Right when one might have had hope concerning this coming election, the Evangelical purveyors of superstitious hyper-spiritual practices have gone and ripped it from us.
Intercessors Set up 'David's Tent' For 24/7 Worship Outside White House
I remember they did this last year, before the presidential election. Yeah, how'd that work out, folks?
One of the sure signs that these NAR types are false prophets and teachers can be found simply in this, that when they prophecy and proclaim something, the opposite happens. I remember Lou Engle writing this, "Standing on that basketball court, with the U.S. Supreme court beneath the feet of Jesus and my feet, I declared, "From this day forward there will only be pro-life judges." Well, that didn't happen.
And now, there's this kind of stuff, again. These 24-7 kinds of places have become very popular in some circles, such the IHOP and YWAM crowds, not to mention the group that calls themselves 24-7 Prayer. And it's all hyper-spiritual busywork, all based on a superstitious view that if they do this, God will do something.
Hog and wash.
"David's Tent" is some kind of big cause celebre among these NAR Dominionists. They think there 24-7 music fests will have something to do with making "David's Tent" a reality, even though that's not what the Bible teaches.
Anyway, having any kind of hope in the current political situation is rather a difficult thing even on the best of days, but knowing that thus bunch is out there doing their schtick of false praise and worship just took hope right out the room. Please, folks, just stop, you've already done quite enough damage.
Showing posts with label misplaced priorities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misplaced priorities. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2014
Monday, May 26, 2014
heroes and buffoons
I'm not one who does heroes well. I figure people are like myself--fallen, sinful, doing even the best of works for suspect reasons. I'm not trying to denigrate anyone, for example military people who go into dangerous situations, or firemen and other types of rescue people. There is much to admire in them.
Perhaps I shall make an exception to my skepticism of heroes with these five men, whose names I don't know, nor much of anything else about them. Christian martyrs are people we can admire, and whose courage we can seek to emulate. And these are only a small representation of such Christians, in North Korea and in many other places, who do not deny Christ when threatened by pain or death. I'm giving only a bit of the account on the linked page.
NORTH KOREA RELIGION
But one of my main reasons is to show the buffoonery of too much of what passes for preaching and teaching in places that dare to call themselves churches.
Take a trip over to this site, The Museum of Idolatry, and take a look at what far too many places that call themselves churches are doing. There is perhaps no nicer word for it than "buffoonery". The church is acting the fool, hoping that will make the world like it more.
And, of course, in acting the fool, they have lost the foolishness of preaching, and instead preach foolishness. I've listened to several of their sermons, via Fighting for the Faith, and what they preach is simply not in the Bible. It might have a few out of context Bible verses attached, but anyone who bothers to actually look at what the biblical passage really says would find that the Bible is being severely misused by these people.
What these places that call themselves churches teach is such shallow, buffoonish things as how to improve your sex life, how to make your dreams fulfilled, how to have your best life now. They tell their people how to lose weight, how to get their finances in order, how to change the world. They have wrestling matches, circuses, motorcycle jumping, and many of kinds of entertainment in their churches.
Many make the boast that they are places were "No perfect people are allowed". Apparently not, because Jesus long ago left their buildings.
One of the worst outcomes to this is that their churches are basically filled with cowards. They want a cushy, easy life, and think that the easy of their lives, or the fullness of their bank accounts, means they and God have a good thing going.
I have my suspicions that, should these relevance-driven church leader be put in a similar position as those North Korean churchmen, they would be all too ready to do abandon their beliefs. Heck, most of them can't stand against the current attempts to legalize sexual immorality, and that's hardly serious persecution.
Remember these five men, who did not love their lives even to death. Remember them, and discard the teachers who only tell you what you want to hear.
Perhaps I shall make an exception to my skepticism of heroes with these five men, whose names I don't know, nor much of anything else about them. Christian martyrs are people we can admire, and whose courage we can seek to emulate. And these are only a small representation of such Christians, in North Korea and in many other places, who do not deny Christ when threatened by pain or death. I'm giving only a bit of the account on the linked page.
NORTH KOREA RELIGION
In November 1996, the 25 were brought to the road construction site. Four concentric rectangular rows of spectators were assembled to watch the execution. Interviewee 17 was in the first row. The five leaders to be executed - the pastor, two assistant pastors, and two elders - were bound hand and foot and made to lie down in front of a steamroller. This steamroller was a large construction vehicle imported from Japan with a heavy, huge, and wide steel roller mounted on the front to crush and level the roadway prior to pouring concrete. The other twenty persons were held just to the side. The condemned were accused of being Kiddokyo (Protestant Christian) spies and conspiring to engage in subversive activities. Nevertheless, they were told, “If you abandon religion and serve only Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, you will not be killed.” None of the five said a word. Some of the fellow parishioners assembled to watch the execution cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed beneath the steamroller.Why have this disturbing account? Several reasons. Because it happened, because similar things have happened and are happening, and very likely will happen in the future. Because accounts like this help me stay strong in this increasingly darkening place.
But one of my main reasons is to show the buffoonery of too much of what passes for preaching and teaching in places that dare to call themselves churches.
Take a trip over to this site, The Museum of Idolatry, and take a look at what far too many places that call themselves churches are doing. There is perhaps no nicer word for it than "buffoonery". The church is acting the fool, hoping that will make the world like it more.
And, of course, in acting the fool, they have lost the foolishness of preaching, and instead preach foolishness. I've listened to several of their sermons, via Fighting for the Faith, and what they preach is simply not in the Bible. It might have a few out of context Bible verses attached, but anyone who bothers to actually look at what the biblical passage really says would find that the Bible is being severely misused by these people.
What these places that call themselves churches teach is such shallow, buffoonish things as how to improve your sex life, how to make your dreams fulfilled, how to have your best life now. They tell their people how to lose weight, how to get their finances in order, how to change the world. They have wrestling matches, circuses, motorcycle jumping, and many of kinds of entertainment in their churches.
Many make the boast that they are places were "No perfect people are allowed". Apparently not, because Jesus long ago left their buildings.
One of the worst outcomes to this is that their churches are basically filled with cowards. They want a cushy, easy life, and think that the easy of their lives, or the fullness of their bank accounts, means they and God have a good thing going.
I have my suspicions that, should these relevance-driven church leader be put in a similar position as those North Korean churchmen, they would be all too ready to do abandon their beliefs. Heck, most of them can't stand against the current attempts to legalize sexual immorality, and that's hardly serious persecution.
Remember these five men, who did not love their lives even to death. Remember them, and discard the teachers who only tell you what you want to hear.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
i don't believe in revival
This post is similar to the one where I say that I
don't believe in social justice, and in many ways, it's very similar,
though in much the same way a photo negative is similar to the
photograph.
In the religious section of the liberal and conservative divide, revival serves much the same function among conservatives as social justice does for liberals. It is the goad that makes people get out and do whatever the people in charge want them to do. It is the carrot that is hung before the crowds to make them respond.
Revival is a nebulous concept, and perhaps all the more useful because of it's lack of clarity. What is revival? Hard to say. A church, particular of an older mindset, might have a week of “revival meetings”, which might mean that the church has invited a guest speaker to preach every night that week. But that doesn't seem to be what some today mean by revival.
One might think that the seemingly endless stream of conferences, gatherings, and events that fill stadiums and large mega-churches might qualify as revival, or at least an indication of it. But while such things may be considered good things, they aren't themselves really revival.
Like social justice, revival isn't really something one arrives at so much as something one is constantly trying to arrive at. Just as things are never just enough in the social justice mindset, things are never revived enough in the revival mindset. If you surrendered yourself completely last month, well, that was last month, have you done it today? Are you at this moment completely surrendered now? If not, well, you'd best do it!
And like social justice, revival is tied in to the political and social ambitions of the leaders. In other words, revival is closely tied with Dominianism. Just as a liberal dominionists might dream about a society which embodies their notions of social justice, conservative dominianists dream of a society which embodies what they mean by revival.
Revival isn't just conversion. It's always something more. One must always do more, surrender more, give more, pray more, pray longer, pray more extremely, take a bigger risk, live larger, want more, have bigger experiences, want more and more to change the world, and so on.
I do not believe in revival, just as I do not believe in social justice. I do not believe that revival is the answer, I do not think that if the church prays enough, surrenders enough, gives enough, whatevers enough, then all of a sudden the world will start to like us more, and will finally do what the church wants it to do. I do not believe that if somehow the people in charge of the various aspects of society were to become Christians (in it's loosest definition), then suddenly the country will become a much better place, and might even be well on its way to becoming christianized.
I do not pursue revival. I do not attend all-night meetings where people over and over and over ask God to send revival. I do not go to various places where people say “the Spirit is moving there!”. I sure don't go to church to fall down, bark like a dog, act like a drunk, or any of the inane and bothersome signs of what people have called revival in the all-too-recent past.
I believe in conversion. I believe in the Gospel of salvation through faith in the crucified and risen Christ. I believe that Christians have good works God has given them to do, and that a lot of those works are very mundane things—doing honest work well, looking after your families, loving and serving the people around you.
I also believe that the world hates God, and thus will hate those who are God's. I believe what Jesus said about the same world that hated Him will also hate those who follow Him. I believe what Jesus said about how in this world we will have trouble, but we should be of good cheer because He has overcome the world. I believe that we are more than conquerors while in the midst of lots of terrible stuff like tribulations, persecution, trials, and all kinds of bad situations.
The emotional appeals of revival have grown stale to me. The constant stress on wanting God more does not do much for someone who knows that God is with him. The straining to hear some kind of hard-to-hear voice that may or may not be God has become very suspect, since seeing that such a thing is not taught in the Bible.
If our hope is in revival, our hope is in the wrong place.
In the religious section of the liberal and conservative divide, revival serves much the same function among conservatives as social justice does for liberals. It is the goad that makes people get out and do whatever the people in charge want them to do. It is the carrot that is hung before the crowds to make them respond.
Revival is a nebulous concept, and perhaps all the more useful because of it's lack of clarity. What is revival? Hard to say. A church, particular of an older mindset, might have a week of “revival meetings”, which might mean that the church has invited a guest speaker to preach every night that week. But that doesn't seem to be what some today mean by revival.
One might think that the seemingly endless stream of conferences, gatherings, and events that fill stadiums and large mega-churches might qualify as revival, or at least an indication of it. But while such things may be considered good things, they aren't themselves really revival.
Like social justice, revival isn't really something one arrives at so much as something one is constantly trying to arrive at. Just as things are never just enough in the social justice mindset, things are never revived enough in the revival mindset. If you surrendered yourself completely last month, well, that was last month, have you done it today? Are you at this moment completely surrendered now? If not, well, you'd best do it!
