to poor. Nor did He take anything from the rich of His day and give it to the poor simply because they were poor.

In fact, Jesus' healings seemed based on something else--faith. He even spoke very highly of the faith of one of those evil Roman soldier types, when the Roman came to Him asking for his servant to be healed.

Was Jesus a Socialist? It's amazing, what people get from the account where Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give it to the poor. One might think that they think Jesus told everyone to do that. But He didn't. One may guess He let Zaccheaus off easy for only giving away half of his goods. One may think that He wasn't hard on the Roman Centurion mentioned above, because He didn't require that the man give anything away before healing his servant. And, well, if he stayed in the home of Lazarus and his sisters, it seems logical that they have had a home for them to stay in, and probably a rather large one to house Jesus and the disciples.

You will find much in the Bible about caring for the poor, but nothing about using government coercion to force them to do so. You will find Jesus preaching the Gospel to the poor, but also to those who were rich, too. What you will not find is Jesus trying to make Israel into a communist utopia.

But, it seems that is the jesus Sojo believes in, and so, Beck is proven right by Sojo's own blog entries.

he must have lost it, then

2011-09-28T10:11:00.000-07:00

I was with Loren (Cunningham), I think in Switzerland, many years ago. And he was with...many youth(?), in a big conference. And they were asking him questions. And one of them asked a very bold question. They said "Loren, what is the worst sin you could commit? What are you afraid that you might do?" And I thought, whoa, I'm glad they didn't ask me that. And he did even pause, he didn't even stop, his answer came just like this, he said "To lose the active awareness of the active presense of the Holy Spirit in me, (maybe something indistinct here), moment by moment, day by day, in every situation, in any context, doing ministry or having fun."
Maureen Menard, Celebrate Asia U of N Workshop, beginning roughly 25 minutes in of the first part of her lecture on The Holy Spirit

Just to note, I've put in quotation marks here, because how she sounded made it seem like she was quoting. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the exact words may have been different, it's likely just how she's speaking about this event.

Now, this answer of Cunningham's is...rather interesting. One might consider it a spiritual answer, or if you're like me, you may consider it a bit over-spiritual. I'm not going to deny that this may have been an fairly honest answer, so far as it goes, but another part of me if fairly skeptical. I have this temptation to ask something like, "Really, sir? You're not worried that you may do something the Bible considers a sin? Maybe you're not so worried about commiting adultery, but if you consider how Jesus spoke about lusting after a woman as being adultery in your heart, is that not something you must guard against? Or what about greed, covetousness, wrath, injustice? Or, more to the point, concerning what I know about you, Mr. Cunningham, should you not be more worried that you may be putting too much trust in false apostles and prophets, like the ones at the Kansas City IHOP, not to mention people like Rick Joyner? Should you not be more concerned that your attempts to institute dominionism may be against biblical teachings? Are those not more serious sins you could do, or even are doing, than you're supposed sin in your answer?"

Because there is one thing I'm sure of--it is not God's Spirit that is leading him to connect YWAM with those false prophets and apostles, nor is it God's Spirit that is telling him to work at a dominionist agenda.

undue blaming

2011-09-25T10:24:00.000-07:00

Why the Impact World Tour

Language, gender, age and values are all elements of culture. To really reach people, we must minister cross-culturally. If our appearance or methods cause people to miss the message of the Gospel, the burden is on us to change!

Is it?

Ok, let me look at those four things they list. Language I could agree them on. If one is going to preach the Gospel to, let's say, the Chinese, it would be good to do so in the language they understand, or to have someone around who can translate the message for you.

Gender seems a bit trickier. I suppose one could consider that in light of a particular culture's views of gender and how the men and women should relate to each other. On the other hand, I get the impression that respect for those rules only goes so far; for example, it seems Jesus probably bent those rules a bit when he talked with the Samaritan woman and the Syrophoenician(sp) woman.

I suspect that age is the bit one IWT is concerned with, from things they say elsewhere on that page. Values is an interesting word, I'm nor sure what they mean by that.

Now, how important is it for the church to change to fit any particular culture? I remember hearing stories of people who would go to these remote tribes, among people who essentially went around with little or no clothing. The stories went that their ministering would be largely ineffective at first, until they got some kind of message from the God telling them to go around naked like those they were ministering to, at which point for whatever reason the people listened to them.

Now, considering how much the Bible makes about things like proper dress and modest clothing, I have to question this tactic by those missionaries. The question of what constitutes modest clothing may be debatable on some fronts, but public nakedness surely crosses that line. It is one thing for us to take the Gospel to others, it is another for us to descend to their level of morality. It would be wrong for a man to become a pimp in order to minister to prostitutes, or for a woman to become a prostitute in order to minister to other prostitutes. It would be wrong for a man to commit murder in order to get into prison to minister to prisoners. It would be wrong for a person to try to get a disease in order to minister to those in hospitals.

There are things we can do to make the message of the Gospel more understandable to others, such as presenting that message in the language the people understand. But there are lines that should not be crossed.

The Gospels present a good case for this. Consider this from Matthew 11.

11Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12(N) From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,[d] and the violent take it by force. 13(O) For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14and if you are willing to accept it, he is(P) Elijah who is to come. 15(Q) He who has ears to hear,[e] let him hear.

