I had kind of mixed expectations for this one, from watching the previews. It looked promising, but in recent year Franco's been in some pretty iffy films.
I'm glad to say that I found Oz to be pretty satisfying.
First, the scenery in the movie is outstanding. They did a good job of creating an essentially fantasy place, where the colors are so bright and full as to be almost too bright and full. In that sense, it was somewhat like the landscape in Avatar, though not as alien but maybe more dream-like.
And the plot had some clever twists and turns, which despite the overall basically normal plot line, gave it some good points of interest.
One review I read in a newspaper said that the actresses who played the witches didn't do that good of a job. Granted, this movie may not win them any awards, but I think a better way of looking at it was that they were more understated than mailing it in. And if you saw Hansel and Gretel, you may appreciate how not doing them the way that movie did may be considered a good thing.
And Franco was convincing as a small-time carnie trickster.
There are some things in it that could be questioned, though.
If you saw the Super Bowl a few weeks ago, you may well remember the auto commercial which featured Paul Harvey reading a bit of something about God making farmers, and the things they endure to do what they do. It's interesting, then, how Oz G&P kind of reverses that. Kansas, the land of good people who go to church and things like that, is depicted in a black and white, while Oz itself is a hyper-colorful fairy land. In other words, the world of farmers and good people is rather dull and dreary.
Maybe that wasn't the intended message, but that was how it seemed. I could be just reading more into it then what was meant to be there.
But outside of a bit of something like that, there wasn't really anything objectionable in it, and I enjoyed it pretty well. It may be one I'll see again in the next week or two, and one I can recommend to others.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Saturday, March 9, 2013
book review--Broken, by Jonathan Fisk
a welcomed change from the usual kinds of such books
The usual kinds of books put out by young, hip, cool, relevant, whatever types of up-and-coming church leaders seem to fit in a couple of broad and overlapping categories. One is the seeker-purpose-get your best life now types who have found some big new secret way to pray and live that will guarantee you more and more and bigger and bigger. The other is the charismatic pray all day and all night and sing the songs on our new P&W recording 50 times each and God will (finally) be persuaded to do something. All are theologically asinine and scripturally vacuous.
In the marshmallow fluff world of that kind of stuff, "Broken" is like a ray of light, perhaps because it is not only contrary to them, but calls them out for what they really are.
For example, perhaps no teaching has caused more confusion and been the source of more bad decisions and loony teachings than the idea that we should try to hear "God's whispers" somewhere inside of us. In the chapter on Mysticism, Fisk calls that kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of our feelings.
Every two-bit apostle and prophet tries to get people to attend their churches and conferences and gatherings by holding out the carrot that if the people attending will do X then now or soon God will finally see fit to send the revival they've been waiting 100 or so years for Him to send--if they will worship with more abandon to the latest choruses, or pray 25 or more hours a day, or whatever. In the chapters on Moralism and Spirituality, Fisk calls that kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of the works of our hands and the worship of our own made-up spiritual rules.
And there are the ones who think that God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible is about as relevant as Oldsmobile, that what we need today is not your father's God, but a new generation of god, one that looks surprisingly like the person telling us that God is like a now-defunct automobile brand. This new generation of god will, of course, come complete with a new set of rules and directions, though if those don't seem to be working, well, the one real rule is that there are no real rules, so we can make this god however we want, so this god will say and do, approve and celebrate, whatever we want it to. In his chapter on God's Absence, Fisk calls out this kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of Lawlessness.
But while diagnosing the problems is certain worth a lot, Fisk does more than that. He points us to Christ, His sacrificial death, His resurrection, the things He did for us to rescue us from sin and death and judgment. Fisk does not point us to our own efforts to make ourselves good enough, either to earn salvation or to earn any blessing or favor from God, but shows us what God has done for us, so that while we cannot make ourselves righteous through vain attempts to keep the law, God has made righteous those who belief in Jesus.
In a church land which seems to be addicted to having more and having to do more and trading and bartering with God to get more, this "STOP!" message of Fisk's is a welcomed relief. We can stop doing all these things in an attempt to bribe and cajole God into finally doing something, but we can do all of them, from the simply tasks of everyday life to preaching to Gospel to thousands, out of a love of the One who has already done everything.
I recommend this book about as highly as I can.
The usual kinds of books put out by young, hip, cool, relevant, whatever types of up-and-coming church leaders seem to fit in a couple of broad and overlapping categories. One is the seeker-purpose-get your best life now types who have found some big new secret way to pray and live that will guarantee you more and more and bigger and bigger. The other is the charismatic pray all day and all night and sing the songs on our new P&W recording 50 times each and God will (finally) be persuaded to do something. All are theologically asinine and scripturally vacuous.
In the marshmallow fluff world of that kind of stuff, "Broken" is like a ray of light, perhaps because it is not only contrary to them, but calls them out for what they really are.
For example, perhaps no teaching has caused more confusion and been the source of more bad decisions and loony teachings than the idea that we should try to hear "God's whispers" somewhere inside of us. In the chapter on Mysticism, Fisk calls that kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of our feelings.
Every two-bit apostle and prophet tries to get people to attend their churches and conferences and gatherings by holding out the carrot that if the people attending will do X then now or soon God will finally see fit to send the revival they've been waiting 100 or so years for Him to send--if they will worship with more abandon to the latest choruses, or pray 25 or more hours a day, or whatever. In the chapters on Moralism and Spirituality, Fisk calls that kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of the works of our hands and the worship of our own made-up spiritual rules.
And there are the ones who think that God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible is about as relevant as Oldsmobile, that what we need today is not your father's God, but a new generation of god, one that looks surprisingly like the person telling us that God is like a now-defunct automobile brand. This new generation of god will, of course, come complete with a new set of rules and directions, though if those don't seem to be working, well, the one real rule is that there are no real rules, so we can make this god however we want, so this god will say and do, approve and celebrate, whatever we want it to. In his chapter on God's Absence, Fisk calls out this kind of thing out for what it really is, the worship of Lawlessness.
But while diagnosing the problems is certain worth a lot, Fisk does more than that. He points us to Christ, His sacrificial death, His resurrection, the things He did for us to rescue us from sin and death and judgment. Fisk does not point us to our own efforts to make ourselves good enough, either to earn salvation or to earn any blessing or favor from God, but shows us what God has done for us, so that while we cannot make ourselves righteous through vain attempts to keep the law, God has made righteous those who belief in Jesus.
In a church land which seems to be addicted to having more and having to do more and trading and bartering with God to get more, this "STOP!" message of Fisk's is a welcomed relief. We can stop doing all these things in an attempt to bribe and cajole God into finally doing something, but we can do all of them, from the simply tasks of everyday life to preaching to Gospel to thousands, out of a love of the One who has already done everything.
I recommend this book about as highly as I can.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
ignorance does not make one qualified
He is not dead, He is alive, and He still visits folks today to minister to them one on one. Jesus still leaves the ninety-nine to go after the one lost sheep. He still loves each of us with a supernatural love that is impossible for us to comprehend with our human intellect. In other words, the experiences documented in this book are the innocent renderings of events as written down by a “babe in Christ.” At the time many of these heavenly experiences were recorded, I was not well-read, nor had I studied the Bible to any great degree. In my opinion, this fact lends validity to these simple, supernatural and ethereal observations of a new believer.It was somewhat funny to read this statement of Basconi's, because I'd actually had a character use a similar argument in something I'd written, in En Passant. Here's what it was...
Kevin Basconi Angels in the Realms of Heaven: Real Life Heavenly and Angelic Encounters, Prologue
...Anyway, you are sharing the stage with a person who has earned the title of Grandmaster in chess, so we may assume he's a pretty good player. Do you play chess, Jo?” “I would have thought that ignorance and inexperience would be qualifications only in Postmodernism. But, apparently, it also works as a qualification for have religious experiences, too.
Oh, dear, no. Such a crude, violent game, with all those winners and losers. My sensitive postmodern postcompetitive postmasculine postspiritualized nature will simply not tolerate such Modernistic barbaric violence. I could never find any enjoyment is such an activity.”