And like social justice, revival is tied in to the political and social ambitions of the leaders. In other words, revival is closely tied with Dominianism. Just as a liberal dominionists might dream about a society which embodies their notions of social justice, conservative dominianists dream of a society which embodies what they mean by revival.
Revival isn't just conversion. It's always something more. One must always do more, surrender more, give more, pray more, pray longer, pray more extremely, take a bigger risk, live larger, want more, have bigger experiences, want more and more to change the world, and so on.
I do not believe in revival, just as I do not believe in social justice. I do not believe that revival is the answer, I do not think that if the church prays enough, surrenders enough, gives enough, whatevers enough, then all of a sudden the world will start to like us more, and will finally do what the church wants it to do. I do not believe that if somehow the people in charge of the various aspects of society were to become Christians (in it's loosest definition), then suddenly the country will become a much better place, and might even be well on its way to becoming christianized.
I do not pursue revival. I do not attend all-night meetings where people over and over and over ask God to send revival. I do not go to various places where people say “the Spirit is moving there!”. I sure don't go to church to fall down, bark like a dog, act like a drunk, or any of the inane and bothersome signs of what people have called revival in the all-too-recent past.
I believe in conversion. I believe in the Gospel of salvation through faith in the crucified and risen Christ. I believe that Christians have good works God has given them to do, and that a lot of those works are very mundane things—doing honest work well, looking after your families, loving and serving the people around you.
I also believe that the world hates God, and thus will hate those who are God's. I believe what Jesus said about the same world that hated Him will also hate those who follow Him. I believe what Jesus said about how in this world we will have trouble, but we should be of good cheer because He has overcome the world. I believe that we are more than conquerors while in the midst of lots of terrible stuff like tribulations, persecution, trials, and all kinds of bad situations.
The emotional appeals of revival have grown stale to me. The constant stress on wanting God more does not do much for someone who knows that God is with him. The straining to hear some kind of hard-to-hear voice that may or may not be God has become very suspect, since seeing that such a thing is not taught in the Bible.
If our hope is in revival, our hope is in the wrong place.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
disturbing look at the prosperity gospel in Ghana
First, HT to Delight in Truth, which is where I first found this video.
This is a pretty disturbing look at how the prosperity gospel in being used and spread in the nation of Ghana.
The">http://vimeo.com/7196941">The Prosperity Gospel
from The">http://vimeo.com/user2335876">The Global Conversation on Vimeo.https://vimeo.com">Vimeo.>
This is a pretty disturbing look at how the prosperity gospel in being used and spread in the nation of Ghana.
The">http://vimeo.com/7196941">The Prosperity Gospel
from The">http://vimeo.com/user2335876">The Global Conversation on Vimeo.https://vimeo.com">Vimeo.>
Sunday, January 5, 2014
book review--Authentic Fire by Michael Brown
not the worst book i've read, but maybe the most disappointing
This book is a response to Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship by John MacArthur.There is some meat in this book. A lot of the goofiness that fills so many books from those on the charismatic side of things is absent here. Brown's defense of continuationism in chapter 6 is at least plausible, though I've seen some cessationist arguments that are equally so, too.
But there are simply times when Brown's arguments are far from convincing, and seem, at best, forced.
For example, when he goes on about what he refers to as the genetic fallacy, it reminded me how often I've heard or read of charismatic churches or organization go on about their spiritual genetics or spiritual DNA, holding up those in the past as examples to followed. For example, in Jesus Culture: Living a Life That Transforms the World, the author, while not completely denying their faults, holds up several very questionable people as example of those he considers to be revivalists.
If that is considered a legitimate practice, then MacArthur's referring to the at best questionable aspect to Azusa Street and those who lead it is no less legitimate.
To my mind, one of the most questionable things Brown does is an attempt to spin some stats about how popular the prosperity gospel has become across the world. "What the Strange Fire camp did not emphasize strongly enough (or, at times, at all) was that: 1) A majority of the population in some of the countries surveyed is extremely poor, which means that "material prosperity" for many of these believers simply meant, "Having enough food for my family so we won't starve," or, "Having a roof over my head that doesn't leak." Is it so heretical to believe that God will grant that to His children? 20 (Note that, according to some estimates, 70% of the world's population lives on less than $ 3 per day.)" (Kindle Locations 2195-2199).
I'm not sure how Brown concludes that because a majority of people are in extreme poverty, than that means they are not open to believing the prosperity gospel. Do not prosperity gospel preachers prey on the very poor as well as the more well-off? To show the truth behind the stat without Brown's attempt at spin, I'd like to recommend this book Where Are We Heading To? by Thuso Kewana, an African minister who has seen the damage done by the prosperity gospel. It's a short book, well worth reading. He mentions, for example, pastors who boast about how much their suits cost, or one who taught that those who do not tithe should be cast out from the church.
An article by Sam Storms favorably reprinted in this book sums up the main problem with the current charismatic movement, no matter if Brown's arguments concerning continuationism are valid or not. Storms tries to defend the idea the modern-day prophets do not have to live up to the plainly stated OT standard of being completely correct in the prophetic words they give, but can made mistakes, and he even tries to read between the lines of certain NT passages to find this idea of his, though it is not plainly taught in the NT. A good response to this kind of teaching is this book, The Fallible Prophets of New Calvinism: An Analysis, Critique, and Exhortation Concerning the Contemporary Doctrine of "Fallible Prophecy" by Michael Beasley, and I recommend it pretty highly.
If this book left me with one overriding impression, it's that, with the best will in the world, Brown is insuring that nothing in the charismatic churches is going to change. False prophets will continue to prophecy falsely, and charismatics will not do much about it because they are too afraid of "quenching the Spirit" (as if God was not the one who set up the standard of perfection in prophecy). The prosperity gospel will continue to spread, especially as it is currently morphing in the pursuit of one's dreams and living a fulfilled life, and there will be little or no accountability concerning it. The craziness will continue, and will continue to get worse and worse, and Brown will continue to get more worked up over those who try to expose and refute it than anyone actually spreading it.
This book is a response to Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship by John MacArthur.There is some meat in this book. A lot of the goofiness that fills so many books from those on the charismatic side of things is absent here. Brown's defense of continuationism in chapter 6 is at least plausible, though I've seen some cessationist arguments that are equally so, too.
But there are simply times when Brown's arguments are far from convincing, and seem, at best, forced.
For example, when he goes on about what he refers to as the genetic fallacy, it reminded me how often I've heard or read of charismatic churches or organization go on about their spiritual genetics or spiritual DNA, holding up those in the past as examples to followed. For example, in Jesus Culture: Living a Life That Transforms the World, the author, while not completely denying their faults, holds up several very questionable people as example of those he considers to be revivalists.
If that is considered a legitimate practice, then MacArthur's referring to the at best questionable aspect to Azusa Street and those who lead it is no less legitimate.
To my mind, one of the most questionable things Brown does is an attempt to spin some stats about how popular the prosperity gospel has become across the world. "What the Strange Fire camp did not emphasize strongly enough (or, at times, at all) was that: 1) A majority of the population in some of the countries surveyed is extremely poor, which means that "material prosperity" for many of these believers simply meant, "Having enough food for my family so we won't starve," or, "Having a roof over my head that doesn't leak." Is it so heretical to believe that God will grant that to His children? 20 (Note that, according to some estimates, 70% of the world's population lives on less than $ 3 per day.)" (Kindle Locations 2195-2199).
I'm not sure how Brown concludes that because a majority of people are in extreme poverty, than that means they are not open to believing the prosperity gospel. Do not prosperity gospel preachers prey on the very poor as well as the more well-off? To show the truth behind the stat without Brown's attempt at spin, I'd like to recommend this book Where Are We Heading To? by Thuso Kewana, an African minister who has seen the damage done by the prosperity gospel. It's a short book, well worth reading. He mentions, for example, pastors who boast about how much their suits cost, or one who taught that those who do not tithe should be cast out from the church.
An article by Sam Storms favorably reprinted in this book sums up the main problem with the current charismatic movement, no matter if Brown's arguments concerning continuationism are valid or not. Storms tries to defend the idea the modern-day prophets do not have to live up to the plainly stated OT standard of being completely correct in the prophetic words they give, but can made mistakes, and he even tries to read between the lines of certain NT passages to find this idea of his, though it is not plainly taught in the NT. A good response to this kind of teaching is this book, The Fallible Prophets of New Calvinism: An Analysis, Critique, and Exhortation Concerning the Contemporary Doctrine of "Fallible Prophecy" by Michael Beasley, and I recommend it pretty highly.
If this book left me with one overriding impression, it's that, with the best will in the world, Brown is insuring that nothing in the charismatic churches is going to change. False prophets will continue to prophecy falsely, and charismatics will not do much about it because they are too afraid of "quenching the Spirit" (as if God was not the one who set up the standard of perfection in prophecy). The prosperity gospel will continue to spread, especially as it is currently morphing in the pursuit of one's dreams and living a fulfilled life, and there will be little or no accountability concerning it. The craziness will continue, and will continue to get worse and worse, and Brown will continue to get more worked up over those who try to expose and refute it than anyone actually spreading it.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
death does not whitewash
Christian Leaders Mourn Loss, Honor Memory of Paul Crouch
I left a comment there earlier, but it is now gone. My comment was something along the lines that, while I give condolences to this man's family and those close to him for his passing, and hope that he found grace and repentance, the truth is Paul Crouch taught and spread the worst of the worst in modern heresies, bad theologies, and aberrant practices, and his life and 'ministry' are not thing to hold up as examples.
Although Charisma has, for some reason, seen fit to remove such a comment, that doesn't take away from the truth in it. Simply because someone has died does not mean that we can or should whitewash their lives. There may be a place for grieving with those who are grieving in this situation, but spreading fictions is only giving false hope.
There is little in the memory of Paul Crouch that deserves honor. How many people have been and still are hell-bound because they believed the false gospels spread by the false teachers on his station? How many people have lost their money because they gave it to some TBN teacher who promised them 10-fold or 100-fold from God if they gave until it hurts? How many thought they were going to be healed if they did whatever some TBN fake healer told them to do?
No, grieve for him and those close to him, but Paul Crouch was no hero. The main thing to gain from his life is what NOT to do, what NOT to teach. Perhaps the main thing one could mourn is that one who had such potential influence wasted it on robbing widows to fatten his own accounts, living in luxury while begging from the poor for even more.
I left a comment there earlier, but it is now gone. My comment was something along the lines that, while I give condolences to this man's family and those close to him for his passing, and hope that he found grace and repentance, the truth is Paul Crouch taught and spread the worst of the worst in modern heresies, bad theologies, and aberrant practices, and his life and 'ministry' are not thing to hold up as examples.