16"But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,
17"'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'

18For John came(R) neither eating(S) nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came(T) eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard,(U) a friend of(V) tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."[f]

John and Jesus acted in two very different ways, and both were rejected. We have to remember that people are fallen, sinful, and that no matter what we do or how culturally sensitive we are, many will reject the Gospel. The Bible does not have a high view of mankind, and does not say that all we have to do is convey the message in just the right way and people will fall all over themselves believing. That's not how it goes.

So, up to a point, IWT may have a point in saying we may need to change some things, but eventually, we simply have to accept that if we change too far, we'll be changing the message of the Gospel, or acting in ways we should not.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for us believers is to do what Jesus did, leave “our worlds” to reach another. The methods Jesus used were relevant to the culture of the time, but very different than the culture of the “church” in its day. Most of today’s younger generation are not open to the methods that reached their parents.

I'm not so sure what that means. What methods reached their parents? Why will they not work nowadays? How were Jesus' methods relevant His culture? What methods have been used since then, and how have they worked?

Finally, is such pragmatism the best way to determine if a method is good or not? Many churches are drawing big crowds, but in listening to their sermons and messages, one can really wonder if the people are being taught God's Word or the ideas of men. Do numbers justify a method? If Jesus' methods were relevant for His time, then we have to conclude that they were failing methods, because He was rejected, and His Apostles and early followers suffered a lot of persecution. "He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him".

The Gospel of Jesus Christ has never lost its power and relevance. Our greatest challenge now, as a Church, is to present this message in a relevant way...

Relevancy is a tricky thing. The pursuit of relevancy can lead to a lot of foolishness, not to mention bad teachings. And, finally, the message of the Gospel will simply cause offense and be rejected.

a little more depth

2011-09-24T13:56:00.000-07:00

Voices from the Web (and World): Responses to the Troy Davis Execution

Sojo has been up in arms, so to speak, over the legal execution of a man who killed a police officer. After scouring the web for views that support their views, they found a few that were against them. One was this.

“HOLD THE PICKLE, HOLD THE LETTUCE. FRYING KILLERS WON’T UPSET US.” — Conservative pundit and self-described “mean Christian” Ann Coulter via Twitter

Ok, probably not the way I would have expressed it, either, though I'm not sad that a cop killer got justice. But considering that her quote here reads a lot like the rather simplistic chants that those on the left like to use when they're out causing problems, though lacking the profanities too many of them like to use, I do wonder how much of a right Sojrones have to express distaste.

But if they had wanted to give a little more depth to Coulter's views (which I doubt they did), they could have taken some things for one of her articles about the crime. Which I'll do here.

Cop Killer Troy Davis Is Media's Latest Baby Seal

The bulk of the eyewitness testimony established the following:

Two tall, young black men were harassing a vagrant in the Burger King parking lot, one in a yellow shirt and the other in a white Batman shirt. The one in the white shirt used a brown revolver to pistol-whip the vagrant. When a cop yelled at them to stop, the man in the white shirt ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again, smiling.

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

I'm quite willing to admit that Coulter's Twitter remark was a bit much for my taste, and probably crossed lines, but whatever else may be thought of her Twitter comment, her views were hardly as simplistic as Sojo tried to portray. Perhaps they should have dealt with her article linked to above? Maybe taken some excerpts from it to add along with the other, more liberal ones they had?

And, perhaps Sojo can join in protesting some other distasteful Tweets?

‘Go Give Someone a Pedicure Chink’: Alec Baldwin Fans Attack Michelle Malkin Over Davis Execution

I'll not hold my breath on that, though. After all, they never get up in arms when conservative women are attacked in their favorite commentary shows, why start now.

bad theology = bad thinking

2011-09-21T09:28:00.000-07:00

Why Christians Should Be Biased

Another theological/political train wreck, courtesy of Sojo.

Make no mistake, Christians should be biased.

Biased? Really? A bias based on what?

Nowhere is the Christian conformity to this world more obvious than in our failure to be biased on behalf of the poor.

Oh, I see. Christians haven't been charitable enough? Really?

I can think of good rejoinders to that charge. I think I've done this a few times before, but since it's appropriate here, let me recommend this book again, The Tragedy of American Compassion. The author shows how in the early years of the US, religious groups and organizations were the ones engaged in charitable work, up until about the early 1900s when the government began nosing in and even discouraging private charity.

Just 25 chapters into my assignment I was shocked. I’m sure I had heard it before but I had never paid attention. But, as an Evangelical Christian who takes the Bible very seriously, I was quite troubled to read about Jesus dividing the world into just two categories — those who took care of the poor, hungry, sick, needy and imprisoned and those who did not.

Though he gives no reference, it's pretty clear that he's referring to Jesus' account of the last judgment, when He divided the sheep from the goats, and talks to them about how they treated His brethren. It always surprises me how these Sojo types always leave off that part about "my brethren". But then, if they mentioned at, it would probably put paid to their notion that this passage is some kind of a call for class warfare and wealth redistribution.

He tells his followers to go hang out with those who are marginalized and picked on by the rest of the culture. He told the poor they were blessed and sent the rich young ruler away.