The Grandmaster gave her a puzzled look. “But, you are here to talk of chess, yes?”
“Of course, Grandmaster (and I'll deal later with how bad such a prepostmodern prepostmasculine title is), and I think that my not having any familiarity with Chess puts me in a unique and qualified position to offer enlightened comment on the game, and especially our current topic of what will come after the death of chess. The fact that I don't know the rules of the games means that I am not bound by the rules of the game, so that I may see the game in new and creative and even postsecular and postspiritualized ways, so that I may see not only the death of chess, but also what is coming after the death of chess, the chess after chess, the chess beyond chess, the Event of chess that through the current game of chess only vaguely and weakly calls to us, the chess of weakness which calls to us from afar.”
Sorry, not buying it. Basconi's ignorance of the Bible only made him more prone to being deceived by these experiences.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
BIBLE TROLLS UNITE!!!
To get the bit picture of this, go here, and read.
Tony Jones’ fascinating exchange with Chris Rosebrough
And put on your focus on this comment of Jones'
The article linked to above has the Scripture passages that Jones deleted.
Fine with me. Just call me Detritus.
Tony Jones’ fascinating exchange with Chris Rosebrough
And put on your focus on this comment of Jones'
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Chris, I have deleted all of the Bible verses that you've cut and pasted from elsewhere. You are free to come and troll here on my blog, but you cannot copy-and-paste from elsewhere. We can all read the Bible for ourselves. Also, prepare to be ignored. Those of us to spend time on this blog daily have changed a lot since your last visit. We don't really argue with trolls anymore.]So, in other words, you go around quote Scripture to Tony Jones, then you're a troll.
The article linked to above has the Scripture passages that Jones deleted.
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:1–5)Yep, posting those four passages above made Rosebrough a troll. Doing something similar would likely make any of us one, too, in the eyes of Jones and those like him.
“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)
“Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:23–28)
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)
Fine with me. Just call me Detritus.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
book review--Angels in the Realms of Heaven by Kevin Basconi
tedious and scripturally suspect
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program
Where to begin? Well, first, this book is tedious and repetitious. Each account of his encounters begins in roughly the same way, proceeds along the same lines, and basically seem like minor variations on each other. Whatever else may be said about Rick Joyner and his own accounts of similar encounters, at least his books make for interesting reading.
But that aspect could be accept, or at least tolerated, if Basconi's book was biblical sound in what it teaches. I don't think it is, though. A lot of what is taught seems more than a little suspect scripturally.
While he doesn't go into it much in this book, he does make mention a few times of his teaching about Melchizedek. "However, as I taught in the second book of this trilogy, you can also access the realms of Heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek in this lifetime. You can visit Heaven now." However, when the author of Hebrews deals with Christ being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it uses that in reference only to Christ, and never even hints at applying it to believers.
Plus, there is his idea that "You can visit Heaven now". "Thus also allowing you and I to have these same supernatural privileges by blazing a trail and making a way for us to be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named among men. That is our call- ing and inheritance—and we can step into it in this lifetime (see Eph. 1:18-20, Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10)." However, these passages say nothing about us having the power or the right to visit Heaven now.
And, like any good NAR minister would, he ties his experiences to health and wealth. "Jesus took me from sickness to health. He took me from hopelessness to happiness. The Messiah transformed my mindset and took me from poverty to prosperity in the natural realm. All of these wonderful blessings unfolded in my life in a supernaturally quick and efficient manner once I began to visit Heaven. Supernatural grace and favor with both God and man are the fruit of heavenly visitations." Considering that he relates times when he would blow off his job, I guess he needed a bit of angelic assistance to get the bills paid.
Funny, though, when Paul talks about the revelations he had (I'm not so sure he was referring to himself when he talked about a man who had been to the Third Heaven, but that's a side issue at best), he doesn't seem to have gotten the health and wealth aspect of them. Instead, he got some hardships, like the much-speculated-about thorn in the flesh, and all the physical hardships he listed in II Corinthians.
Concerning Basconi's accounts of his visits to Heaven, as far as I'm concerned, he really had encounters of some kind. But I think there are a few reasons for questioning the sources of those encounters.
One of the biggies is a time when he claimed to have seen and touched the wound in one of Jesus' hands, "This was the first time that I had looked closely and studied the scars of His hands. Jesus allowed me to place my index finger into the indention where the nail pierced His palm." The problem is, very likely the nails were driven through Christ's wrists, not the palms of His hands.
At one point, he claimed that he was taken to a vault full of mantles. "I saw boxes that contained the mantles of saints of old, and I saw mantles of people who had lived in more recent times such as Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Woodworth Etter, Kathryn Kuhlman, and William Seymour." There is nothing in the Bible about such mantles.
This part about mantles gets really weird when he talks about the mantles of people who were and are not children of God, like the Beatles. Again, nothing in the Bible about these mantles. Not a word.
He relates another time, where he goes to a place with spare body parts floating around in jars. "This was the vault of spare body parts, and they would be released to people on earth who needed them." Who knew that God could only heal you if He has the right spare parts around?
And, for some reason, both the mantle vault and this place with the body parts have doors with hermetic seals, and he assures us that the spare body parts room is sterile. Didn't know Heaven had germs.
To sum it up, this book is simply not all that good. Do we need these kinds of encounters to know that Heaven is real, that God is real? I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham told the rich man in Hell that even if one should return from the dead, the rich man's brothers would not believe. I'm reminded as well of Paul's own silence on the things seen in the Third Heaven by himself or some other man.
And far too much of what this man teaches doesn't add up biblically. The Bible nowhere tells us to try to have trips to Heaven in this life. It nowhere says that these trips to Heaven are guarateed to give us health and wealth.
There're so many better books out there that will teach you what the Bible says. Look for those, and don't bother with this one.
I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program
Where to begin? Well, first, this book is tedious and repetitious. Each account of his encounters begins in roughly the same way, proceeds along the same lines, and basically seem like minor variations on each other. Whatever else may be said about Rick Joyner and his own accounts of similar encounters, at least his books make for interesting reading.
But that aspect could be accept, or at least tolerated, if Basconi's book was biblical sound in what it teaches. I don't think it is, though. A lot of what is taught seems more than a little suspect scripturally.
While he doesn't go into it much in this book, he does make mention a few times of his teaching about Melchizedek. "However, as I taught in the second book of this trilogy, you can also access the realms of Heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek in this lifetime. You can visit Heaven now." However, when the author of Hebrews deals with Christ being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it uses that in reference only to Christ, and never even hints at applying it to believers.
Plus, there is his idea that "You can visit Heaven now". "Thus also allowing you and I to have these same supernatural privileges by blazing a trail and making a way for us to be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named among men. That is our call- ing and inheritance—and we can step into it in this lifetime (see Eph. 1:18-20, Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10)." However, these passages say nothing about us having the power or the right to visit Heaven now.
And, like any good NAR minister would, he ties his experiences to health and wealth. "Jesus took me from sickness to health. He took me from hopelessness to happiness. The Messiah transformed my mindset and took me from poverty to prosperity in the natural realm. All of these wonderful blessings unfolded in my life in a supernaturally quick and efficient manner once I began to visit Heaven. Supernatural grace and favor with both God and man are the fruit of heavenly visitations." Considering that he relates times when he would blow off his job, I guess he needed a bit of angelic assistance to get the bills paid.
Funny, though, when Paul talks about the revelations he had (I'm not so sure he was referring to himself when he talked about a man who had been to the Third Heaven, but that's a side issue at best), he doesn't seem to have gotten the health and wealth aspect of them. Instead, he got some hardships, like the much-speculated-about thorn in the flesh, and all the physical hardships he listed in II Corinthians.
Concerning Basconi's accounts of his visits to Heaven, as far as I'm concerned, he really had encounters of some kind. But I think there are a few reasons for questioning the sources of those encounters.
One of the biggies is a time when he claimed to have seen and touched the wound in one of Jesus' hands, "This was the first time that I had looked closely and studied the scars of His hands. Jesus allowed me to place my index finger into the indention where the nail pierced His palm." The problem is, very likely the nails were driven through Christ's wrists, not the palms of His hands.