Although Charisma has, for some reason, seen fit to remove such a comment, that doesn't take away from the truth in it. Simply because someone has died does not mean that we can or should whitewash their lives. There may be a place for grieving with those who are grieving in this situation, but spreading fictions is only giving false hope.
There is little in the memory of Paul Crouch that deserves honor. How many people have been and still are hell-bound because they believed the false gospels spread by the false teachers on his station? How many people have lost their money because they gave it to some TBN teacher who promised them 10-fold or 100-fold from God if they gave until it hurts? How many thought they were going to be healed if they did whatever some TBN fake healer told them to do?
No, grieve for him and those close to him, but Paul Crouch was no hero. The main thing to gain from his life is what NOT to do, what NOT to teach. Perhaps the main thing one could mourn is that one who had such potential influence wasted it on robbing widows to fatten his own accounts, living in luxury while begging from the poor for even more.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
i don't believe in social justice
This is a re-post, with a few corrections.
First, there is the question "What is social justice?" That's probably one of the concepts emergents and others who use it aren't likely to define very well. If you look back a few months, you'll see where in Tony Jones' book "The New Christians", he relates how in one emergent church a woman was wearing a t-shirt saying she was a straight woman for gay rights because her Bible teaches social justice.
Perhaps we aren't involved in social justice, because we can see through the rhetoric of social justice, and know what it is--a thin veil behind which leftist policies and politics are pushed.
Social justice seems to be about the legalizing of sexual immorality. It's also seems to be about the enforced silence of those who teach the Bible's stand on such immorality.
Social justice seems to be about punishing some crimes more than others because of perceived "hate" involved, even when unproven (one may almost say 'especially when unproven').
Social justice seems to be about the redistribution of wealth through socialistic economical policies.
Social justice seems to be about scaring people into being "green", despite the evidence against any such thing as global warming.
Social justice seems to be about going into histrionics over deaths in war, while either downplaying over even supporting the many more who die in abortion.
I do not believe in social justice. I do, however, believe in justice. And I believe in compassion.
I do not believe that practicing theft through socialism will solve the plight of the poor. To borrow a quote I read in a comic book, "Communism is the equal distribution of poverty". To try to equalize the field (except for a handful of elites at the top who will find reasons to give themselves special privileges, which is one thing that happened in Soviet Russia), will only result in all being poor, and none being really helped. And there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred.
I do not believe that justice demands that we recognize and legitimize sexual immorality. If anything, justice and compassion demands that we call these things the sins they are.
I do not believe that justice demands that we cave in to environmental fearmongers, especially when truth of their claims is being questioned, and when there is such an obvious political agenda behind it.
In regards to how we are to care for the poor, there are things taught in the Bible that should be of help in how to properly do so.
It may be strange that Paul tells the Thessalonians to NOT help some among them who had stopped working and were only idling their time waiting for Jesus to return. He says they should get back to their work.
It may seem strange that Paul tells another church to be wary of what widows they should help and support.
It may seem strange that one can see things in Proverbs that don't seem very kind about some kinds of poor people.
It may seem strange that it's in the Bible that we find the phrase "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat".
It may seem strange that we aren't told that the Samaritan who found the guy left for dead didn't return home, find a few likeminded people, and start wandering the highways and byways looking for people left along the road, robbed or otherwise in ill fortune. He helped one man who was on his way, as he was about his own business.
I know that there are things said about helping the needy, I'm saying the issue is more complex than many emergents seem to want to accept.
They also seem to think that because Christians don't do things their way, then they aren't doing them. They likely don't recognize that there are Christians who give when they have the opportunities, whose generosity takes many forms, who do things quietly and with their eyes open
Why aren't more Christians involved in social justice? Are we callous and uncaring? We don't think so. We can both learn and do
Ken and Deborah Loyd, in the book An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 272
First, there is the question "What is social justice?" That's probably one of the concepts emergents and others who use it aren't likely to define very well. If you look back a few months, you'll see where in Tony Jones' book "The New Christians", he relates how in one emergent church a woman was wearing a t-shirt saying she was a straight woman for gay rights because her Bible teaches social justice.
Journey doesn't have an "official statement" about homosexuality, but there's obviously enough freedom in the community for Courtney to wear her beliefs on her shirt.
Courtney's shirt.
Straight Chrisitians for Gay Rights
(My Bible Teaches Social Justice)
Tony Jones, The New Christians, pp. 198, 197
Perhaps we aren't involved in social justice, because we can see through the rhetoric of social justice, and know what it is--a thin veil behind which leftist policies and politics are pushed.
Social justice seems to be about the legalizing of sexual immorality. It's also seems to be about the enforced silence of those who teach the Bible's stand on such immorality.
Social justice seems to be about punishing some crimes more than others because of perceived "hate" involved, even when unproven (one may almost say 'especially when unproven').
Social justice seems to be about the redistribution of wealth through socialistic economical policies.
Social justice seems to be about scaring people into being "green", despite the evidence against any such thing as global warming.
Social justice seems to be about going into histrionics over deaths in war, while either downplaying over even supporting the many more who die in abortion.
I do not believe in social justice. I do, however, believe in justice. And I believe in compassion.
I do not believe that practicing theft through socialism will solve the plight of the poor. To borrow a quote I read in a comic book, "Communism is the equal distribution of poverty". To try to equalize the field (except for a handful of elites at the top who will find reasons to give themselves special privileges, which is one thing that happened in Soviet Russia), will only result in all being poor, and none being really helped. And there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred.
I do not believe that justice demands that we recognize and legitimize sexual immorality. If anything, justice and compassion demands that we call these things the sins they are.
I do not believe that justice demands that we cave in to environmental fearmongers, especially when truth of their claims is being questioned, and when there is such an obvious political agenda behind it.
In regards to how we are to care for the poor, there are things taught in the Bible that should be of help in how to properly do so.
It may be strange that Paul tells the Thessalonians to NOT help some among them who had stopped working and were only idling their time waiting for Jesus to return. He says they should get back to their work.
It may seem strange that Paul tells another church to be wary of what widows they should help and support.
It may seem strange that one can see things in Proverbs that don't seem very kind about some kinds of poor people.
It may seem strange that it's in the Bible that we find the phrase "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat".
It may seem strange that we aren't told that the Samaritan who found the guy left for dead didn't return home, find a few likeminded people, and start wandering the highways and byways looking for people left along the road, robbed or otherwise in ill fortune. He helped one man who was on his way, as he was about his own business.
I know that there are things said about helping the needy, I'm saying the issue is more complex than many emergents seem to want to accept.
They also seem to think that because Christians don't do things their way, then they aren't doing them. They likely don't recognize that there are Christians who give when they have the opportunities, whose generosity takes many forms, who do things quietly and with their eyes open
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
book review–Invading the Seven Mountains with Intercession by Tommi Femrite
prostituting prayer
A lot could be said about this book, little if any of it good.
It’s basically unbiblical. The author constantly makes claims that have no biblical support. "The kingdom of God encompasses all Seven Mountains. That means God already has a strategy for each mountain in every culture around the world." (p. 14). She gives no place where this is said in the Bible. "Our prayers have the power to stir up the heavens and create an atmosphere in which the Holy Spirit has complete freedom to move in power." Whatever. Unless she can show where that is taught in the Bible, which she doesn’t, I’m not going to buy into it. "The truth is, apostolic intercessors are the ones who open the pathway between heaven and earth. Our value as apostolic intercessors is far greater than we can ever imagine." (p. 83). For one thing, you’ll find nothing in the Bible about "apostolic intercessors"; for another, this notion that any human opens a pathway between heaven and earth is, at best, borderline blasphemy. Only One has opened the way to God, Jesus Christ.
It’s more than a little loopy. "Simply put, whoever ascends to the top of the mountain conquers— and therefore rules—the mountain." (p. 11). Really? I would guess that the last person who would claim to rule Mr. Everest would be one who has scaled it and lived to tell about it. "...God is waiting for us to apply His divine strategy in every area of every society on the face of this earth. And He knows we can bring about His victorious kingdom!" (p. 14). We bring about God’s kingdom? Huh??? God believes in us? Wow, ego-boosting much? Playing to pride? A bit high on yourself? "As Psalm 103:20 indicates, angels are assigned to "perform His word, obeying the voice of His word." Because we are God’s voice on earth, then, we have the power to initiate heavenly activity." (p. 98). Psalm 103:20 has nothing to do with us being able to order around angels, and that sure isn’t taught anywhere else in the Bible.
The claims of this book are rather...questionable. One thing you have to understand is that people connected with the NAR, like this author is, are not the most trustworthy, and that has been shown over and over. Faith healers may claim to have healed untold thousands of people, until someone actually investigates those claims and learns that, in reality, no one was really healed. So, when this author claims that your business will do better if you get their people to pray for you, well, there is a phrase I’ve heard a few times, "Rely but verify", which would be wise advice. Or better yet, verify first, and then still don’t rely, because this author’s teachings and organization are not biblical at all.
Finally, there is simply the reality that this book is little more than an extended infomercial for her organization, that essentially sells these "intercessors" to the reader, if the reader meets the correct criteria, of course. "Despite the potential for such turnaround, many people balk at the notion of paying intercessors to pray for a business." (p. 206). Gahh–lee, I wonder why? She tries to rationalize it, but the truth is, there are things that lose something when they are put on the market. A man making love to his wife is fine, but if he pays another woman so he can make love to that other woman, that’s something else entirely. Concerning this author’s attempts to prostitute prayer, well, I’ll point you to Acts 8, where a man tried to buy powers given by the Holy Spirit, and in no uncertain terms was rebuked by Peter.
That should be enough to show that this book is rubbish, and should be avoided.
A lot could be said about this book, little if any of it good.
It’s basically unbiblical. The author constantly makes claims that have no biblical support. "The kingdom of God encompasses all Seven Mountains. That means God already has a strategy for each mountain in every culture around the world." (p. 14). She gives no place where this is said in the Bible. "Our prayers have the power to stir up the heavens and create an atmosphere in which the Holy Spirit has complete freedom to move in power." Whatever. Unless she can show where that is taught in the Bible, which she doesn’t, I’m not going to buy into it. "The truth is, apostolic intercessors are the ones who open the pathway between heaven and earth. Our value as apostolic intercessors is far greater than we can ever imagine." (p. 83). For one thing, you’ll find nothing in the Bible about "apostolic intercessors"; for another, this notion that any human opens a pathway between heaven and earth is, at best, borderline blasphemy. Only One has opened the way to God, Jesus Christ.