I'm not sure where Jesus ever told his followers to go hand out with the marginalized and picked on, and the Sojrone gives no reference. I do know that what he wrote about the rich young ruler is wrong. Jesus did not send him away, but he went away because he did not want to do what Christ told him to do. To read this Sojrones take on it, Jesus sent him away as if He were disgusted with him for being rich.

To be conformed to this world is to be biased for the wealthy and powerful.

Really? So, people like Marx and the Socialist and Communists since then, they were not being conformed this world when they engaged in class warfare rhetoric? Or when they called for the taking and redistributing of what the wealthy had? Or when they took power and implemented their theories, to the detriment of almost everyone they ruled?

Or, maybe this Sojrones call to bias is being conformed to this world? To do the rather questionable practice of quoting myself...

To say that, in any aspect of justice, God favors any social or economic class or another, is to go against what God Himself told the people to do. Consider these passages.

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 19:17

Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike...
Deuteronomy 1:17

These are the sayings of the wise: To show partiality in judging is not good:
Proverbs 24:23

So, I will contend here, that to say that "God favors the poor" is to say that God practices injustice. God Himself has said that justice should be given to both rich and poor without partiality, and to show partiality would be to pervert justice.

Once again, a writer has Sojo has tried to make injustice seem right. That is wrong.

RESPECT ME!!!

2011-09-17T15:42:00.000-07:00

Man, Woman, and Original Sin: A Response to Al Mohler (by Morgan A. Guyton)

The controversy over whether or not the primordial stories of Genesis are historical or allegorical reveals a basic fault-line in American evangelicalism between fundamentalists who need for the gospel to be hard for others to swallow (perhaps because they’re trying to “earn” their salvation through anti-intellectualism) and true evangelicals whose genuine interest in sharing the gospel makes them yearn for a way of explaining the Bible that will not get laughed out of the room by herpetologists and others whose life vocations make it impossible for them to treat a divinely-inspired ancient Hebrew poem like a biology textbook. In any case, the latest controversy in this sad waste of God’s time called the evolution/creationism debate is that some conservative evangelical biologists are “coming out” as legitimate scientists and ruling out the possibility of a single original homo sapien couple named Adam and Eve based on their genomic research.

Oh, dear, the Bible says things that are hard to believe. Who knew?

So, we have to tailor/butcher the Bible, the unchanging Word of God, to fit the ever-changing claims of other people. God did not give His message so that man might be changed, but man gives his theories and insists that God change His message to fit them.

The latest fundamentalist to weigh in on this topic is Al Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Seminary. Mohler writes that without a historical Adam and Eve, “we will have to come up with an entirely new understanding of the Gospel metanarrative and the Bible’s storyline.” I agree. It’s time to jettison forever from Christian doctrine the abominably stupid idea that God blames people today for the actions of some random historical figure named Adam. There is a more Biblically accurate and compelling way of explaining original sin.

Really? More biblically accurate? You mean, more biblically accurate than when Paul tells us that in Adam all died? More biblically accurate than all even the account of the Fall itself?

So, what does this "...more Biblically accurate and compelling way of explaining original sin" amount to?

All of us together as man and woman have participated in eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which has left us with the curse of self-awareness that means we are no longer part of an un-individualized immortality in which animals’ bodies cycle through birth and death within a species that lives on forever according to the Earth’s natural equilibrium. We are under the curse of mortality and sin because we have been individualized and are no longer just part of a collective herd. It makes sense for the beginning of sin to be associated with the moment that “the eyes of [the man and woman] were opened, and they realized they were naked” (Genesis 3:7). Sin can only exist in the context of self-awareness. Once we gain self-awareness as a species, then we become self-centered people who quarrel with one another, squander the resources of creation God has given us, and generate an enormous residue of pain and guilt that no human being can avoid being tainted by. It is a curse for which we did not ask, but it does no good to blame God, since humanity has entered into this curse through our combined actions as a species.

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH.

So, instead of 'original sin' meaning an act of rebellion against the one, plainly state rule that God implemented, it was an accident of Evolution. Silly Evolution, giving us self-awareness and individuality, how cruel of it.

So, instead of God blaming us for a conscious act of rebellion committed by two people long ago, we're all victims of the fiat of Evolution, which for some reason gave us self-awareness and individuality. Heck, if God's directing Evolution, we go beyond blaming Evolution and blame God.

At the least, it's no longer our fault. WE didn't ask for this. WE didn't ask for individuality. WE didn't ask for self-awareness. WE didn't ask to not be part of the collective herd. We are just innocent victims, we can't help ourselves.

Ok, everyone, join with now...

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Yes, it is that hilarious.

Seriously, this Oozey article is an absolute train wreck.

If individuality and self-awareness are 'original sin', then we can get an idea of the cure--communism and losing ourselves in the collective herd. We lose our individuality into the group-think that postmodernism is so proud of, subsume our individual good in the collective good that social ideas like communism espouse, we do not fight against the dictates put out by the pomo overlords but give all due praise to them like the people whose letters McLaren responds to in his blog.