At one point, he claimed that he was taken to a vault full of mantles. "I saw boxes that contained the mantles of saints of old, and I saw mantles of people who had lived in more recent times such as Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Woodworth Etter, Kathryn Kuhlman, and William Seymour." There is nothing in the Bible about such mantles.
This part about mantles gets really weird when he talks about the mantles of people who were and are not children of God, like the Beatles. Again, nothing in the Bible about these mantles. Not a word.
He relates another time, where he goes to a place with spare body parts floating around in jars. "This was the vault of spare body parts, and they would be released to people on earth who needed them." Who knew that God could only heal you if He has the right spare parts around?
And, for some reason, both the mantle vault and this place with the body parts have doors with hermetic seals, and he assures us that the spare body parts room is sterile. Didn't know Heaven had germs.
To sum it up, this book is simply not all that good. Do we need these kinds of encounters to know that Heaven is real, that God is real? I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham told the rich man in Hell that even if one should return from the dead, the rich man's brothers would not believe. I'm reminded as well of Paul's own silence on the things seen in the Third Heaven by himself or some other man.
And far too much of what this man teaches doesn't add up biblically. The Bible nowhere tells us to try to have trips to Heaven in this life. It nowhere says that these trips to Heaven are guarateed to give us health and wealth.
There're so many better books out there that will teach you what the Bible says. Look for those, and don't bother with this one.
Monday, February 18, 2013
en passant, and it's free
So, it looks like the time for the free offer has expired.
Well, for a few days.
En Passant
It's only in the Kindle format, and it'll be free for only a few days, but I do hope you'll take a gander of it, and maybe give some feedback, good or ill. Either would be welcomed, and appreciated.
Well, for a few days.
En Passant
It's only in the Kindle format, and it'll be free for only a few days, but I do hope you'll take a gander of it, and maybe give some feedback, good or ill. Either would be welcomed, and appreciated.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
a bit of something funny
I found this amusing.
I think Hobbes sums it up best at the end of this comic strip.
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2010/06/02
I think Hobbes sums it up best at the end of this comic strip.
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2010/06/02
Friday, February 15, 2013
book review--Growing in the Prophetic by Mike Bickle
one reason the prophetic is a joke
Assuming, at least for the moment, that the prophetic is still something for today (debatable), it would still be true that no small amount of what Bickle writes in this book is not just unhelpful, but damaging, and I've little doubt that it is one of the reasons that the prophetic has deservedly earned itself a bad name.
For example, take this statement, "The primary way that the Father will show us what He is doing is by speaking to us in the “still, small voice.” The Father will also give us whispers or hints of what He is about to do. The “divine hint” may come as a subtle prophetic impression on our mind." (Kindle Locations 3386-3389). He tries to tie this to the account of the prophet Elijah hearing a still, small voice while he was on the mountain, but what happened to the prophet is not what Bickle says he and others experience. Elijah heard a real voice, not some kind of vague internal 'voice' that's actually little more than a feeling that can be interpreted any number of ways.
I would dare say that few modern-day teachings has been the source of more confusion, mistakes, hesitancy, and just all-around goofiness than the stress so many put on trying to hear some kind of quiet, inner voice. The Bible teaches nothing about our need to hear such a thing.
Another example is how he waters down the biblical requirement that anyone who prophecies be 100% accurate. "The New Testament doesn’t require the same standard of its prophets who prophesy by faith and often from subtle impressions of the Holy Spirit. (Kindle Locations 1121-1123). He gives no place where that is stated in the New Testament, but simply tries to extrapolate it. "In the New Testament, Paul taught us specifically to “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Cor. 14:29, emphasis added). The Revised Standard Version translates the passage this way: “ . . . let the others weigh what is said.”" (Kindle Locations 1124-1126). But he does not explain how that means that prophetic accuracy is no longer required, or how it downplays the importance of accuracy, or for that matter what the church was to do to those who prophecied falsely.
And in the New Testament, we are not given any instances of someone prophecying something wrong. All of the prophets in the New Testament were just as accurate as those in the Old. If one is going to say that prophecy is still for today, then watering down the need and requirement for absolute accuracy is dangerous.
But to work around this, Bickle spend much of this book explain his rather convoluted measures for determining who can prophesy, what kinds of prophecies they can give when, who has what level of prophetic ability, how to handle it when prophecies are wrong, and so on. It makes one long for the blunt simplicity of the Old Testament--you'd better be right, or the consequences will be serious. In other words, you'd better be very sure it's God telling you to say this and that. If all you got is a vague inner feeling, you'd best keep your trap shut.
One serious warning sign about Bickle's teachings has to do with what he says about a false prophet and teacher of yesteryear, "However, Branham ended up preaching some doctrinal heresy, although never to the extent of denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or doubting the authority of the Scriptures." (Kindle Locations 2244-2246). But the truth is, those are the very things Branham got very wrong. He was a modalist who even taught that "In the beginning He (Jesus) wasn't even God", and he taught that the Zodiac and the pyramids were equal to the Bible. Bickle is flat-out wrong in his statement about Branham.
All in all, this book is a theological mess.
Assuming, at least for the moment, that the prophetic is still something for today (debatable), it would still be true that no small amount of what Bickle writes in this book is not just unhelpful, but damaging, and I've little doubt that it is one of the reasons that the prophetic has deservedly earned itself a bad name.
For example, take this statement, "The primary way that the Father will show us what He is doing is by speaking to us in the “still, small voice.” The Father will also give us whispers or hints of what He is about to do. The “divine hint” may come as a subtle prophetic impression on our mind." (Kindle Locations 3386-3389). He tries to tie this to the account of the prophet Elijah hearing a still, small voice while he was on the mountain, but what happened to the prophet is not what Bickle says he and others experience. Elijah heard a real voice, not some kind of vague internal 'voice' that's actually little more than a feeling that can be interpreted any number of ways.
I would dare say that few modern-day teachings has been the source of more confusion, mistakes, hesitancy, and just all-around goofiness than the stress so many put on trying to hear some kind of quiet, inner voice. The Bible teaches nothing about our need to hear such a thing.
Another example is how he waters down the biblical requirement that anyone who prophecies be 100% accurate. "The New Testament doesn’t require the same standard of its prophets who prophesy by faith and often from subtle impressions of the Holy Spirit. (Kindle Locations 1121-1123). He gives no place where that is stated in the New Testament, but simply tries to extrapolate it. "In the New Testament, Paul taught us specifically to “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Cor. 14:29, emphasis added). The Revised Standard Version translates the passage this way: “ . . . let the others weigh what is said.”" (Kindle Locations 1124-1126). But he does not explain how that means that prophetic accuracy is no longer required, or how it downplays the importance of accuracy, or for that matter what the church was to do to those who prophecied falsely.
And in the New Testament, we are not given any instances of someone prophecying something wrong. All of the prophets in the New Testament were just as accurate as those in the Old. If one is going to say that prophecy is still for today, then watering down the need and requirement for absolute accuracy is dangerous.
But to work around this, Bickle spend much of this book explain his rather convoluted measures for determining who can prophesy, what kinds of prophecies they can give when, who has what level of prophetic ability, how to handle it when prophecies are wrong, and so on. It makes one long for the blunt simplicity of the Old Testament--you'd better be right, or the consequences will be serious. In other words, you'd better be very sure it's God telling you to say this and that. If all you got is a vague inner feeling, you'd best keep your trap shut.
One serious warning sign about Bickle's teachings has to do with what he says about a false prophet and teacher of yesteryear, "However, Branham ended up preaching some doctrinal heresy, although never to the extent of denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or doubting the authority of the Scriptures." (Kindle Locations 2244-2246). But the truth is, those are the very things Branham got very wrong. He was a modalist who even taught that "In the beginning He (Jesus) wasn't even God", and he taught that the Zodiac and the pyramids were equal to the Bible. Bickle is flat-out wrong in his statement about Branham.