It’s more than a little loopy. "Simply put, whoever ascends to the top of the mountain conquers— and therefore rules—the mountain." (p. 11). Really? I would guess that the last person who would claim to rule Mr. Everest would be one who has scaled it and lived to tell about it. "...God is waiting for us to apply His divine strategy in every area of every society on the face of this earth. And He knows we can bring about His victorious kingdom!" (p. 14). We bring about God’s kingdom? Huh??? God believes in us? Wow, ego-boosting much? Playing to pride? A bit high on yourself? "As Psalm 103:20 indicates, angels are assigned to "perform His word, obeying the voice of His word." Because we are God’s voice on earth, then, we have the power to initiate heavenly activity." (p. 98). Psalm 103:20 has nothing to do with us being able to order around angels, and that sure isn’t taught anywhere else in the Bible.
The claims of this book are rather...questionable. One thing you have to understand is that people connected with the NAR, like this author is, are not the most trustworthy, and that has been shown over and over. Faith healers may claim to have healed untold thousands of people, until someone actually investigates those claims and learns that, in reality, no one was really healed. So, when this author claims that your business will do better if you get their people to pray for you, well, there is a phrase I’ve heard a few times, "Rely but verify", which would be wise advice. Or better yet, verify first, and then still don’t rely, because this author’s teachings and organization are not biblical at all.
Finally, there is simply the reality that this book is little more than an extended infomercial for her organization, that essentially sells these "intercessors" to the reader, if the reader meets the correct criteria, of course. "Despite the potential for such turnaround, many people balk at the notion of paying intercessors to pray for a business." (p. 206). Gahh–lee, I wonder why? She tries to rationalize it, but the truth is, there are things that lose something when they are put on the market. A man making love to his wife is fine, but if he pays another woman so he can make love to that other woman, that’s something else entirely. Concerning this author’s attempts to prostitute prayer, well, I’ll point you to Acts 8, where a man tried to buy powers given by the Holy Spirit, and in no uncertain terms was rebuked by Peter.
That should be enough to show that this book is rubbish, and should be avoided.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
book review--The Future of Worship by Nathan Byrd
Christian Feng-shui
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.
This is one of those books where the author makes a few valid points, but then goes completely loopy when it comes to his solutions.
For example, he's right to be concerned about things in the church today, such as how churches have become overly concerned with entertainment, being seeker-friendly, and basically becoming places for raising funds. When he recounts a time he did not give when a speaker insisted he did not want bills as small as $5, I agree with him completely on that decision.
But then he talks about his cures for these things, and they're every bit as wacked as anything any seeker megachurch is doing.
"There is a sound for worldly music and another sound for holy music, and the two shall never mix." p. 62. I think we may fairly ask where the Bible teaches this about music? He also tries to make this kind of comparison: flesh = rhythm, soul = harmony, and spirit = melody. Nowhere does the Bible teach such a thing. "Melody appeals to the spirit and fosters entry into the presence of the Almighty. Melody doesn't necessarily need harmony and certainly doesn't need rhythm." p. 77. So, anyone have any Scriptural passages saying that melody fosters entry into the presence of God? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
"I believe timeless music is divine and brings a heavenly context with it because there is no timing in Heaven. Since Heaven is a timeless environment, there is no need for percussion instruments in Heaven." p. 78 Who knew that the music closest to Heaven's music is Enya's? Or that God didn't have drums in Heaven? I certainly can't think of any biblical passage telling us that Heaven is a percussion-free zone.
One favorite NAR trick is take something good, and then add so much unscriptural stuff to it, that it's almost unrecognizable. This author does this to worship. Worship is a good thing, but by the time he keeps adding one unscriptural thing to it after another, one hardly recognizes anything biblical in his worship. "Spiritual continuity and a commitment to perfection bring the worshipers into one accord; when that sound and type of worship is presented before the throne, it takes on a "one-ness" quality in the spirit realm." p. 124. Funny how the Bible doesn't teach this at all, nor can he find anything about it in the Bible, only tries to shoehorn it into the account of Solomon's dedication of the Temple.
"The third dimension of worship is a place where there is no music provided by a human. There is no pastoral encouragement, no apostolic oversight, no prophetic impartation, no singing inspiration, but just the glory of the Presence that Israel experienced throughout their days in the wilderness." Well, talk about something the Bible says absolutely nothing about. See, something added on, completely without biblical support, but merely something this guy's making up from his own imaginations, and completely wacky.
Perhaps his worst ideas have to do with the reason this review is called "Christian Feng-shui", his ideas about church buildings that what should be included in them.
"...we need to redesign, renovate, and realign the church building to be transformed into the house of YHWH. We need to design the interior according to what is prescribed specifically in Scripture so that the Presence can come and remain in our midst forever." Oh, really? Do tell. "What I scripturally advocate is that we make YHWH preeminent by giving Him His proper and prominent space in the sanctuary. The only way I know to do that is by providing a Most Holy Place with the Ark and the cherubim." p. 245. What!!! Is he claiming to have found the Ark of the Covenant? Did he contact Indiana Jones to learn where it could be found? "If that barrier is truly removed and we truly have access to the Father through the Son, then the Church needs an opportunity to prove that out with a tangible location. The Church needs a Most Holy Place!" So, churches need to be laid out so that they have a Most Holy Place, complete with an Ark of the Covenant?
The supposed Tabernacle of David is the current big cause celebre among NAR worship leaders. They all want to establish this kind of place, in some way, shape, form, or fashion. Byrd, for example, says that Amos 9:11 tells us that God will rebuild this Taberacle, though reading that verse in context seems to say otherwise. He says that David established 24-7 music at this tabernacle, though he can offer no scriptural support for this claim.
Finally, he goes to a place that I can only think of as being Gnostic. "G-d is a Spirit, the Scripture says. He made me out of Himself in such a way that I, in a very small way, represent Him in this earthly container. So in essence, He is calling me to present the most authentic part of my being back to Him for true fellowship. He doesn't want me to present my corrupted and corroded flesh, nor does He desire my wayward and distracted soul; He desires that part of me which best represents Himself, my spirit." pp. 228-229. This is Gnosticism--God isn't interested in our bodies, but only in the spirit. Read I Thessalonians 5:23 and Mark 12:30 to see how wrong this guy's teachings here really are.
This touches a little bit on the bizarre things this guy is putting out there. Trust me, there's more.
So, where in the New Testament does anyone say that the churches need to provide some kind of literal space for a real or metaphorical Most Holy Place or Ark of the Covenant? Maybe Paul mentioned to Timothy or Titus that they needed be careful about the buildings they used when their congregations would meet? That it needed to have a certain kind of layout, that it needed to have a room that they would call a Most Holy Place? That they something they would call the Ark of the Covenant? That they needed to be careful that the music they played didn't sound too much like the music they heard outside the church? That they needed to make sure the rhythm section didn't get too loud, and maybe that it wasn't necessary since there are no rhythm sections in Heaven?
I think those questions almost answer themselves. Among the many concerns the epistle writers had for the churches, they make no mention at all of the need for churches to be careful of the types of buildings they met in, what kinds of music they put their songs to, the need for them to have a Most Holy Place, or any other thing that Byrds wants us to fret about.
What Byrd is doing is much the same thing that happened in the church in Galatia, where some came and tried to put the believers back under the Law. Paul's response to this was not weak or unclear at all, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- 6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?" Galatians 3. His words of warning are as applicable against Byrd's form of legalism as against the kind that was infiltrating the Galatian church, "10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."
Byrd's book is all legalism, and even he himself does not live up to his own rules. His church has no Most Holy Place, it has no Ark of the Covenant. He can call some room or space his Most Holy Place, he may even have some object he calls the Ark of the Covenant, but they aren't. He picks and chooses aspects of the tabernacle of ancient Israel, and put us under bondage to his ideas, but he himself makes no attempt to obey all the things taught about that tabernacle.
All of this is basically spiritualized busywork. The church has far more important concerns than about whether our buildings are designed correctly or incorrectly, and these kind of teachings do little more than distract the church from it's mission of preaching the Gospel and encouraging believers to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil world.
The things taught in this book are unnecessary, and even dangerous.
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.
This is one of those books where the author makes a few valid points, but then goes completely loopy when it comes to his solutions.
For example, he's right to be concerned about things in the church today, such as how churches have become overly concerned with entertainment, being seeker-friendly, and basically becoming places for raising funds. When he recounts a time he did not give when a speaker insisted he did not want bills as small as $5, I agree with him completely on that decision.
But then he talks about his cures for these things, and they're every bit as wacked as anything any seeker megachurch is doing.
"There is a sound for worldly music and another sound for holy music, and the two shall never mix." p. 62. I think we may fairly ask where the Bible teaches this about music? He also tries to make this kind of comparison: flesh = rhythm, soul = harmony, and spirit = melody. Nowhere does the Bible teach such a thing. "Melody appeals to the spirit and fosters entry into the presence of the Almighty. Melody doesn't necessarily need harmony and certainly doesn't need rhythm." p. 77. So, anyone have any Scriptural passages saying that melody fosters entry into the presence of God? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
"I believe timeless music is divine and brings a heavenly context with it because there is no timing in Heaven. Since Heaven is a timeless environment, there is no need for percussion instruments in Heaven." p. 78 Who knew that the music closest to Heaven's music is Enya's? Or that God didn't have drums in Heaven? I certainly can't think of any biblical passage telling us that Heaven is a percussion-free zone.
One favorite NAR trick is take something good, and then add so much unscriptural stuff to it, that it's almost unrecognizable. This author does this to worship. Worship is a good thing, but by the time he keeps adding one unscriptural thing to it after another, one hardly recognizes anything biblical in his worship. "Spiritual continuity and a commitment to perfection bring the worshipers into one accord; when that sound and type of worship is presented before the throne, it takes on a "one-ness" quality in the spirit realm." p. 124. Funny how the Bible doesn't teach this at all, nor can he find anything about it in the Bible, only tries to shoehorn it into the account of Solomon's dedication of the Temple.
"The third dimension of worship is a place where there is no music provided by a human. There is no pastoral encouragement, no apostolic oversight, no prophetic impartation, no singing inspiration, but just the glory of the Presence that Israel experienced throughout their days in the wilderness." Well, talk about something the Bible says absolutely nothing about. See, something added on, completely without biblical support, but merely something this guy's making up from his own imaginations, and completely wacky.
Perhaps his worst ideas have to do with the reason this review is called "Christian Feng-shui", his ideas about church buildings that what should be included in them.
"...we need to redesign, renovate, and realign the church building to be transformed into the house of YHWH. We need to design the interior according to what is prescribed specifically in Scripture so that the Presence can come and remain in our midst forever." Oh, really? Do tell. "What I scripturally advocate is that we make YHWH preeminent by giving Him His proper and prominent space in the sanctuary. The only way I know to do that is by providing a Most Holy Place with the Ark and the cherubim." p. 245. What!!! Is he claiming to have found the Ark of the Covenant? Did he contact Indiana Jones to learn where it could be found? "If that barrier is truly removed and we truly have access to the Father through the Son, then the Church needs an opportunity to prove that out with a tangible location. The Church needs a Most Holy Place!" So, churches need to be laid out so that they have a Most Holy Place, complete with an Ark of the Covenant?