Also, personal responsiblity at the least gets reduced. We don't really sin against God, we're just accidents of nature. Did Christ die so that we can be forgiven of our sins by repentence and confessions? Or did he die so that we can simply rejoin the collective herd?

but he already said that

2011-09-13T09:37:00.000-07:00

Mark (Anderson/Andersen/something like that) shared from his encounter with God, and he began to help us see what God was doing throughout the earth. And he told us that a time is coming when believers are coming together, in many cities throughout the world, believers in Jesus, every one of them with the person of the Holy Spirit who is in them, gathered in a building to consider the business of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And together, they will ask, how do we bring your kingdom to every place our foot will tread. Now here's the thing, At that gathering, when we come from every church, different denominations, different cultures, differenet experiences of God, what unites us? Who unites us? And in that moment I believe Jesus is going to speak. Every time that session convenes, just as we are gathered right now, there will be a Great Commission call, but not from any human being, from Jesus. From Jesus. And they will hear, you will hear, "All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me, and I commission you to go, but wait, wait, wait, remember the Holy Spirit, remember the Holy Spirit. I won't leave you alone, but it's the Spirit of God who is with you, and he will make everything that is of me available to you."
Maureen Menard, Holy Spirit part 1, Celebrate Asia U of N Workshop, roughly 10 minutes in

So, let me get this straight...

This guy (not Menard, she's telling what Anderson said) says that believers in Jesus are going to gather together, and have these meetings, in buildings, about spiritual stuff. Menard throws in her $.02 worth, too, saying that the people at those gatherings will get a Great Commission call, apparently from Jesus Himself. She even gives the kind of message Jesus is going to give to them.

Now, I listen to all that, and I think "Couldn't they just read the Book, and get that same message?"

As humorous as that seems to me, it shows a decided shallow outlook on the part of this lady. People have to hear Jesus Himself say those words in order to actually do them? Jesus has already said them, those words are recorded in the Bible, why do we need to have them repeated?

There is nothing profound here, no matter in how many exclamation points this woman speaks, and she does seem to speak in them all the time in this truly gargantuan lecture. But this statement is closer to asinine than profound. Her Jesus that speaks today doesn't say anything that those people couldn't read very well in the Bibles they would hopefully have close at hand. Those people don't need to gather together in order to know that Jesus has commissioned them to take the Gospel to the world.

Jesus has already spoken. Why do they need Him to say again the things He's already said?

where does God put his feet?

2011-09-12T10:06:00.000-07:00

Out of the mathematics of general relativity would come ideas and postulates that are themselves also matters now of household conversation: time as another, and fourth, dimension; time as capable of being slowed; the ongoing expansion of the universe; the Big Bang. And in conjunction with the work of other brilliant, popularly known physicists like Edwin Hubble, general relativity would eventually make it possible, on July 20, 1969, for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to walk on the surface of Earth's moon. In doing so, they walked on what always before had been the footstool of God, and that made all the difference. Literalism based on inerrancy could not survive the blow (though it would die a slow and painful death); and without inerrancy-based literalism, the divine authority of Scripture was decentralized, subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers. Where now is our authority?
Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence, p 82, emphasis mine

I think I commented on this or a similar quote of Tickle's some time ago, but something struck me in this statement--the contention that in going to the moon we had somehow walked upon "the footstool of God".

So, doing a little search in the Bible on what is the footstool of God, I found a bit of something that makes Tickle's statement rather amusing.

Isaiah 66:1
This is what the Lord says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?

Matthew 5:34-35
But I tell you, Do not swear at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne, or by the earth, for it is his footstool; of by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

And Acts 7:49 quotes Isaiah 66:1.

I have not found any place in the Bible where the moon is referred to as God's footstool; rather, it is the Earth itself that is given that moniker.

Which makes Tickles statement about us walking on God's footstool rather amusing, since long before astronauts set foot on the moon, we were walking quite frequently, openly, and with impunity upon God's footstool. It seems that setting foot on God's footstool didn't make all that much of a difference, after all.

Which leads me to think that Tickle's declaration of the death of biblical literalism is based more on wishful thinking than reality. But just as people on Tickle's side of the aisle have tried to declare things dead that really are not, like political conservatism and the Republican Party, biblical literalism is still alive and well. Tickle need not whistle as she passes by the graveyard, for the ghost of literalism is not there.

Nor is the ghost of liberalism there, either, though that spirit I would wish was confined within the walls of the cemetery of ideas, where it richly belongs. But it would be wrong of me to say that it is, no matter my own preference for it's swift demise. Liberal politicians are still out there, still defending the rights of certain 'doctors' to take the lives of the most helpless of human beings, the unborn; still trying to normalize sexual perversion; still trying to take the US down the failing road of socialism; still trying to use class warfare rhetoric to take more and more tax money from people; still using questionable science to gain more and more control over us; still making criminals into heroes; and so on.

And liberalism is still alive in religion, too. Tickle's statement about the death of literalism and Scripture losing its divine authority could be considered among the hallmarks of religious liberalism.

following the inner voice

2011-09-10T17:03:00.000-07:00

It's been quite a while since I've used a Dilbert strip to comment on something, or just post it just 'cause.

Anyway, take a gander of this oozey statement. Emphasis mine.

Are Some Sins Worse or Better Than Others? (by Christian Piatt)

Then we got to Jesus so-called Greatest Commandment. The rule upon which all other rules hang, according to him. The two-part rule for a righteous life is to love God with every part of your being, and to love your neighbor (not just your next door neighbor, but everyone else) like you love yourself.