All in all, this book is a theological mess.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
movie review--hansel and gretel
not really worth it
I kinda wish I could give this movie a better review than I'm going to, but the truth is, it's not all that good of a movie.
It's kinda fun. It has a few little twists and turns. The effects aren't bad. There's a bit of effective humor. But in the end, it was rather a "blah" kind of movie.
Renner is one of the better action movie actors, which was shown last year with The Avengers and the Bourne movie, and he put in a solid enough performance here. In fact, the acting itself was fairly good, overall. And I'll give the idea, what happened to the two kids after they escapse the witch in the candy house, a bit for creativity.
So, what's my problems with the movie?
First, the scene at the pool. I'll not go into details about it, but it was a bit more than I was expecting, and not in a good way.
Second, while there were a few original elements, all in all the story was very typical. No real surprises.
Third, the language, especially going up to the last fight scene. There were a few instances of language throughout, and there are probably plenty of movies out there with much more, but for whatever reason, it was still jarring and unwelcomed.
The enemies, the witches, were almost all extremely typical of the types of villains on shows and in movies these days--bizarrely made-up and screeching, reminding me most of Wraiths from the Stargate: Atlantis series. They just weren't interesting enough.
And, of course, we're told that there are good witches, too. Yeah, I know, if you've seen The Wizard of Oz, that's hardly a new idea. Just don't buy it.
I don't think I'll be re-watching this one. Just not worth it.
I kinda wish I could give this movie a better review than I'm going to, but the truth is, it's not all that good of a movie.
It's kinda fun. It has a few little twists and turns. The effects aren't bad. There's a bit of effective humor. But in the end, it was rather a "blah" kind of movie.
Renner is one of the better action movie actors, which was shown last year with The Avengers and the Bourne movie, and he put in a solid enough performance here. In fact, the acting itself was fairly good, overall. And I'll give the idea, what happened to the two kids after they escapse the witch in the candy house, a bit for creativity.
So, what's my problems with the movie?
First, the scene at the pool. I'll not go into details about it, but it was a bit more than I was expecting, and not in a good way.
Second, while there were a few original elements, all in all the story was very typical. No real surprises.
Third, the language, especially going up to the last fight scene. There were a few instances of language throughout, and there are probably plenty of movies out there with much more, but for whatever reason, it was still jarring and unwelcomed.
The enemies, the witches, were almost all extremely typical of the types of villains on shows and in movies these days--bizarrely made-up and screeching, reminding me most of Wraiths from the Stargate: Atlantis series. They just weren't interesting enough.
And, of course, we're told that there are good witches, too. Yeah, I know, if you've seen The Wizard of Oz, that's hardly a new idea. Just don't buy it.
I don't think I'll be re-watching this one. Just not worth it.
Monday, February 4, 2013
book review--The Call by Rick Joyner
tastes funny
There is an impression I get when I read the things written by modern prophets, like this book by Joyner, "The Call". It's not a subtle thing, though it's not an easy thing to correctly label. The best way I can think of to compare it to is "taste". Things like "The Call" taste funny. For me, comparing biblical prophetic books like Isaiah, Ezekial, and Zechariah to things like "The Call" is like comparing a fine, quality cheese to processed, plastic-wrapped cheese slices, or a well-prepared grilled steak to a hastily-prepared fast-food burger.
But while I think there is something to that impression, it is only an impression, only subjective. There are objective reasons, though, for a reader who practices biblical discernment to question the things Joyner has written in this book.
One is found in the Introduction, where Joyner writes, "Never are we told that prophecy is infallible, which is why we must judge prophecy" (p 22); however, Deuteronomy 18 says otherwise, "21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."
In chapter 1, Wisdom, some kind of personification of Jesus, speaks against examining oneself. "You began to look at yourself. This will always bring confusion, making it harder for you to hear Me...You must learn to abide in My presence without becoming self-conscious and self-absorbed..." (p 31); however, in I Corinthians 11 we are told to examine ourselves when we partake of the Lord's Supper, and in II Corinthians 13 Paul tells them to examine and test themselves, to see if they are really in the faith, because they have been listening to false apostles.
In chapter 2, he gives a bizarre interpretation to Revelation 13, which he says came to him from Jonah. " If you will wake yourself up, repent and go the way that He sends you, you will not have to be swallowed by the beast... As you read in that chapter (Revelation 13), this beast is given to make war with the saints and to overcome them. This will happen to all who do not repent." (p 48); however, that is not what Revelation 13 says, "5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." The beast will be against the saints and will to overcome them, but the unrepentent will worship it.
In another place, he claims that the Lord said to him, "...I can command the heavens and they obey Me, but I cannot command love. Love commanded is not love at all." (p 60); however, what did Christ say was the first and greatest commandment? To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. What did He say was the second? To love your neighbor as yourself. Love isn't just commanded, but is it commanded in the two greatest commandments.
Lot tells Joyner, "What the Lord did to Sodom, He did as an example so that others would not have to be destroyed in this way." (p 42); however, II Peter 2 tells us something a bit different, "6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, a making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;". Peter's statement, made through the Spirit's inspiration, is rather the opposite of Joyner's.
One of the more interesting statements comes from Wisdom, "The wages of sin is death, and the wages of righteousness are peace, joy, glory, and honor. All are about to receive their worthy wages." (p 56). The first part is not the problem, but the part about "the wages of righteousness" is rather bothersome biblically. Consider this, from Romans 4, "What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,". And this, from Romans 3, "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," I have not found the phrase "wages of righteousness" anywhere in the Bible; in fact, "wages of righteousness" seems an oxymoronic statement. If we were to receive our wages, we would receive death. God's righteousness is not a wage, but a gift received by faith.
Another strange statement from Wisdom is this, "The truth that I am sending will not just convict My people of their sin, but will cleanse them from their sin." (p 175); however, we who believe in Christ already have been cleansed from sin by His blood, as Ephesians 1 says, "7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,"
To finish off this review, here's a bit of something Jonah tells him, "When you go through that door, you will enter the times when the Lord's power and glory will be released on the earth such as He has not done since the beginning of time. All of heaven has been waiting for the things you are about to see." This is simply an example of what seems to be the fundamental premise of the book--how important Joyner is. Because in his visions he goes through a door, something unprecedented is going to happen. Wisdom tells him all kinds of things, so that he'll be able to tell everyone else. Even when he gets rebuked, it only serves to emphasize his importance.
To sum up, we have good reason to think that the visions Joyner claimed to have receive and written about in this book are less than divine. The way the people in his visions mishandle biblical passages and statements is a sure clue that something is rotten in them. There is much sounder biblical teaching out there.
There is an impression I get when I read the things written by modern prophets, like this book by Joyner, "The Call". It's not a subtle thing, though it's not an easy thing to correctly label. The best way I can think of to compare it to is "taste". Things like "The Call" taste funny. For me, comparing biblical prophetic books like Isaiah, Ezekial, and Zechariah to things like "The Call" is like comparing a fine, quality cheese to processed, plastic-wrapped cheese slices, or a well-prepared grilled steak to a hastily-prepared fast-food burger.
But while I think there is something to that impression, it is only an impression, only subjective. There are objective reasons, though, for a reader who practices biblical discernment to question the things Joyner has written in this book.
One is found in the Introduction, where Joyner writes, "Never are we told that prophecy is infallible, which is why we must judge prophecy" (p 22); however, Deuteronomy 18 says otherwise, "21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."
In chapter 1, Wisdom, some kind of personification of Jesus, speaks against examining oneself. "You began to look at yourself. This will always bring confusion, making it harder for you to hear Me...You must learn to abide in My presence without becoming self-conscious and self-absorbed..." (p 31); however, in I Corinthians 11 we are told to examine ourselves when we partake of the Lord's Supper, and in II Corinthians 13 Paul tells them to examine and test themselves, to see if they are really in the faith, because they have been listening to false apostles.