The supposed Tabernacle of David is the current big cause celebre among NAR worship leaders. They all want to establish this kind of place, in some way, shape, form, or fashion. Byrd, for example, says that Amos 9:11 tells us that God will rebuild this Taberacle, though reading that verse in context seems to say otherwise. He says that David established 24-7 music at this tabernacle, though he can offer no scriptural support for this claim.
Finally, he goes to a place that I can only think of as being Gnostic. "G-d is a Spirit, the Scripture says. He made me out of Himself in such a way that I, in a very small way, represent Him in this earthly container. So in essence, He is calling me to present the most authentic part of my being back to Him for true fellowship. He doesn't want me to present my corrupted and corroded flesh, nor does He desire my wayward and distracted soul; He desires that part of me which best represents Himself, my spirit." pp. 228-229. This is Gnosticism--God isn't interested in our bodies, but only in the spirit. Read I Thessalonians 5:23 and Mark 12:30 to see how wrong this guy's teachings here really are.
This touches a little bit on the bizarre things this guy is putting out there. Trust me, there's more.
So, where in the New Testament does anyone say that the churches need to provide some kind of literal space for a real or metaphorical Most Holy Place or Ark of the Covenant? Maybe Paul mentioned to Timothy or Titus that they needed be careful about the buildings they used when their congregations would meet? That it needed to have a certain kind of layout, that it needed to have a room that they would call a Most Holy Place? That they something they would call the Ark of the Covenant? That they needed to be careful that the music they played didn't sound too much like the music they heard outside the church? That they needed to make sure the rhythm section didn't get too loud, and maybe that it wasn't necessary since there are no rhythm sections in Heaven?
I think those questions almost answer themselves. Among the many concerns the epistle writers had for the churches, they make no mention at all of the need for churches to be careful of the types of buildings they met in, what kinds of music they put their songs to, the need for them to have a Most Holy Place, or any other thing that Byrds wants us to fret about.
What Byrd is doing is much the same thing that happened in the church in Galatia, where some came and tried to put the believers back under the Law. Paul's response to this was not weak or unclear at all, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- 6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?" Galatians 3. His words of warning are as applicable against Byrd's form of legalism as against the kind that was infiltrating the Galatian church, "10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."
Byrd's book is all legalism, and even he himself does not live up to his own rules. His church has no Most Holy Place, it has no Ark of the Covenant. He can call some room or space his Most Holy Place, he may even have some object he calls the Ark of the Covenant, but they aren't. He picks and chooses aspects of the tabernacle of ancient Israel, and put us under bondage to his ideas, but he himself makes no attempt to obey all the things taught about that tabernacle.
All of this is basically spiritualized busywork. The church has far more important concerns than about whether our buildings are designed correctly or incorrectly, and these kind of teachings do little more than distract the church from it's mission of preaching the Gospel and encouraging believers to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil world.
The things taught in this book are unnecessary, and even dangerous.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
book review--Angels in the Realms of Heaven by Kevin Basconi
tedious and scripturally suspect
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program
Where to begin? Well, first, this book is tedious and repetitious. Each account of his encounters begins in roughly the same way, proceeds along the same lines, and basically seem like minor variations on each other. Whatever else may be said about Rick Joyner and his own accounts of similar encounters, at least his books make for interesting reading.
But that aspect could be accept, or at least tolerated, if Basconi's book was biblical sound in what it teaches. I don't think it is, though. A lot of what is taught seems more than a little suspect scripturally.
While he doesn't go into it much in this book, he does make mention a few times of his teaching about Melchizedek. "However, as I taught in the second book of this trilogy, you can also access the realms of Heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek in this lifetime. You can visit Heaven now." However, when the author of Hebrews deals with Christ being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it uses that in reference only to Christ, and never even hints at applying it to believers.
Plus, there is his idea that "You can visit Heaven now". "Thus also allowing you and I to have these same supernatural privileges by blazing a trail and making a way for us to be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named among men. That is our call- ing and inheritance—and we can step into it in this lifetime (see Eph. 1:18-20, Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10)." However, these passages say nothing about us having the power or the right to visit Heaven now.
And, like any good NAR minister would, he ties his experiences to health and wealth. "Jesus took me from sickness to health. He took me from hopelessness to happiness. The Messiah transformed my mindset and took me from poverty to prosperity in the natural realm. All of these wonderful blessings unfolded in my life in a supernaturally quick and efficient manner once I began to visit Heaven. Supernatural grace and favor with both God and man are the fruit of heavenly visitations." Considering that he relates times when he would blow off his job, I guess he needed a bit of angelic assistance to get the bills paid.
Funny, though, when Paul talks about the revelations he had (I'm not so sure he was referring to himself when he talked about a man who had been to the Third Heaven, but that's a side issue at best), he doesn't seem to have gotten the health and wealth aspect of them. Instead, he got some hardships, like the much-speculated-about thorn in the flesh, and all the physical hardships he listed in II Corinthians.
Concerning Basconi's accounts of his visits to Heaven, as far as I'm concerned, he really had encounters of some kind. But I think there are a few reasons for questioning the sources of those encounters.
One of the biggies is a time when he claimed to have seen and touched the wound in one of Jesus' hands, "This was the first time that I had looked closely and studied the scars of His hands. Jesus allowed me to place my index finger into the indention where the nail pierced His palm." The problem is, very likely the nails were driven through Christ's wrists, not the palms of His hands.
At one point, he claimed that he was taken to a vault full of mantles. "I saw boxes that contained the mantles of saints of old, and I saw mantles of people who had lived in more recent times such as Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Woodworth Etter, Kathryn Kuhlman, and William Seymour." There is nothing in the Bible about such mantles.
This part about mantles gets really weird when he talks about the mantles of people who were and are not children of God, like the Beatles. Again, nothing in the Bible about these mantles. Not a word.
He relates another time, where he goes to a place with spare body parts floating around in jars. "This was the vault of spare body parts, and they would be released to people on earth who needed them." Who knew that God could only heal you if He has the right spare parts around?
And, for some reason, both the mantle vault and this place with the body parts have doors with hermetic seals, and he assures us that the spare body parts room is sterile. Didn't know Heaven had germs.
To sum it up, this book is simply not all that good. Do we need these kinds of encounters to know that Heaven is real, that God is real? I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham told the rich man in Hell that even if one should return from the dead, the rich man's brothers would not believe. I'm reminded as well of Paul's own silence on the things seen in the Third Heaven by himself or some other man.
And far too much of what this man teaches doesn't add up biblically. The Bible nowhere tells us to try to have trips to Heaven in this life. It nowhere says that these trips to Heaven are guarateed to give us health and wealth.
There're so many better books out there that will teach you what the Bible says. Look for those, and don't bother with this one.
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program
Where to begin? Well, first, this book is tedious and repetitious. Each account of his encounters begins in roughly the same way, proceeds along the same lines, and basically seem like minor variations on each other. Whatever else may be said about Rick Joyner and his own accounts of similar encounters, at least his books make for interesting reading.
But that aspect could be accept, or at least tolerated, if Basconi's book was biblical sound in what it teaches. I don't think it is, though. A lot of what is taught seems more than a little suspect scripturally.
While he doesn't go into it much in this book, he does make mention a few times of his teaching about Melchizedek. "However, as I taught in the second book of this trilogy, you can also access the realms of Heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek in this lifetime. You can visit Heaven now." However, when the author of Hebrews deals with Christ being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it uses that in reference only to Christ, and never even hints at applying it to believers.
Plus, there is his idea that "You can visit Heaven now". "Thus also allowing you and I to have these same supernatural privileges by blazing a trail and making a way for us to be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named among men. That is our call- ing and inheritance—and we can step into it in this lifetime (see Eph. 1:18-20, Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10)." However, these passages say nothing about us having the power or the right to visit Heaven now.
And, like any good NAR minister would, he ties his experiences to health and wealth. "Jesus took me from sickness to health. He took me from hopelessness to happiness. The Messiah transformed my mindset and took me from poverty to prosperity in the natural realm. All of these wonderful blessings unfolded in my life in a supernaturally quick and efficient manner once I began to visit Heaven. Supernatural grace and favor with both God and man are the fruit of heavenly visitations." Considering that he relates times when he would blow off his job, I guess he needed a bit of angelic assistance to get the bills paid.
Funny, though, when Paul talks about the revelations he had (I'm not so sure he was referring to himself when he talked about a man who had been to the Third Heaven, but that's a side issue at best), he doesn't seem to have gotten the health and wealth aspect of them. Instead, he got some hardships, like the much-speculated-about thorn in the flesh, and all the physical hardships he listed in II Corinthians.
Concerning Basconi's accounts of his visits to Heaven, as far as I'm concerned, he really had encounters of some kind. But I think there are a few reasons for questioning the sources of those encounters.
One of the biggies is a time when he claimed to have seen and touched the wound in one of Jesus' hands, "This was the first time that I had looked closely and studied the scars of His hands. Jesus allowed me to place my index finger into the indention where the nail pierced His palm." The problem is, very likely the nails were driven through Christ's wrists, not the palms of His hands.
At one point, he claimed that he was taken to a vault full of mantles. "I saw boxes that contained the mantles of saints of old, and I saw mantles of people who had lived in more recent times such as Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Woodworth Etter, Kathryn Kuhlman, and William Seymour." There is nothing in the Bible about such mantles.
This part about mantles gets really weird when he talks about the mantles of people who were and are not children of God, like the Beatles. Again, nothing in the Bible about these mantles. Not a word.
He relates another time, where he goes to a place with spare body parts floating around in jars. "This was the vault of spare body parts, and they would be released to people on earth who needed them." Who knew that God could only heal you if He has the right spare parts around?
And, for some reason, both the mantle vault and this place with the body parts have doors with hermetic seals, and he assures us that the spare body parts room is sterile. Didn't know Heaven had germs.
To sum it up, this book is simply not all that good. Do we need these kinds of encounters to know that Heaven is real, that God is real? I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham told the rich man in Hell that even if one should return from the dead, the rich man's brothers would not believe. I'm reminded as well of Paul's own silence on the things seen in the Third Heaven by himself or some other man.
And far too much of what this man teaches doesn't add up biblically. The Bible nowhere tells us to try to have trips to Heaven in this life. It nowhere says that these trips to Heaven are guarateed to give us health and wealth.
There're so many better books out there that will teach you what the Bible says. Look for those, and don't bother with this one.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
book review--freedom from the religious spirit
An NAR fair-tale bogeyman
As several of the contributing writers to the book note, there is nothing in the Bible about a "religious spirit" or "spirit of religion (six of one or half-dozen of the other); however, anyone having read this book could be forgiven for thinking that this "religious spirit" is the central character of the Bible, and that any (particularly bad) thing written in the Bible is written about it, no matter who or what the passage itself says it's about.