What if I don’t love myself? Does that mean I have permission to treat others as badly as I treat myself? Can I lower the bar on self-care on purpose so I have greater latitude in how I love others?

Finally, we came together on the idea that what Jesus was getting at was that you would know in your heart what is right and what is wrong. If you follow that inner voice – that moral compass, so to speak – you’ll always point in the right direction.

And now, we have this recent Dilbert strip.

And to look at the oozey nonsense above in a more theological way, emphasis mine again.

Jeremiah 17

5Thus says the LORD:"Cursed is the man(K) who trusts in man
and makes flesh his strength,[a]
whose heart turns away from the LORD.
6(L) He is like a shrub in the desert,
(M) and shall not see any good come.
He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness,
in(N) an uninhabited salt land.

7(O) "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
(P) whose trust is the LORD.
8(Q) He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit."

9The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
10(R) "I the LORD search the heart
(S) and test the mind,[b]
(T) to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds."

Jesus was NOT, repeat NOT, making some kind Disneyesque statement about how are hearts will know what is right or wrong, nor was He say that we had to follow some kind of inner voice or inner moral compass. God's commandments were known to the people Jesus was speaking to, and nothing He taught was against them.

attempting the impossible

2011-09-10T09:14:00.000-07:00

Becoming Influencial

"The LORD will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the LORD your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom" (Deut 28:13-14).

I would have to say the body of Christ in America is not the head, but is still the tail. Part of the reason for this is that we have not understood our biblical mandate to have dominion on the earth as was modeled in Genesis with Adam and Eve. When Jesus returned to earth He came to save that which was lost and restore this principle of dominion (Luke 19:10). When Jesus prayed in the Lord's prayer: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:9-10), He was praying that His dominion would be restored on earth just as it is in Heaven.

First, let's put that passage excerpt in it's context.

Deuteronomy 28

1And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice
of Jehovah thy God, to observe to do all his commandments which I
command thee this day, that Jehovah thy God will set thee on high above
all the nations of the earth: 2and all these blessings shall come upon thee,
and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of Jehovah thy
God. 3Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the
field. 4Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground,
and the fruit of thy beasts, the increase of thy cattle, and the young of thy
flock. 5Blessed shall be thy basket and thy kneading-trough. 6Blessed shalt
thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest
out. 7Jehovah will cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be
smitten before thee: they shall come out against thee one way, and shall
flee before thee seven ways. 8Jehovah will command the blessing upon
thee in thy barns, and in all that thou puttest thy hand unto; and he will
bless thee in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee. 9Jehovah will
establish thee for a holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee;
if thou shalt keep the commandments of Jehovah thy God, and walk in his
ways. 10And all the peoples of the earth shall see that thou art called by
the name of Jehovah; and they shall be afraid of thee. 11And Jehovah will
make thee plenteous for good, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of
thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which Jehovah sware
unto thy fathers to give thee. 12Jehovah will open unto thee his good
treasure the heavens, to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless
all the work of thy hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou
shalt not borrow. 13And Jehovah will make thee the head, and not the tail;
and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if thou shalt
hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah thy God, which I command
thee this day, to observe and to do them, 14and shalt not turn aside from
any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand, or to
the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Look at some parts of this passage. First, God was giving this message to the children of Israel, right before they were to go into the Promised Land. As such, it seems rather spurious to take that little excerpt about being the head and not the foot, and trying to apply it the church. Deuteronomy 28 is quite a long chapter, and right after v 14 it goes into a very long discourse about the curses God will send on them if they do not keep all the commandments. Why not focus on them, instead of holding out the thing about.

Second, consider how all-encompassing their obedience had to be. "...to observe to do all his commandments which I command thee this day", "...if thou shalt keep the commandments of Jehovah thy God, and walk in his ways", "... if thou shalt hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them, and shalt not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day". They had to obey ALL of God's commandments, they could not disobey ANY of the words which God had commanded them. It had to be perfect obedience to many chapters worth of commands, I think they begin in chapter 5 and go up to 27.

Israel failed to do that. The Old Testament gives the accounts of their inability to keep them. But they are far from alone in failing to obey God's laws. All of us have sinned, and in showing us, Israel and Gentiles, that we have sinned, the law had done it's duty.

Romans 7
7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not
known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except
the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: 8but sin, finding occasion, wrought
in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the
law sin is dead. 9And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the
commandment came, sin revived, and I died; 10and the commandment,
which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: 11for sin, finding
occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me.
12So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and
good. 13Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid.
But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through
that which is good; — that through the commandment sin might become
exceeding sinful.

Galatians 3
10For as many as are of the
works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one
who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to
do them. 11Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident:
for, The righteous shall live by faith; 12and the law is not of faith; but, He
that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of
the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one
that hangeth on a tree: 14that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of
Abraham in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith.

In tying the so-called dominion mandate to this passage in Deuteronomy about being the head and not the tail, this writer is tying the right to have dominion to obedience to the law. Does it not say that only through following and obeying the law God had given would Israel be the head and not the tail, be above and not below? If that is the condition, then it follows that the yoke of perfect obedience is the yoke these dominionists have taken upon themselves.