In chapter 2, he gives a bizarre interpretation to Revelation 13, which he says came to him from Jonah. " If you will wake yourself up, repent and go the way that He sends you, you will not have to be swallowed by the beast... As you read in that chapter (Revelation 13), this beast is given to make war with the saints and to overcome them. This will happen to all who do not repent." (p 48); however, that is not what Revelation 13 says, "5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." The beast will be against the saints and will to overcome them, but the unrepentent will worship it.
In another place, he claims that the Lord said to him, "...I can command the heavens and they obey Me, but I cannot command love. Love commanded is not love at all." (p 60); however, what did Christ say was the first and greatest commandment? To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. What did He say was the second? To love your neighbor as yourself. Love isn't just commanded, but is it commanded in the two greatest commandments.
Lot tells Joyner, "What the Lord did to Sodom, He did as an example so that others would not have to be destroyed in this way." (p 42); however, II Peter 2 tells us something a bit different, "6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, a making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;". Peter's statement, made through the Spirit's inspiration, is rather the opposite of Joyner's.
One of the more interesting statements comes from Wisdom, "The wages of sin is death, and the wages of righteousness are peace, joy, glory, and honor. All are about to receive their worthy wages." (p 56). The first part is not the problem, but the part about "the wages of righteousness" is rather bothersome biblically. Consider this, from Romans 4, "What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,". And this, from Romans 3, "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," I have not found the phrase "wages of righteousness" anywhere in the Bible; in fact, "wages of righteousness" seems an oxymoronic statement. If we were to receive our wages, we would receive death. God's righteousness is not a wage, but a gift received by faith.
Another strange statement from Wisdom is this, "The truth that I am sending will not just convict My people of their sin, but will cleanse them from their sin." (p 175); however, we who believe in Christ already have been cleansed from sin by His blood, as Ephesians 1 says, "7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,"
To finish off this review, here's a bit of something Jonah tells him, "When you go through that door, you will enter the times when the Lord's power and glory will be released on the earth such as He has not done since the beginning of time. All of heaven has been waiting for the things you are about to see." This is simply an example of what seems to be the fundamental premise of the book--how important Joyner is. Because in his visions he goes through a door, something unprecedented is going to happen. Wisdom tells him all kinds of things, so that he'll be able to tell everyone else. Even when he gets rebuked, it only serves to emphasize his importance.
To sum up, we have good reason to think that the visions Joyner claimed to have receive and written about in this book are less than divine. The way the people in his visions mishandle biblical passages and statements is a sure clue that something is rotten in them. There is much sounder biblical teaching out there.
Friday, February 1, 2013
he may as well admit that he denies it
Do I Deny the Resurrection?
There is a certain aspect of postmodernism that is especially annoying; namely, their lack of ability to actually give answer a question. Instead, what we get is a lot of words that basically don't answer the question at all.
For example, this guy claims that people sometimes ask him this kind of question. One would think that it would be a simple enough question to answer. But, oh, no, not for a super-clever postmodern like him, no indeed-y.
Instead, he quotes something from Peter Rollins. That's never a good sign, unless you're doing it to show how ridiculous Rollins is. For some reason, this guy thinks Rollins isn't ridiculous. The PR quote basically doesn't answer the question. But if you point that out, well, here's this article writer's reply...
He goes on to try to make his position even more clear, and it basically comes down to this...politics. Apparently, Jesus' death was less about Him dying for our sins, but rather about Him spitting in the eyes of those in power in Rome, even though Jesus lived and was crucified several hundreds of miles away from the city of Rome, never visited Rome, and never tried to cause a rebellion against Rome.
So, that's his position...it doesn't matter. Do you believe Jesus really rose from the dead, or not? It's not important, just do whatever this guy things you should do to "...help God bring the Kingdom into fruition...".
In other words, salvation by works. Grace alone, faith only, through Christ alone? Hogwash!! No, you've got to work for it!
See, his wishy-washiness isn't grace, it's law. It puts you back under the burden of keeping the law, or at least his version of it. Fight the powers, be a good little socialistic activist, try to bring God's kingdom to earth. It doesn't matter what you belief, but it sure matters what you do.
And so he denies the resurrection, and so he is not a Christian.
There is a certain aspect of postmodernism that is especially annoying; namely, their lack of ability to actually give answer a question. Instead, what we get is a lot of words that basically don't answer the question at all.
For example, this guy claims that people sometimes ask him this kind of question. One would think that it would be a simple enough question to answer. But, oh, no, not for a super-clever postmodern like him, no indeed-y.
Instead, he quotes something from Peter Rollins. That's never a good sign, unless you're doing it to show how ridiculous Rollins is. For some reason, this guy thinks Rollins isn't ridiculous. The PR quote basically doesn't answer the question. But if you point that out, well, here's this article writer's reply...
As you might expect, this does not calm the questioners down. They accuse me of not understanding the question. I understand the question perfectly well. I think they are the ones who do not know what they are asking.Translation: "Ah, yes, you silly idiotic people, how dare you expect me to actually answer your question!"
He goes on to try to make his position even more clear, and it basically comes down to this...politics. Apparently, Jesus' death was less about Him dying for our sins, but rather about Him spitting in the eyes of those in power in Rome, even though Jesus lived and was crucified several hundreds of miles away from the city of Rome, never visited Rome, and never tried to cause a rebellion against Rome.
If I act hateful, or in fact, less than loving to my neighbor, I have denied the resurrection just as surely as my selling state secrets to China denies my allegiance to the USA...And I can believe whatever you want about what happened that Sunday morning, but if I am not using what power I have to help God bring the Kingdom into fruition, to help make it on Earth as it is in Heaven, I don’t expect you to call me a Christian.
So, that's his position...it doesn't matter. Do you believe Jesus really rose from the dead, or not? It's not important, just do whatever this guy things you should do to "...help God bring the Kingdom into fruition...".
In other words, salvation by works. Grace alone, faith only, through Christ alone? Hogwash!! No, you've got to work for it!
See, his wishy-washiness isn't grace, it's law. It puts you back under the burden of keeping the law, or at least his version of it. Fight the powers, be a good little socialistic activist, try to bring God's kingdom to earth. It doesn't matter what you belief, but it sure matters what you do.
And so he denies the resurrection, and so he is not a Christian.
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.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
there's sick and wrong, then there's this...
I've Seen the Future of Men's Fashion and I'm Afraid
Words almost fail...
What kind of philosophical or psychological babble could be used to describe or justify this rot?
None. The word "rot" is quite enough.
Words almost fail...
What kind of philosophical or psychological babble could be used to describe or justify this rot?
None. The word "rot" is quite enough.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
does "lack of credibility" mean nothing?
So, there's this organization out there called Love146. Their main concern is child sex trafficing, trying to stop it and help the victims. Since that is an issue that needs dealt with, all well and good.
Now, apparently, this organization has recent had it's 10th anniversary, and celebrated it with an event of some kind. At this event, they had a guest speaker.
That guest speaker was former US president Bill Clinton.
Yes, the same Bill Clinton whose presidency was marred by his sexual shenanigans with a White House intern, and whose lies about that resulted in his impeachment. The same Bill Clinton whose political career was marked by accusations of sexual misconduct.
http://youtu.be/F9iy7rhRIRQ
Maybe this organization, Love146, is doing lots of good work. But if they are so all-fired-up about sexual exploitation, why did they have a known sexual exploiter speak at their event? Did they try to get one of the women whom this former president exploited? Would't that have been much more in keeping with their goals and aims?
Does Clintons lack of credibility on this issue mean nothing?
I would like to think that this organization is a good one, well worth supporting, that maybe this was simply a slip in judgment. But it still leaves me wondering.
Now, apparently, this organization has recent had it's 10th anniversary, and celebrated it with an event of some kind. At this event, they had a guest speaker.
That guest speaker was former US president Bill Clinton.
Yes, the same Bill Clinton whose presidency was marred by his sexual shenanigans with a White House intern, and whose lies about that resulted in his impeachment. The same Bill Clinton whose political career was marked by accusations of sexual misconduct.
http://youtu.be/F9iy7rhRIRQ
Maybe this organization, Love146, is doing lots of good work. But if they are so all-fired-up about sexual exploitation, why did they have a known sexual exploiter speak at their event? Did they try to get one of the women whom this former president exploited? Would't that have been much more in keeping with their goals and aims?