For example, one author tried to teach that Daniel 7:25 is about this "religious spirit", "It was in December 2003 that I first heard C. Peter Wagner offer Daniel 7:25 as a clear statement of the primary goals of the corporate spirit of religion." (p. 26). But a look at the context of that verse shows that it's a prophecy concerning a real person, a king who will do the things prophecied. It has nothing to do with a "religious spirit".
Another tries to see it in Malachi, "In Malachi’s day, for example, the people were proud of their religiosity. They assumed that their religious rituals were pleasing to God, but God indicated He was looking for something more: “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands” (Mal. 1:10, NIV). " (p. 56-57). But a look at the context of the verse shows something rather different...
6 “A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ 7 By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the LORD's table may be despised. 8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. 9 And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts. 10 Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. 11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. 12 But you profane it when you say that the Lord's table is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised. 13 But you say, ‘What a weariness this is,’ and you snort at it, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. 14 Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished. For I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations.
Far from being "proud of their religiosity", the people were offering the lame and blind. They were profaning the Lord's table by offering inferious animals, and were complaining about it. There is no mention, not even a hint, of a "religious spirit".
Wrote one writer, "The spirit of religion manifested itself back in the Garden of Eden when Satan came to Adam and Eve to question them and put doubt in their minds regarding what God had really said about eating the fruit of the trees in the Garden (see Gen. 3:1-5)." (p. 91). Funny, but Genesis 3:1-5 makes no mention of "the spirit of religion" hanging about. This same writer added this a bit later, "The religious spirit was behind the devil when he appeared to Jesus in the desert and tried to get Jesus to worship him (see Luke 4:5-7)." (p. 93). Again, "the religious spirit" is notable by it's absense in Luke 4:5-7.
Wrote another writer, "I believe that Matthew 13:24-30 provides a key insight into the spirit of religion."(p. 53). Matthew 13:24-30 is a parable, the one of a field sowed with wheat that an enemy sowed weeds into. "But sown in the midst of the wheat we find zizania, identified as “the sons of the evil one” (v. 38). They are planted in the field to hinder the growth of the wheat. These sons of the evil one are not necessarily bad people. They may include genuine believers who have been seduced by the enemy to oppose God’s work." (p. 54).
But the problem for this author is, Jesus interpreted that parable, recorded in Matthew 13:36-43. Jesus says that at the end, the "tares" would be gathered out of His kingdom and thrown in the fiery furnace, basically Hell or the Lake of Fire. These "tares" are not "genuine believers".
Also, this parable is not about the church. Jesus explains the elements in the parable, and the field represents the world.
And another contributor wrote this, "The Bible says that we can recognize a tree by the fruit that it bears (see Matt. 12:33-37). So 2 Timothy 3:1-5 can help us understand how to recognize the religious spirit. This passage lists what I believe to be 19 manifestations of the religious spirit in the lives of people in the Church." (p. 105). Yet again, any mention of "the religious spirit" is simply not in the actual passage. It mentions what people will be like in the dangerous times of the last days, and doesn't specify that these people will be in the church.
So, with no mention of the "religious spirit" in the Bible, and the attempts to find it in some passages being at best rather problematic, what, then, is their "religious spirit"?
Consider the types of stories some parents tell small children to make them behave, such as saying that if the child doesn't go to sleep at the right time, the bogeyman is going to come and get them. I think that this "religious spirit" is the New Apostolic Reformation version of the bogeyman, and this book is basically these authors' attempts to scare people back into line, and to keep them from considering what critics of the NAR are saying.
You must understand, the NAR has been an abysmal failure. Not to say that there they don't have large church and lots of money; in fact, many large churches and wealthy religious leaders are a part of the NAR. The truth is, the NAR is filled with Word of Faith Prosperity Gospel charlatans, fake faith healers, false prophets, and cultic ministries. Their lunacy and heresy is open and apparent.
And there are those who are exposing this lunacy and heresy, and I've no doubt those exposes are effecting the NAR ministries, as in getting people to leave them (and take their money with them). Books like Counterfeit Revival have no about had their effects.
So, instead of addressing the critics and their claims, this book is essentially Peter Wagner and company telling the people in their NAR ministries that if there are people opposing the NAR and those in it, then those people are under the control of "the religious spirit", and so they should not be listened to, and certainly not taken seriously. "The religious spirit" is the big bad bogeyman, and if you're not careful, if you dare question the apostles and prophets, if you dare doubt that what's going on the NAR is a real move of the Holy Spirit, if you aren't on board with everything the NAR leaders want you to do, well, you've been caught by the big bad "religious spirit" bogeyman.
For my part, when people like the contributors to this book want you to just kowtow to them and not seriously question them, then that's a sure sign that it's time to start asking very serious questions of them, early and often, and even firmly and loudly. When they try to scare you with a made-up thing like a "religious spirit", then it's time to ask what they are trying to scare you away from.
As several of the contributing writers to the book note, there is nothing in the Bible about a "religious spirit" or "spirit of religion (six of one or half-dozen of the other); however, anyone having read this book could be forgiven for thinking that this "religious spirit" is the central character of the Bible, and that any (particularly bad) thing written in the Bible is written about it, no matter who or what the passage itself says it's about.
For example, one author tried to teach that Daniel 7:25 is about this "religious spirit", "It was in December 2003 that I first heard C. Peter Wagner offer Daniel 7:25 as a clear statement of the primary goals of the corporate spirit of religion." (p. 26). But a look at the context of that verse shows that it's a prophecy concerning a real person, a king who will do the things prophecied. It has nothing to do with a "religious spirit".
Another tries to see it in Malachi, "In Malachi’s day, for example, the people were proud of their religiosity. They assumed that their religious rituals were pleasing to God, but God indicated He was looking for something more: “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands” (Mal. 1:10, NIV). " (p. 56-57). But a look at the context of the verse shows something rather different...
6 “A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ 7 By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the LORD's table may be despised. 8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. 9 And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts. 10 Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. 11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. 12 But you profane it when you say that the Lord's table is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised. 13 But you say, ‘What a weariness this is,’ and you snort at it, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. 14 Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished. For I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations.
Far from being "proud of their religiosity", the people were offering the lame and blind. They were profaning the Lord's table by offering inferious animals, and were complaining about it. There is no mention, not even a hint, of a "religious spirit".
Wrote one writer, "The spirit of religion manifested itself back in the Garden of Eden when Satan came to Adam and Eve to question them and put doubt in their minds regarding what God had really said about eating the fruit of the trees in the Garden (see Gen. 3:1-5)." (p. 91). Funny, but Genesis 3:1-5 makes no mention of "the spirit of religion" hanging about. This same writer added this a bit later, "The religious spirit was behind the devil when he appeared to Jesus in the desert and tried to get Jesus to worship him (see Luke 4:5-7)." (p. 93). Again, "the religious spirit" is notable by it's absense in Luke 4:5-7.
Wrote another writer, "I believe that Matthew 13:24-30 provides a key insight into the spirit of religion."(p. 53). Matthew 13:24-30 is a parable, the one of a field sowed with wheat that an enemy sowed weeds into. "But sown in the midst of the wheat we find zizania, identified as “the sons of the evil one” (v. 38). They are planted in the field to hinder the growth of the wheat. These sons of the evil one are not necessarily bad people. They may include genuine believers who have been seduced by the enemy to oppose God’s work." (p. 54).
But the problem for this author is, Jesus interpreted that parable, recorded in Matthew 13:36-43. Jesus says that at the end, the "tares" would be gathered out of His kingdom and thrown in the fiery furnace, basically Hell or the Lake of Fire. These "tares" are not "genuine believers".
Also, this parable is not about the church. Jesus explains the elements in the parable, and the field represents the world.
And another contributor wrote this, "The Bible says that we can recognize a tree by the fruit that it bears (see Matt. 12:33-37). So 2 Timothy 3:1-5 can help us understand how to recognize the religious spirit. This passage lists what I believe to be 19 manifestations of the religious spirit in the lives of people in the Church." (p. 105). Yet again, any mention of "the religious spirit" is simply not in the actual passage. It mentions what people will be like in the dangerous times of the last days, and doesn't specify that these people will be in the church.
So, with no mention of the "religious spirit" in the Bible, and the attempts to find it in some passages being at best rather problematic, what, then, is their "religious spirit"?
Consider the types of stories some parents tell small children to make them behave, such as saying that if the child doesn't go to sleep at the right time, the bogeyman is going to come and get them. I think that this "religious spirit" is the New Apostolic Reformation version of the bogeyman, and this book is basically these authors' attempts to scare people back into line, and to keep them from considering what critics of the NAR are saying.
You must understand, the NAR has been an abysmal failure. Not to say that there they don't have large church and lots of money; in fact, many large churches and wealthy religious leaders are a part of the NAR. The truth is, the NAR is filled with Word of Faith Prosperity Gospel charlatans, fake faith healers, false prophets, and cultic ministries. Their lunacy and heresy is open and apparent.
And there are those who are exposing this lunacy and heresy, and I've no doubt those exposes are effecting the NAR ministries, as in getting people to leave them (and take their money with them). Books like Counterfeit Revival have no about had their effects.
So, instead of addressing the critics and their claims, this book is essentially Peter Wagner and company telling the people in their NAR ministries that if there are people opposing the NAR and those in it, then those people are under the control of "the religious spirit", and so they should not be listened to, and certainly not taken seriously. "The religious spirit" is the big bad bogeyman, and if you're not careful, if you dare question the apostles and prophets, if you dare doubt that what's going on the NAR is a real move of the Holy Spirit, if you aren't on board with everything the NAR leaders want you to do, well, you've been caught by the big bad "religious spirit" bogeyman.
For my part, when people like the contributors to this book want you to just kowtow to them and not seriously question them, then that's a sure sign that it's time to start asking very serious questions of them, early and often, and even firmly and loudly. When they try to scare you with a made-up thing like a "religious spirit", then it's time to ask what they are trying to scare you away from.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
the impossible blessing
Deuteronomy 30
15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. 16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”
Psalm 119
Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD! 2 Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart, 3 who also do no wrong, but walk in his ways! 4 You have commanded your precepts to be kept diligently. 5 Oh that my ways may be steadfast in keeping your statutes! 6 Then I shall not be put to shame, having my eyes fixed on all your commandments. 7 I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules. 8 I will keep your statutes; do not utterly forsake me!
I Corinthians 3
But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? 5What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building.