Good luck with that. If any dominionist has bothered to read all of what I've written here so far, you've likely already sinned in some way or another in that time. You've already disobeyed. You have disobeyed today, should you live tomorrow you will disobey. If at any time in your life you have disobeyed God's commands, you have forfeited the right to be the head, you have no right to be above anyone else.

ched myers and twisting peter's statement

2011-09-09T09:42:00.000-07:00

At the structural center of Marks story is Jesus famous double question to his disciples, upon which all Christian theology turns:

"Who do the people say that I am?...
Who do you say I am?" (8:27, 29a)

Here Mark boldly transforms teh foundational declaration of Hebrew faith--"God said to Moses, 'I am who I am!" (Exod. 3:14)--into a query. Significantly, Peter sees in this remarkable solicitation a happy occasion for confessional orthodoxy: "You are the Christ!" (8:29b). Yet Jesus responds to Peter as if he were merely another demon attempting to "name" him--he silences him (8:30; cf. 1:25, 3:12, 9:25).

This precipitates what I have called the "confessional crisis" in Mark (8:31-33). Jesus repudiates Messianic triumphalism by invoking the political vocation of the Human One; Peter attempts in turn to repudiate such a "negating" theology. Jesus then utterly problematizes the matter by aligning the Petrine confession (which was, let us not forget, the creed of the churches to which Mark wrote, aand which still read him today) with Satan! The struggle conclude with Jesus' invitation to his disciples to a practice of the cross (8:34ff). Mark thus displaces Peter's confession with Jesus' quandary about losing life in order to save it.
Ched Myers, in his entry """I Will Ask You A Question": Interrogatory Theology", in the book "Theology Without Foundation", edited by Hauerwas, Murphy, and Nation, pp. 100-101

It seems like a theme is starting to pop up here, dealing with some rather bizarre scriptural twistings. I don't know if I can say that the above is among the most bizarre, as the so-called apostles and prophets are among those who regularly go to some strange places, but it may be among the most distasteful.

First, the passage in question.

Mark 8
27And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea
Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do
men say that I am? 28And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and
others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets. 29And he asked them, But
who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the
Christ. 30And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. 31And
he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and
be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be
killed, and after three days rise again. 32And he spake the saying openly.
And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33But he turning about, and
seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan;
for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. 34And he
called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any
man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and
follow me. 35For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and
whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it.
36For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his
life? 37For what should a man give in exchange for his life? 38For
whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he
cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

First, Myers tries to say the Jesus silenced Peter as He silences the demons in other passages. But is that so? Emphases mine.

Mark 1
40And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to
him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 41And
being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched
him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean. 42And straightway the
leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean. 43And he strictly
charged him, and straightway sent him out, 44and saith unto him, See thou
say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for
thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto
them. 45But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread
abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a
city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every
quarter.

Mark 8
31And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through
Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of
Decapolis. 32And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an
impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him.
33And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers
into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue; 34and looking up to
heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
35And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and
he spake plain. 36And he charged them that they should tell no man: but
the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it.
37And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all
things well; he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

Mark 9
1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of
them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the
kingdom of God come with power. 2And after six days Jesus taketh with
him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain
apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them; 3and his
garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can
whiten them. 4And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they
were talking with Jesus. 5And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it
is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee,
and one for Moses, and one for Elijah. 6For he knew not what to answer;
for they became sore afraid. 7And there came a cloud overshadowing them:
and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye
him. 8And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save
Jesus only with themselves. 9And as they were coming down from the
mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they
had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.
10And they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising
again from the dead should mean.

From these passages, we can see that Jesus did not tell only demons to be silent about who He is or things He had done or shown to them. Jesus telling the disciples to not say anything about Him being the Christ at that time does not mean He was equating Peter's statement with something said by demons; iu fact, I think Myers is falling into blasphemy when he says that.

Also, the incident is mentioned in other Gospels. In Matthew, for example, it does like this:

Matthew 16
13Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? 14And they
said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one
of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? 16And
Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not
prevail against it. 19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then
charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the
Christ.21From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and
scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. 22And Peter took
him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall
never be unto thee. 23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind
me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the
things of God, but the things of men.

Interesting that this pasage contains all the elements Myers appeals to, but has other things that perhaps Myers wouldn't like; for example, rather than Jesus repudiating Peter's statement that He is the Christ, Jesus says that he is blessed for making it, that the Father is the one who has shown that to him.

A far cry from Myers' attempts to make Peter's statement the problem, isn't it?

Myers' statement that Jesus tried to align Peter's statement with Satan is simply blasphemy. Peter's statement that Jesus is the Christ was revealed to him by God, yet Myers' says it is aligned with Satan. Would it not be logical, then, that it is Myers who is speaking the words of Satan here, since they contradict Jesus' own statement that Peter's insight was given to him by God?

another case of the text not saying that

2011-09-07T09:18:00.000-07:00

There are time I read something, and I wind up asking "How on Earth did they find that in there?" I gave an example of it a few days ago, but that was from a Sojrone, and that's par for the course for them. This one is from what I think is the other side of the political aisle.

The Dominion Process

Perhaps many of the events mentioned in the Bible as being signs of Christ’s return are instigated by the church.Take for instance Satan’s reaction to the dominion authority of the advancing church.

"Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”
Revelation 12:10-12

According to this verse, many of the subsequent events in the Book of Revelation are due to the fact that the church has taken the initiative and cornered the devil, and like a frightened animal, he comes out fighting because he knows his days are numbered.

So, which of those verses says what this writers says it says?

First, context.

Revelation 12

1And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman arrayed with the sun, and
the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; 2and
she was the child; and she crieth out, travailing in birth, and in pain to be
delivered. 3And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold, a great
red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven
diadems. 4And his tail draweth the third part of the stars of heaven, and
did cast them to the earth: and the dragon standeth before the woman that
is about to be delivered, that when she is delivered he may devour her
child. 5And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the
nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto
his throne. 6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a
place prepared of God, that there they may nourish her a thousand two
hundred and threescore days. 7And there was war in heaven: Michael and
his angels going forth to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and
his angels; 8And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any
more in heaven. 9And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he
that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was
cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him. 10And I
heard a great voice in heaven, saying, Now is come the salvation, and the
power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ: for
the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before our
God day and night. 11And they overcame him because of the blood of the
Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not
their life even unto death. 12Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe for the earth and for the sea: because the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. 13And when the dragon
saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman that
brought forth the man child. 14And there were given to the woman the two
wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her
place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from
the face of the serpent. 15And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the
woman water as a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the
stream. 16And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her
mouth and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make
war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and
hold the testimony of Jesus:

So, again, where is anything said here about the church "taking the initiative" and "cornering the devil"?

The woman mentioned at the first part of the passage seems to represent Israel. Her son seems to be Jesus. Then there is the account of a war in Heaven, and in a blow against the no pre-emptive war people (as if the concept of war in Heaven isn't enough to deflate the extreme pacifists out there), it seems that Michael and his angels start that battle, and even win, casting the dragon from Heaven and to Earth, along with those angels on his side.

The only mention of the church, except maybe at the end, is from the voice John heard, the words the dominionist writer refers to. 11And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life even unto death. Where are the concepts of "taking the initiative" and "cornering the devil" here?

When the devil realizes he has been defeated and cast out of Heaven, who does he persecute? The woman mentioned at the first part of the passage, Israel. And when he couldn't harm her, he turns his attention to who are called "the rest of her seed, that keep the commands of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus". These are Christians, though if it means the whole church or Jewish believers or some other subgroup of Christians, I'm not sure. May be something worth studying into.

But some things are pretty clear in this passage--the devil's hatred is primarily directed at Israel and at Christ. He was not cast out of Heaven by the church cornering him or taking the initiative, but by angels taking the fight to him and his. Even after being cast out of Heaven, he wants to harm Israel. The church is at best a bit player in this passage.

i don't think that passage says that

2011-09-05T08:21:00.000-07:00

Well, when you desperately want to find some kind of justification for your practices, any port in the storm will do, or in this case, any verse or verses pulled completely out of context.

Awakening Creativity in Prayer

Each moment is pregnant with new possibilities waiting to be born, alive with new beginnings, God’s secrets not yet heard, God’s dreams not yet fulfilled. These were the thoughts that lodged in my mind as I meditated on Isaiah 48:6-8 this morning.

Well, to her credit, she at least gives an address. Let's drive on over, shall we.

Isaiah 48

6"You have heard; now see all this;
and will you not declare it?
From this time forth I announce to you new things,
hidden things that you have not known.
7They are created now, not long ago;
before today you have never heard of them,
lest you should say, 'Behold, I knew them.'
8You have never heard, you have never known,
from of old your ear has not been opened.
For I knew that you would surely deal treacherously,
and that from before birth you were called a rebel.

Interesting, especially that last part. Hardly complimentary. Let's check out the neighborhood.

1Hear this, O house of Jacob,
who are called by the name of Israel,
and who came from the waters of Judah,
who swear by the name of the LORD
and confess the God of Israel,
but not in truth or right.
2For they call themselves after the holy city,
and stay themselves on the God of Israel;
the LORD of hosts is his name.

3"The former things I declared of old;
they went out from my mouth, and I announced them;
then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass.
4Because I know that you are obstinate,
and your neck is an iron sinew
and your forehead brass,
5 I declared them to you from of old,
before they came to pass I announced them to you,
lest you should say, 'My idol did them,
my carved image and my metal image commanded them.'

6"You have heard; now see all this;
and will you not declare it?
From this time forth I announce to you new things,
hidden things that you have not known.
7They are created now, not long ago;
before today you have never heard of them,
lest you should say, 'Behold, I knew them.'
8You have never heard, you have never known,
from of old your ear has not been opened.
For I knew that you would surely deal treacherously,
and that from before birth you were called a rebel.

9 "For my name’s sake I defer my anger,
for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off.
10Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another.

12"Listen to me, O Jacob,
and Israel, whom I called!
I am he; I am the first,
and I am the last.
13My hand laid the foundation of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I call to them,
they stand forth together.

14"Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him;
he shall perform his purpose on Babylon,
and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
15 I, even I, have spoken and called him;
I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way.
16 Draw near to me, hear this:
from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,
from the time it came to be I have been there."
And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

17Thus says the LORD,
your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:
"I am the LORD your God,
who teaches you to profit,
who leads you in the way you should go.
18 Oh that you had paid attention to my commandments!
Then your peace would have been like a river,
and your righteousness like the waves of the sea;
19 your offspring would have been like the sand,
and your descendants like its grains;
their name would never be cut off
or destroyed from before me."