Does Clintons lack of credibility on this issue mean nothing?
I would like to think that this organization is a good one, well worth supporting, that maybe this was simply a slip in judgment. But it still leaves me wondering.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
good article about giglio controversy
Louie Giglio and the New State Church
And a brief excerpt, to whet your appetite to check out all of it.
And a brief excerpt, to whet your appetite to check out all of it.
We don’t have a natural right to pray at anyone’s inauguration. But when one is pressured out from a previous invitation because he is too “toxic” for simply mentioning once something universal in the Christian faith, we ought to see what we’re looking at: a state church.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
book review--New Monasticism:what it has to say to today's church
We are the New Borg
First, I'd like to propose an idea. I think that the church needs to ban itself from using the word "radical", except in it's most formal senses, such as the mathematical. For the church, it has become at best an empty cliche, and in less good circumstances it is used in self-praising, self-congratulatory ways.
When the author of this book says "And almost everywhere I go these days, people agree that something is wrong in American Christianity." (Kindle Location 19), I may well have some agreement with him. What I disagree with is that what he calls "New Monasticism" is any kind of a solution; if anything, it is at best simply a symptom and a further continuing of the problem.
In the 11 May 2012 episode of his "Fighting For the Faith" program, Chris Rosebrough gives the recording of a lecture he had given, called "Resistance is Futile: You Will Be Assimilated Into The Community". Although he focuses most on things in the seeker mega-churches, it strikes me that what he talks about seems more than a little similar to what this author says about The New Monasticism.
Rosebrough refers to Peter Drucker's project of creating a non-economic society, and gives some ways in which Drucker's ideas have influence some church leaders. He gives two ways in which this is showing up in churches, and I contend that much the same things show up in this book.
1. A Society That DOES NOT recognize the inherent rights of the Individual. Individuals do not exist in time only the Community exists - a global community at that.
Essentially, the individual is swallowed up into the community. The community becomes the main focus, the good of the community becomes the main thing. The community is the thing most valued. The community becomes god.
This kind of de-valuing of the individual, with the power of providing and even decision-making being given to the community, is openly proclaimed and even celebrated in this book. "Some communities practice what's called a strict common purse. They read Acts where it says, "No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common" (4:32), and they decided to put all their money into one bank account (like couples do when they get married). Out of that account, most common purse communities pay for everyone's living expenses and then use the rest to bless others or support the work of God's people." (Kindle Locations 984-987). Never minding that the Bible does not command such a thing, or even that the church mentioned in Acts 4 did not command it, these communities impose it on their people. The author refers to another community giving their people a "raise", "A couple of years ago, they decided to increase each person's living allowance from ten to fifteen dollars a week." (Kindle Locations 994-995).
He writes this in regards to another such community, "In San Francisco (which is a pretty expensive city), they agreed to each live on $275 of discretionary money per month. Of course you don't have to spend that much. But the community has agreed that no one will spend more than that. Whatever money people make above their living expenses and discretionary allotment they put in an account to give away." (Kindle Locations 1001-1003).
Notice how much power these communities exercise over their people. The community decides what each person can spend. The community decides to give the people a basically meaningless raise in living allowance. The community provides the individuals with all they need, or at least all that they think they need. The community decides how much money each individual person can spend in a month. Ed Young Jr. wanted the people in his church to give his church their bank account and routing numbers, but even he wasn't this ambitious.
But this economic power is not the only power this author wants communities or churches to have over the person. "Churches will also have to call people into higher-commitment membership. We have to find ways to get people to stick around. Maybe the only way to do that is to ask people to pledge their allegiance to the church...But if pledging our allegiance is a way of saying who we are and where we're going, then Christians have to pledge ourselves to the people of God. If our home is in God's kingdom, we cannot pledge our ultimate allegiance to America. If God is our Father, the nuclear family cannot be our god. Instead, we've got to say that our primary commitment is to the church. But for those words to have any real meaning, churches will have to get serious about membership. We need to name our commitments to each other and develop a process to determine whether God is calling an individual to leave our community or whether the forces of the economy are simply tearing us apart." (Kindle Locations 745-752). Look at this language, "...we've got to say that our primary commitment is to the church". Country and even family are given at best secondary place. If "the nuclear family cannot be our god", then in saying "...our primary commitment is to the church", does not the church then become our god, or at least our primary mediator between God and the powerless individual?
And don't think that is an idle or rhetorical question. Early in the book, the author speaks favorably of a group that calls itself the Bruderhof. Perhaps they started out fine, more or less, but as time has gone by, they have become something else entirely. Look up the Keep In Touch (KIT) Newsletters, which provide many examples of the Bruderhof breaking up families and throwing people out of their community. There are news articles about the Bruderhof moving children out of the country to keep the courts from having their fathers, former Brudehof members exiled from the community, have any contact with the children.
Perhaps the author would not condone such actions by the Bruderhof, I'd give him that. But given how much power he wants the church or community to have over the person, then what keeps any other church or community from going so far, over even further?
2. Anti-rational (anti-doctrinal “pastoral” churches). Immanent not transcendent.
"Unity across dividing lines was what distinguished the early church-so much so that they required a new name. Christianity was a new identity, neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free (Gal. 3:28). That's pretty incredible to think about, especially in a church fractured by schisms and creeds, denominational divides and ethnic identities." (Kindle Locations 34-36). Yet in speaking about this unity, he fails to note that the early church was also setting itself apart. One need only read Paul's epistles to see that he was not a big-tent type of person. This author refers to the epistle to the Galatians, but if one reads it, one can see that Paul is very firmly against people who were trying to make the Galatian believers return to trying to earn salvation and righteousness by keeping the Law, particularly in regards to circumcision.
So, look at some of those things that he contends are fracturing the church--schisms, creeds, denominations. Basically, things like beliefs and doctrines. And he throws in "ethnic identities", as if adhering to a creed is no better than being a racist.
"Often we can't even agree that we're all Christian." (Kindle Location 25). That's true, because if the name "Christian" has any particular meaning, then it may well be possible that some who call themselves Christian may not be. Even in the New Testament, we have examples of people who claimed to be in the Church, but whose beliefs and teachings were contrary to the Apostle's teachings. And in this day, when a John Shelby Spong can basically deny everything taught in the Bible and call himself a Christian, it is as important to be discerning.
At the end of chapter 2, he gives what these New Monastics have called "12 Marks of a New Monasticism" (Kindle Location 369). All of these 12 marks are immanent and about practice, none are doctrinal. Only one has any kind of scriptural reference, the 7th. None are about the proclaiming of the Gospel, none are about people needing to repent of sins and believe in Christ.
"Sometimes when I talk with evangelical friends about the grassroots ecumenism of new monastic communities, they tell me I'm not taking doctrine seriously enough. I worry about this myself (especially when I think someone I'm living with is wrong). I worry not so much because I want to be right; I worry because I don't want to see people I love destroyed by lies. (I'm a writer and a preacher-a wielder of words, you might say-because I'm convinced that what we think and believe is a life-and-death issue.)" (Kindle Locations 1397-1400). If that is so, then may we have an actual doctrinal statement for these New Monastics? May we know what it is that all of you actually believe? If you can formulate 12 Marks, then why not an actual statement of what you mean when you call yourselves Christians?
So, I'm less than impressed with these New Monastics, and would not recommend that anyone tie themselves to them. When doctrinal issues are downplayed, and one is basically told to give control of one's life to the community, well, my reply is, "No, thanks, I want none of it".
First, I'd like to propose an idea. I think that the church needs to ban itself from using the word "radical", except in it's most formal senses, such as the mathematical. For the church, it has become at best an empty cliche, and in less good circumstances it is used in self-praising, self-congratulatory ways.
When the author of this book says "And almost everywhere I go these days, people agree that something is wrong in American Christianity." (Kindle Location 19), I may well have some agreement with him. What I disagree with is that what he calls "New Monasticism" is any kind of a solution; if anything, it is at best simply a symptom and a further continuing of the problem.