Matthew 5:21-37
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable a to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable a to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye l causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into m hell. 30 And if your right hand l causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
In his book "Bad Religion", Russ Douthat writes a bit about the rather popular speaker and writer Joyce Meyer, "She dresses simply and talks bluntly, offering earthy, self-deprecating pep talks that emphasize emotional well-being and then slip the promise of financial success in between the lines. That promise is still crucial to Meyer’s appeal. “The whole Bible really has one message: ‘Obey me and do what I tell you to do, and you’ll be blessed,’” she told the St. Lous Post-Dispatch in 2004, when it ran a series of stories revealing just how blessed she has been." Douthat, Ross (2012-04-17). Bad Religion (p. 188). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Leaving aside Meyer's message of financial success, I do want to focus on the her quote in the St. Louis newspaper, “The whole Bible really has one message: ‘Obey me and do what I tell you to do, and you’ll be blessed,’” It is an interesting quote, and in reading the passages above, one would say that is has some biblical support
Is that not, for example, what God told Israel? "15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. 16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it." If you obey the commands, all the commands, then certainly God will bless you. The Psalmist echoes that, "Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD! 2 Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart, 3 who also do no wrong, but walk in his ways!"
And why should we doubt that this would be true! Was God lying when He said that? Was the Psalmist not writing this song by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? A firm "No!" to each of those questions! God is speaking truly in both passages. Blessed is the one who is blameless, and who walks in the law of the Lord! Blessed is the one does no wrong, but walks in God's ways!
But if we are to think that what Meyer said is not completely unbiblical, we must also know that it not very accurate, either. When she claims that the whole message of the Bible is that we will be blesses if we obey God and do what He says, she is wrong. It is a part of the message of the Bible, yes, and an important part. But the whole message?
Let's be honest--if that was the whole message of the Bible, than we may as well just quit. Take a look at the Deuteronomy passage, "If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today". Ok, so, they need to obey all the commands God gave them that day. Take a look at all the commands. So far as I can tell, Moses begins speaking at Deuteronomy 5. In the 27th chapter, he says twice that they are to obey all the commands. Take a look at those laws, glance over them or read them in-depth, whichever may work to make you realize the task God has set for you.
Obey all that. Fully follow all of that Law.
And if you think it is only about blessings, think again. At the least, Meyer does not mention this in her quote, though to be fair, it may be implied, or maybe she's said it elsewhere, and of course she didn't really write that article, but another did. But at the least, there is the other side of that, that if you disobey God and don't do what He says, then you will not be blessed, in fact you will be cursed. As is said Deuteronomy 27:26, "Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them."
So, let us add this negative aspect to Meyers' statement, that if we fail to keep the Law or fail to do all that God has told us to do, then we are cursed. And considering how much Law there is, and how Jesus shows us the full extent of the commands, how it's not just about outward actions but also things like unjust anger and who we secretly lust after, then we can see how difficult this task is. It is as God also says in Deuteronomy, that He has set before us life and death, blessing and cursing.
But if that life and blessing are only accessible through the keeping of the Law, then, again, we may as well quit. Because we haven't kept the Law perfectly, and should we live another day we won't in the future. As children, we did not perfectly follow the command to "Honor our Father and Mother". We did not perfectly obey the command that says "Do Not Lie". We did not perfectly obey the command that says "Do Not Covet". You can go into a large store at almost any time of day, and see and hear a small child, of may three or so years of ago, having a fit because he or she is being denied some little toy that they suddenly wanted. You can see how, even in that one instance, that child is breaking the commands to Honor Father and Mother as well as Do Not Covet.
And I would dare say that we who are now grown, when we were children of about that same ago, were little different.
I want to focus for a bit on a particular part in the Deuteronomy passage, "But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them...". There are many obvious froms of idolatry, the worship of the gods of false religions, be they the Hindu pantheon, the earth-worship or nature-worship of modern forms of paganism, or the worship of ancestors. There is also a more subtle for of it, which the Bible mentions in Colossians 3:5 and Ephesians 5:5, where covetousness is called a form of idolatry. When we may crave power, money, success, or any thing, more than a desire to please God, that thing has become our object of worship, our idol.
But there is an even subtler kind of idolatry, and in the US it may well be that this is the most popular form. In this, I again must acknowledge Ross Douthat's book, "Bad Religion". He points out several ways in which we today have created our own god. We may even put the name "God" on this thing of our own creation, and even more we may try to find biblical passages that seem to show that this construct is actually the God of the Bible. Here are some examples.
Recently, there has been a controversy over the legitimizing of a well-known preacher who has been known as a modalist, meaning that he does not believe in the Trinity--that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God three persons, as the Bible shows us. The god he believes in, that he preaches, is not the God that has revealed Himself in the Bible. But his acceptance seems to have been rather complete, and he is being welcomed into many different circles. Why? Apparently, because his ministry shows signs of success, meaning it's popular, brings in lots of money, and lots of people listen to him. Certainly not because he teaches sound biblical doctrine.
This man not only preaches a false view of the Godhead, but also the popular 'god' that will provide health and wealth to those who believe, or believe hard enough, or who will do the required acts, which usually involve giving money, the more the better and the more their god likes it. As Douthat points out, this is a very popular teaching. Whole so-called 'Christian' television networks are devoted to spreading this prosperity gospel. Thousands attend conferences and meetings held by these prosperity gospel teachers and faith healers. Their books are among the best-sellers. Their message that God wants you to be well-off, successful, and healthy is very popular. They have story after story of the success of their ideas and methods, and are not even bashful about pointing to themselves as examples.
And it is not just the average person who laps it up. Church leaders see the apparent success these ministries have, and want it, too. If covetousness is indeed a form of idolatry, then far too many church leaders have fallen into the idolatry that covets the numbers and successes of the mega-churches--churches that have multiple services on a Sunday morning, services at multiple location in the city or even outside the city, thousands and maybe even tens of thousands attending those services, cutting-edge video and audio equipment, large buildings with many extras like coffee bars, people more committed to fulfilling the pastor's vision for the church than they are the Bible, in other words a veritable church-empire. In such a culture, where numbers equal success and God's blessing, then the more and higher the numbers, the better. While the occasional token nod to doctrine and the Bible are given, by and large the services that I've listened to from these churches seem to be a mixture of with theatrical production and stand-up comedy.
One thing that Douthat seems to make little mention of, but that I think does deserve some mention, is the god who wants us to take over the world, what has been called Dominionism. It's closely tied to the prosperity gospel, and indeed many adherents to the prosperity gospel also believe in some form of Dominionism. Here is how one preacher of the dominion gospel, Bill Johnson, puts it in a book he co-authored, "Jesus then gave His authority to those who would follow Him. He basically announced that we were back to Plan A: taking back the dominion of a planet, now as redeemed humankind...In Christ, our partnership to rule was restored...The commission to “take back the planet” starts with prayer." (Essential Guide to Healing, The (Kindle Locations 1567-1586)). And in another location in the same book, "While the worship team was playing, Mike leaned over to me and said, “God is looking for a city that would belong entirely to Him. And once He gets that one city, it will cause a domino effect across our nation.” (Kindle Locations 1988-1990).
This is a very popular teaching. If you are familiar with The Call, the Kansas City International House of Prayer and it's various offshoots, Youth With A Mission, 24-7 Prayer and it's various Boiler Rooms, then understand that this is essentially what they are teaching. Behind the Christian imagery and language is the great ambition to take over what are called "spheres of influence", to take back dominion of the planet, to take over cities. and as another Dominionist preacher put it, even at least one nation. "There will have to be at least one "sheep nation" before He calls all nations into judgment. The sons and daughters of the kingdom, of at least one nation, will enter their promised land and evict nations "greater and mightier" than they are. May many, many nations be so won by the children of the King." (Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (p. 41). Kindle Edition).
These are some examples of false gods that far too many in the church have fallen before in worship.
But whether our god is one who wants us to take over the world, or our own smaller ambitions and desires, all are still idols, and it is to the one true God that we must come to repent of worshiping any other false god.
For if you plan to claim that we can make ourselves good by keeping the Law, know that you will fail, and indeed have already failed. If you have put your hope in keeping the Law, then you are without any real hope. And if that were the end of the story, then it would not matter if your hope of true or not.
But that isn't the end of it. We have already established the truth in this statement from Romans 3, "19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." But let us read on a few verses more, "21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
So, we may conclude that Meyer's statement, taken in isolation as it is, is simply wrong. “The whole Bible really has one message: ‘Obey me and do what I tell you to do, and you’ll be blessed,’” is not the one whole message of the Bible--far from it! We cannot obey God and do what He tells us to do, and so we are all cursed! But there is One who has obeyed God and did do what God told Him to do, who was obedient even to death on the cross. We can stop trying to impress with our attempts at making ourselves righteous by keeping the Law, it is hopeless; rather, we are called to simply have faith in Jesus Christ, and we who believe will be given this righteousness as a gift!
So simple, so easy, no works required, no great and futile acts of penance demanded, only repentance of sins and belief in Christ! What we could not do ourselves, God has done for us.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
bad tree bad fruit
My great uncle (my mom’s uncle) was discipled by a man named William Branham. Branham is still considered by many today to have walked in one of the most accurate word of knowledge and healing gifts of anyone documented. Many times he would call out a person’s address, phone number, and sickness and then declare healing over them. More often than not, that individual was healed. Many times whole hospital wards were brought to his tent meetings, and often everyone would leave healed! William Branham once said that my uncle was like a son to him. He poured much into him, and it did not go without return! My uncle was involved in the beginnings of the Full Gospel Businessmen, a ministry that God used in the mid-1900s and still continues to use today to go to the nations as well as to fund overseas missions.
Several years ago, I sat around a fireplace with my 89-year-old uncle listening to firsthand stories of himself, William Branham, and Demos Shakarian. These were compelling accounts of miraculous healings, third Heaven experiences, and most of all, radical love for God. He recounted a time he was in Japan and announced that God wanted to heal. Right away, a man with a shriveled arm and hand came up for prayer. As they began to pray, the cracking and popping of bones being formed and muscles being created filled the room as the Holy Spirit began to move in a powerful way. It was soon announced to those attending the meeting at the Pearl Ball Room in the Tokyo Hilton that revival had come to Japan. The man’s arm was completely healed. Soon after this, the room was full of reporters and the pastors began to minister deliverance and salvation to those attending.
Byrd, Andy; Feucht, Sean (2010-09-01). Fire and Fragrance (pp. 32-33). Destiny Image. Kindle Edition.
This excerpt is from the third chapter of the book, which is subtitled (Andy's Story) (yes, the parentheses are there), and so Andy Byrd is talking about his own great uncle.
So, keeping in mind that he's talking about a great-uncle who was seriously connected with William Branham, we might well ask, who was Branham and what did he teach (to overuse parentheses even more, you may notice that Byrd writes nothing about Branham's teachings).