20 Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea,
declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it,
send it out to the end of the earth;
say, "The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob!"
21 They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts;
he made water flow for them from the rock;
he split the rock and the water gushed out.

22 "There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked."

So, anyone want to take those verses, in their context, and come up with any way of making them say that "Each moment is pregnant with new possibilities waiting to be born"?

First, who is God addressing? Israel. What is He saying? Well, He seems rather upset with them. He talks about how do seem to be only wanting to put on the show of being His people, but they aren't doing it in truth and in the right. He calls them obstinate, and that they would have tried to credit the things He did for them to the false gods they were constantly worshiping. One can think of the golden calf in the wilderness, when Aaron declared that it was the god that had led them out of Egypt, as an example of that.

God is not happy with them, but He is not done with them. He is refining them, but in a furnace of affliction. He does this for His ownke, that His name will not be profaned, and that no one would give to another, probably idols and false gods and demons, the glory properly due to Him.

There is not the whit of a call here for some kind of mystical practices in prayer, like the lectio divina this Sojrone wants to encourage. If anything, this is a call to Israel to repent for being idolators, rebels, and traitors to God.

Perhaps part of what happened while Jesus was alone in prayer was that he learned new ways to pray, new patterns that had the disciples hungering for what they observed

And right about here, we have something I would guess is closely akin to blasphemy, perhaps even the thing itself--trying to defend one's contemplative mystical practices by creating fictions that Jesus maybe/might have/could have practiced such things, even though there is NOTHING in the Gospels that says that, not even a hint.

This article from Sojo is disgusting. The Bible is subjected to misuse and abuse from this writer.

well, he predicted it, somewhat

2011-08-30T09:35:00.000-07:00

First, what did he somewhat predict?

Q & R: Let's talk about premarital sex

One reason for the scarcity of safe spaces for dialogue will probably be demonstrated in the ways a sentence or two from this reply to your question will be lifted and spread around the internet ... "Can you believe what McLaren said (or didn't say) this time?"

Yep, Brian McLaren had it someewhat right, though I don't intend to lift just a sentence or two here.

First, a side comment--McLaren's blog seems to consist mostly of him replying to e-mails sent to him. One element most of the e-mails he chooses seem to have is that they contain great praise for his works. Just noting.

In this e-mail, a man has questions about if he and his then-fiance may have gone too far. While they were engaged, they had sex. The e-mail is on McLaren's post, so you can read it, and see how he justifies what they did, and how he engages in "If it feels so right, it can't be wrong" reasoning.

A real pastor would likely have gone to passages in the Bible that speak about fornication, sex before marriage, and how it is wrong and a sin against God's laws, something to be repented of. McLaren, well...

You and your (now) wife, it seems to me, took a more Pauline approach: instead of focusing on what things were lawful, you focused on what was expedient (1 Cor. 6:12 - the language sounds a bit clinical in this setting, doesn't it!). Your approach was also highly Jamesian ... focusing on wisdom (James 1) and "the royal law" of love (James 2). You monitored what was happening in your individual souls and the soul of your marriage, and when you felt that what was happening was obsessive and therefore "unfree" and not flowing from good faith (I think this is what you meant by idolatrous?), you changed course.

So, this couple was "Pauline" and "Jamesian", as if they were following what the Bible teaches about sex instead of going against it.

You didn't find a verse to justify what you were doing, and then conclude, "Now we have no more moral responsibility," but instead you tried to live in sync with the Holy Spirit and ultimately chose to be abstinent until your wedding because your heart and conscience made you want to do so.

So, by engaging in sex before they were married, then deciding to quit for a while, they were trying to "live in sync with the Holy Spirit"? What? Is really trying to say that the Holy Spirit was leading this couple to bed with each other before they were married?

Why doesn't McLaren just come out, say what the Bible says about this issue, even if it would disagree with the actions of this McLaren-praiser?

The standard way of engaging issues of sexuality seems to focus on "Where is the line? What is sinful, and what is not?" Then we engage in theological football - playing this verse and and that, seeing how one set of down turns out, followed by the opposing side lining up their verses and playing them. Over time, one side gains yardage and scores, and the game continues. Often (as I also discuss in NKOCy), this approach serves to strengthen what I call a constitutional reading of the Bible, and in that way, whichever team wins, we all lose - if (as I suggest) the constitutional approach is itself problematic, morally compromised, and in need of revision or replacement.

Oh, yes, those nasty people who think that Bible actually teaches us how to live and gives us rules to obey. So, if the people who teach what the Bible says about proper and improper sexual activity win, then somehow we all lose? Or perhaps we lose only when weasel-speak practiioners like McLaren win?

So, Mr. McLaren, in you refusal to correct this couple's sexual activities, you in essence came out in support of it. More than that, in saying that their actions were someone good reflections of teachings in the New Testament, you lend further support to them. You are the one who is wrong, and you are teaching others to practice sin. Shame on you, Mr. McLaren. At least, there should be shame, but I'm doubting you are capable of such a thing.