In the 11 May 2012 episode of his "Fighting For the Faith" program, Chris Rosebrough gives the recording of a lecture he had given, called "Resistance is Futile: You Will Be Assimilated Into The Community". Although he focuses most on things in the seeker mega-churches, it strikes me that what he talks about seems more than a little similar to what this author says about The New Monasticism.
Rosebrough refers to Peter Drucker's project of creating a non-economic society, and gives some ways in which Drucker's ideas have influence some church leaders. He gives two ways in which this is showing up in churches, and I contend that much the same things show up in this book.
1. A Society That DOES NOT recognize the inherent rights of the Individual. Individuals do not exist in time only the Community exists - a global community at that.
Essentially, the individual is swallowed up into the community. The community becomes the main focus, the good of the community becomes the main thing. The community is the thing most valued. The community becomes god.
This kind of de-valuing of the individual, with the power of providing and even decision-making being given to the community, is openly proclaimed and even celebrated in this book. "Some communities practice what's called a strict common purse. They read Acts where it says, "No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common" (4:32), and they decided to put all their money into one bank account (like couples do when they get married). Out of that account, most common purse communities pay for everyone's living expenses and then use the rest to bless others or support the work of God's people." (Kindle Locations 984-987). Never minding that the Bible does not command such a thing, or even that the church mentioned in Acts 4 did not command it, these communities impose it on their people. The author refers to another community giving their people a "raise", "A couple of years ago, they decided to increase each person's living allowance from ten to fifteen dollars a week." (Kindle Locations 994-995).
He writes this in regards to another such community, "In San Francisco (which is a pretty expensive city), they agreed to each live on $275 of discretionary money per month. Of course you don't have to spend that much. But the community has agreed that no one will spend more than that. Whatever money people make above their living expenses and discretionary allotment they put in an account to give away." (Kindle Locations 1001-1003).
Notice how much power these communities exercise over their people. The community decides what each person can spend. The community decides to give the people a basically meaningless raise in living allowance. The community provides the individuals with all they need, or at least all that they think they need. The community decides how much money each individual person can spend in a month. Ed Young Jr. wanted the people in his church to give his church their bank account and routing numbers, but even he wasn't this ambitious.
But this economic power is not the only power this author wants communities or churches to have over the person. "Churches will also have to call people into higher-commitment membership. We have to find ways to get people to stick around. Maybe the only way to do that is to ask people to pledge their allegiance to the church...But if pledging our allegiance is a way of saying who we are and where we're going, then Christians have to pledge ourselves to the people of God. If our home is in God's kingdom, we cannot pledge our ultimate allegiance to America. If God is our Father, the nuclear family cannot be our god. Instead, we've got to say that our primary commitment is to the church. But for those words to have any real meaning, churches will have to get serious about membership. We need to name our commitments to each other and develop a process to determine whether God is calling an individual to leave our community or whether the forces of the economy are simply tearing us apart." (Kindle Locations 745-752). Look at this language, "...we've got to say that our primary commitment is to the church". Country and even family are given at best secondary place. If "the nuclear family cannot be our god", then in saying "...our primary commitment is to the church", does not the church then become our god, or at least our primary mediator between God and the powerless individual?
And don't think that is an idle or rhetorical question. Early in the book, the author speaks favorably of a group that calls itself the Bruderhof. Perhaps they started out fine, more or less, but as time has gone by, they have become something else entirely. Look up the Keep In Touch (KIT) Newsletters, which provide many examples of the Bruderhof breaking up families and throwing people out of their community. There are news articles about the Bruderhof moving children out of the country to keep the courts from having their fathers, former Brudehof members exiled from the community, have any contact with the children.
Perhaps the author would not condone such actions by the Bruderhof, I'd give him that. But given how much power he wants the church or community to have over the person, then what keeps any other church or community from going so far, over even further?
2. Anti-rational (anti-doctrinal “pastoral” churches). Immanent not transcendent.
"Unity across dividing lines was what distinguished the early church-so much so that they required a new name. Christianity was a new identity, neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free (Gal. 3:28). That's pretty incredible to think about, especially in a church fractured by schisms and creeds, denominational divides and ethnic identities." (Kindle Locations 34-36). Yet in speaking about this unity, he fails to note that the early church was also setting itself apart. One need only read Paul's epistles to see that he was not a big-tent type of person. This author refers to the epistle to the Galatians, but if one reads it, one can see that Paul is very firmly against people who were trying to make the Galatian believers return to trying to earn salvation and righteousness by keeping the Law, particularly in regards to circumcision.
So, look at some of those things that he contends are fracturing the church--schisms, creeds, denominations. Basically, things like beliefs and doctrines. And he throws in "ethnic identities", as if adhering to a creed is no better than being a racist.
"Often we can't even agree that we're all Christian." (Kindle Location 25). That's true, because if the name "Christian" has any particular meaning, then it may well be possible that some who call themselves Christian may not be. Even in the New Testament, we have examples of people who claimed to be in the Church, but whose beliefs and teachings were contrary to the Apostle's teachings. And in this day, when a John Shelby Spong can basically deny everything taught in the Bible and call himself a Christian, it is as important to be discerning.
At the end of chapter 2, he gives what these New Monastics have called "12 Marks of a New Monasticism" (Kindle Location 369). All of these 12 marks are immanent and about practice, none are doctrinal. Only one has any kind of scriptural reference, the 7th. None are about the proclaiming of the Gospel, none are about people needing to repent of sins and believe in Christ.
"Sometimes when I talk with evangelical friends about the grassroots ecumenism of new monastic communities, they tell me I'm not taking doctrine seriously enough. I worry about this myself (especially when I think someone I'm living with is wrong). I worry not so much because I want to be right; I worry because I don't want to see people I love destroyed by lies. (I'm a writer and a preacher-a wielder of words, you might say-because I'm convinced that what we think and believe is a life-and-death issue.)" (Kindle Locations 1397-1400). If that is so, then may we have an actual doctrinal statement for these New Monastics? May we know what it is that all of you actually believe? If you can formulate 12 Marks, then why not an actual statement of what you mean when you call yourselves Christians?
So, I'm less than impressed with these New Monastics, and would not recommend that anyone tie themselves to them. When doctrinal issues are downplayed, and one is basically told to give control of one's life to the community, well, my reply is, "No, thanks, I want none of it".
Friday, January 4, 2013
red letter nuts 2
I think I've mention Frank Schaeffer a few times before. Sadly, he's one of those types who keeps proving that he can go lower and more unbalanced, again and again.
Republicans “Own” Every Child Killed by a Gun and their Weeping Parents
I suppose Frank Schaeffer, who obviously loves his right to free speech, is going to "own" every time someone abuses that right? Or those who believer in freedom of religion (again, like Schaeffer), he's going to own it when some cult is formed, then they kill themselves when the next comet appears in the sky?
Or...wait for it...maybe Schaeffer, being obvious on the left in regards to politics, will "own" the millions who have been killed in abortion?
Nah. That would require him to be an adult and show responsibility. He'd rather get on blogs like the linked to above, rant like a hormone-imbalanced teenager, and make irresponsible accusations without any foundation in reality.
We do not surrender our rights simply because there are those who abuse them. We do not surrender our freedom of speech, simply because there are people like Schaeffer who abuse it with screeds like this. The cure is not less freedom, but more.
.
Republicans “Own” Every Child Killed by a Gun and their Weeping Parents
And therein lies the desolation of the Republican Party’s future: They are going to lose many more of their very own through their combination with obstinate extremism and plain stupidity. I mean who wants to defend shooting toddlers as a constitutional right?
Who wants to “own” the pictures of weeping mothers?
The Republican Party does. As if killing themselves with anti-gay marriage homophobia, hatred of Hispanics (masquerading as anti-“illegal” immigrant initiatives) anti-women misogyny (flying under the banner of preventing women from getting contraceptives) and anti-science fundamentalist religion forced into schools wasn’t enough…
… BEHOLD REPUBLICANS WILL NOW OWN EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A GUN.