Well, Branham was what could, most politely, be called "a piece of work".
The Teachings of "the Prophet" William Branham
William Branham's Basic Beliefs
First, and perhaps most importantly, Branham denied the triune nature of God. His ideas about Christ seem very convoluted. Jesus was a created being, Jesus at one time was not God because Jesus had to have had a point of beginning, Jesus thus was not eternal. He was against baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He was, thus, a modalist.
His ideas about the Fall are bizarre. He taught that the account of the Fall was some kind of symbolic language, that what really happened was that Eve was sexually seduced by the serpent, and thus became pregnant with Cain. Apparently, she and the serpent even set up house together for a while.
He claimed that God's word could be found in other places than the Bible, but also in the Pyramids of Egypt and in the Zodiac. So much was in influence by these ideas that his own tombstone is in the shape of a pyramid.
He was a false prophet. Like the current false prophet Harold Camping, Branham made predictions that the end of the age would occur in 1977, and that that is also when the millenium would begin.
You can see how Byrd tries to essentially equivocate and cover for Branham.
"Branham is still considered by many today to have walked in one of the most accurate word of knowledge and healing gifts of anyone documented." Notice the weasel-words "one of the most accurate...". Obviously, that means it wasn't perfectly accurate, either in regards to knowledge or to healing, a sure sign that Branham's powers did not come from God. In the Bible, a prophet is expected to be absolutley perfect and accurate in what he says in prophecy. How could it be otherwise, if the God who is perfect in knowledge is giving knowledge to the prophet? But if the spirit speaking to the prophet is not God or from God, then we may sure that, for all of it's apparent displays of occasional accuracy, it will also show itself to be very wrong, and thus false.
"Many times he would call out a person’s address, phone number, and sickness and then declare healing over them. More often than not, that individual was healed." Again, notice the similar weasel-words "more often than not..." Byrd is admitting the Branham got it wrong at times. Again, that is a sign that this spirit was not from God.
"Many times whole hospital wards were brought to his tent meetings, and often everyone would leave healed!" It would have been good if Byrd had given us some documentation of these events. Where, for example, did such things happen? Were these healings verified?
Notice that Byrd is essentially boasting of this connection, distant as it was, with this false teacher and prophet. He holds Branham up as a model or hero, someone to be looked up to, an example of a person with the kinds of powers many today or tomorrow should have.
Oh, one more thing--Branham also taught the Manifest Sons of God heresy. It goes by other names--Joel's Army, the Latter Rain, Seven Mountains Dominionism, and others. Byrd and Feucht are quite into it, too, though they are careful to avoid the names. Here are some examples from this same book.
God is longing to fill us with an accurate view of the spiritual disciplines and allow us to begin to experience boundary lines in pleasant places as David refers to in Psalm 16. I prophesy and declare that God is raising up a whole generation that will be known for both great exploits and uncompromising character—radical power and a committed life of extravagant discipline! These will become inseparable in this generation. The world will look on with amazement as a company of Daniels emerges on the earth and in the Church whose character is above reproach and whose life is full of anointing, power, and love.
Byrd, Andy; Feucht, Sean (2010-09-01). Fire and Fragrance (pp. 148-149). Destiny Image. Kindle Edition.
"Raising up a generation...", language consistent with the dominionist's heresy. Here's my own attempt at prophecy. Well, not really prophecy, since I make no claim to such a gift. All I'm doing is being a bit far-sighted--think something like what chess players do--, and taking Scripture seriously. My prediction, such as it is, is this--there will be no such generation. God saves individuals, and puts those individuals into churches. There may be people with dominionist beliefs who have spiritual manifestations, but they will not be from God, just as the manifestations associated with Branham were not of God.
Colossians 2:10 exhorts and reminds us that every believer has “been given fullness” (NIV). We must break out of an ungodly paradigm that every believer is not already fully equipped to become the solution and hope for the darkness flooding the world. It is so imperative to understand that Jehu was not a prophet or a priest but was an heir to the throne. This mandate and high calling from God goes out to all joint-heirs of Heaven to establish His Kingdom dominion in the land. This is in one accord with the prayer of Jesus in Matthew 6:10: “…on earth as it is in heaven.”
Byrd, Andy; Feucht, Sean (2010-09-01). Fire and Fragrance (p. 161). Destiny Image. Kindle Edition.
You might note the focus on us, that we are to become the solution and hope for the world.
We declare that we have been crucified with Christ and we no longer live, but Christ lives in us. The life we now live, we live by faith in the Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us! Oh God, we count all things rubbish compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus, our Lord! Oh God! Raise up a generation that is radically in love with You, totally surrendering to you, and completely abandoned to Your purposes.
Byrd, Andy; Feucht, Sean (2010-09-01). Fire and Fragrance (p. 187). Destiny Image. Kindle Edition.
So, can anyone claim to be succeeded in "totally surrendering"? Not even Paul, whom these writers quote or paraphrase, would likely have said that he had. He wrote quite plainly in Romans of his struggles with his sinful nature.
This is law. Not only that, but I can't think of anyplace in the Bible that speaks of us needing to practice "total surrendering" or be "completely abandoned", unless it is a law that we must confess to have broken and repent for breaking. And as with all law, we will never in this life perfectly obey it. If your hope is in some generation that will be "totally surrendered" and "completely abandoned", then you will be disappointed.
Can fruit coming from such a bad tree as William Branham be anything but itself bad? I would say, no. To borrow a quote from Luther...
At that time my wife said unto me, Sir! how is it, that in Popedom they pray so often with great vehemence, but we are very cold and careless in praying? I answered her, the devil driveth on his servants continually; they are diligent, and take great pains in their false worshipping, but we, indeed, are ice cold therein, and negligent.
Martin Luther. Selections from the Table Talk of Martin Luther (Kindle Locations 1069-1072).
Friday, April 20, 2012
now this is confirmation
ht: How to Manipulate a Bloke Into "Revival"
I don't know if I would have put it like this before hearing what this guy says in this video, though I was aware of it to some degree. But I've gotten to the point where I'm think things like this...
That what most people mean by "revival" is little more than manipulation.
That what most people mean by things like "God showed up" and "The Spirit was really present" is little more than psychological manipulations--getting people to sing your little songs, do the rah-rah thing to get them psyched, get them expecting something to happen by among other things saying something will happen, and such things.
As Pringle makes clear, you shame people into joining in. If they aren't joining in, if the aren't jumping around and speaking meaningless gibberish, or crawling around barkning like a dog, or whatever the manifestation-of-the-month may be, then something's wrong with them.
So all that is created are a bunch of easily-led and easily-misled followers of experiences.
Friday, February 3, 2012
seven mountains of nonsense
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.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
good article on 'spiritual warfare'
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
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.
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.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
attempting the impossible
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.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
why is this so hard for wallis to understand?
There are some ideas that, at least to me, seem so clear as to be almost self-evident. But for whatever reason, there are people who don't see them.
Take Jim Wallis, for example, and what he writes here in his new screed at Sojo. Emphases mine.
Now, I'm racking my brain at the moment, trying to think of anyone who may have equated wealth with righteousness and God's blessing. Outside of maybe someone like Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar or Robert Tilton, no one really comes to mind. Certainly no political figures. Using such simplistic thinking a Wallis uses here, conservatives would be the biggest fans of George Soros and Ted Turner and all the other uber-rich liberals out there, of which there is more than a few.
Similarly, I'm trying to remember where any Conservative is saying only individual good is to be considered, without regard to the good of others; rather, the argument is that the good of all does not trump the good of the individual. You are not allowed to steal from another, even if you think your reason is good, no matter how much the person being stolen from may have, no matter how much good what is stolen may do somewhere else.
I listen to Rush Limbaugh's show as much as I can, no doubt a serious crime in Wallis' mind. Limbaugh is constantly equating the good of the individual with the good of society as a whole--if the government raises taxes on those who produce wealth and start businesses and take risks and provide jobs, those who do those things will be less willing to do them, and subsequently there will more average people out of work, thus hurting society as a whole. Thus, hurting the individual winds up hurting many other individuals.
There is no common good without concern for the individual good. But if our goal is the common good, the individual can become a mere ant to be trod upon. If the common good becomes the main thing, then even what harms the individual becomes an option.
I prefer the good of the individual, because then there is the chance that that good will equate into the good of everyone. If an individual has freedom of speech, then the ones who agree or disagree also have that freedom, and all can speak without fear. If the freedom is taken away from one person, then the rest of use must look over our shoulders to see if the censors are coming to silence us, too.
Especially if they are doing so in the name of the common good.
Take Jim Wallis, for example, and what he writes here in his new screed at Sojo. Emphases mine.
Our country is in the midst of a clash between two competing moral visions. It is not, as we have known in recent history, a traditional fight between Republicans and Democrats. It is a conflict between those who believe in the common good and those who believe individual good is the only good. While a biblical worldview informs Christians that they should be wary of the rich and defend the poor, a competing ideology says that wealth is equivalent to righteousness and God’s blessing. It is a morality play in which Washington, D.C. is the stage, politicians are actors, lobbyists are directors, the “debt ceiling” is the conflict, and we are the audience who will pay the cost of the production, whether we enjoyed it or not.
Now, I'm racking my brain at the moment, trying to think of anyone who may have equated wealth with righteousness and God's blessing. Outside of maybe someone like Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar or Robert Tilton, no one really comes to mind. Certainly no political figures. Using such simplistic thinking a Wallis uses here, conservatives would be the biggest fans of George Soros and Ted Turner and all the other uber-rich liberals out there, of which there is more than a few.
Similarly, I'm trying to remember where any Conservative is saying only individual good is to be considered, without regard to the good of others; rather, the argument is that the good of all does not trump the good of the individual. You are not allowed to steal from another, even if you think your reason is good, no matter how much the person being stolen from may have, no matter how much good what is stolen may do somewhere else.
I listen to Rush Limbaugh's show as much as I can, no doubt a serious crime in Wallis' mind. Limbaugh is constantly equating the good of the individual with the good of society as a whole--if the government raises taxes on those who produce wealth and start businesses and take risks and provide jobs, those who do those things will be less willing to do them, and subsequently there will more average people out of work, thus hurting society as a whole. Thus, hurting the individual winds up hurting many other individuals.
There is no common good without concern for the individual good. But if our goal is the common good, the individual can become a mere ant to be trod upon. If the common good becomes the main thing, then even what harms the individual becomes an option.
I prefer the good of the individual, because then there is the chance that that good will equate into the good of everyone. If an individual has freedom of speech, then the ones who agree or disagree also have that freedom, and all can speak without fear. If the freedom is taken away from one person, then the rest of use must look over our shoulders to see if the censors are coming to silence us, too.
Especially if they are doing so in the name of the common good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)