This is the new Republican Party “winning” platform? Good luck with that!So, if you try to defend a Constitutional right, then, of course, you are responsible for every abuse of that right.
I suppose Frank Schaeffer, who obviously loves his right to free speech, is going to "own" every time someone abuses that right? Or those who believer in freedom of religion (again, like Schaeffer), he's going to own it when some cult is formed, then they kill themselves when the next comet appears in the sky?
Or...wait for it...maybe Schaeffer, being obvious on the left in regards to politics, will "own" the millions who have been killed in abortion?
Nah. That would require him to be an adult and show responsibility. He'd rather get on blogs like the linked to above, rant like a hormone-imbalanced teenager, and make irresponsible accusations without any foundation in reality.
Fat chance. The Republicans seem incapable of keeping up with the times. They just passed up a hell-sent chance to moderate their opinions. They passed it up, just as Romney passed up his chance to win women back by not publicly blasting Rush Limbaugh when he called a young woman a “whore” for standing up for her reproductive rights re contraception.Ah, yes, the whole Sandra Fluke thing. Now, how was she in any way denied the right to get contraception? She wasn't. She simply whined that no one else would pay for it for her.
The Republicans have aligned themselves with billionaires against the rest of us. Now they are about to embrace the defending the murder of children and trivializing it with talk of “cap pistols.” That’s the moral equivalant of the talk about rape that derailed the fools running in the last election cycle.Oh, please. We all know that people like you, Mr. Schaeffer, were the ones who intentionally took their words out-of-context, just like you have in this article of yours, to play politics with them.
Republicans will have to get even more used to losing. And those losses will no doubt give some aging white males even more paranoid fact-free “reasons” to cling to their guns and thereby to facilitate the killers of children. This is the price of right wing delusional freedom. It is a kind of “freedom” that looks more like madness with every child being buried this week.The only madness is in your inane ranting, Mr. Schaeffer. There have been similar tragedies stopped because there were armed people around who were able to use their weapons to stop the criminals trying to harm others.
We do not surrender our rights simply because there are those who abuse them. We do not surrender our freedom of speech, simply because there are people like Schaeffer who abuse it with screeds like this. The cure is not less freedom, but more.
.
Monday, December 31, 2012
red letter nuts 1
Sometimes, the things I read tend to lead me to other things. I'm not sure if those second things are necessarilty weirded, or if they just shed a more ominous light on the initial weirdness I had read. At any rate, here is one of the more bizarre, and even disturbing, things I've ever read.
The Rage of Moloch – An Old Testament god thriving on our children
Odd, because such sacrifices have happened by the millions in recent years. It's called abortion.
So, keeping a gun to protect yourself and your family is an act of heresy? I'm not sure who is say that we get "salvation" through the purchasing of weapons.
But, really, could you imagine if he were to say that working to earn money to provide for yourself and your family is an act of heresy, because God has said that He would provide all we need? Or that getting married and having a family is blasphemy because God is our Father and we already have a family in the church?
So, let's see Isaiah 2:4, with a bit of context.
Allegiance to death. First, again...abortion, anyone? And given the general tone of the Red Letter Christians site, well, I'm betting they were all-in for the Liberal and Progressive types who do their darnedest to make sure abortion is legal and common.
Second, you've going to have do better than the above passage to say that we should not have weapons today. Sorry, but that is prophecy concerning Christ's return and how things will be on earth than.
So....much...FAIL!!!!
And, sadly, it's far from the only one on that site that is like this.
The Rage of Moloch – An Old Testament god thriving on our children
Moloch is a god mentioned in passing in Leviticus 18:21, but his presence seeps through the Bible – and most of ancient history. He is a god who thrives on the blood of the innocent.
Moloch is one of those themes that most of us assume is dead and gone and far from our daily lives – until he emerges almost larger than life.
Moloch promised – and still promises – safety, security and prosperity if only we would sacrifice our children.
And again, we act as if this transaction was too evil and ancient to even consider, but then we find ourselves in the middle of this grim bargain
“It’s the cost of freedom” he said, on national news, with a shrug and a sense that we should all agree that the occasional sacrifice of a classroom of children is a fair exchange for those among us who long to combine a thirst for fame and blood with the latest murderous fantasy toy.I find it interesting that he tries to say that the notion of "sacrificing children" for the pursuit of safety, security, and prosperity, is somehow suppose to be something unheard of today, or that there haven't been people saying "It's the cost of freedom" when children are sacrificed.
Odd, because such sacrifices have happened by the millions in recent years. It's called abortion.
What kind of soul-dead human being could believe, or choose to believe, that the sacrifice of children is worth any ‘freedom’?Well, go the people at Planned Parenthood. Give a ring to the ACLU. How about calling up the President of the US and the Congressmen and women who voted for a Health Care bill that tells businesses and organization that they have to give their employees things that induce abortions?
From a theological perspective, this is heresy at its core – that we could imagine that we would find ‘security’ in our own weapons or ‘salvation’ in increased firepower is delusional if not blasphemous.Huh?
So, keeping a gun to protect yourself and your family is an act of heresy? I'm not sure who is say that we get "salvation" through the purchasing of weapons.
But, really, could you imagine if he were to say that working to earn money to provide for yourself and your family is an act of heresy, because God has said that He would provide all we need? Or that getting married and having a family is blasphemy because God is our Father and we already have a family in the church?
Turning swords into plowshares is a sign of God’s kingdom (Isaiah 2:4). Investing our personal, as well as our national budgets – and our national attention to weapons is just another indication of our allegiance to death.
So, let's see Isaiah 2:4, with a bit of context.
The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2 It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it,
3 and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
Allegiance to death. First, again...abortion, anyone? And given the general tone of the Red Letter Christians site, well, I'm betting they were all-in for the Liberal and Progressive types who do their darnedest to make sure abortion is legal and common.
Second, you've going to have do better than the above passage to say that we should not have weapons today. Sorry, but that is prophecy concerning Christ's return and how things will be on earth than.
We don’t need an enemy, we are killing ourselves, but the gun apologists would tell us not fast enough.This is a lie, a sure sign that this article is deranged. This article isn't really an argument at all, it's basically propoganda.
And it is out of respect for them, and their 100% preventable pain, that I urge the rest of to stir our petulant Congress to put aside their ideologically driven agendas and legislative inertia and step up in courage, and yes, even sacrifice to do what our nation’s soul cries out for.
What would this look like?
Who knows?Really? You rage against guns and gun apologists, and you expect us to think that you have no idea what you want? After far too much incoherent rage and nonsense, you expect to be able to play coy here at the end?
So....much...FAIL!!!!
And, sadly, it's far from the only one on that site that is like this.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
i suppose he doesn't mean by using an air freshener
http://www.charismamag.com/life/women/9385-carriers-of-his-presence
Tommy Tenney, whom I had not heard much about for some time, has written a small article for Charisma magazine. It's a bit weird.
This verse is in the context of Peter and John healing the lame man outside the Temple. They had done so, and when a crowd had gathered, Peter preached the Gospel of Christ to them. While Peter and John were doing that, some of the religous leaders had them arrested and later questioned them. This statement about Peter and John refers to the religious leaders recognizing what kind of people they were, and that they had been disciples of Jesus.
Sorry, there is nothing about "presence evangelism" there, nor anything about a "divine radiation zone".
Now, I guess one thing I could point is that while v 15 says the people tried to arrange it so that the sick people may be where Peter's shadow would fall, it doesn't say that the people were healed by that. Perhaps it is understood, maybe by what is said in the next verse, but I think that could be questioned.
But even if people were healed in that way, it does not mean that we should expect it to be happening in that same way today. Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel charlatans have played the "anointed healing handkerchief" trick quite often, based on the fact that at one poine the Bible mentions Paul sending such things to people who were then healed. We have no reason to expect that such things are going to happen today, or that we should do such things.
Huh?
Is Tenney really saying that we should expect God to walk on the Earth? If he were talking about Christ's return, maybe, but I don't think he is. He's talking about something here and now.
No, this just seems like a fairy tale type of theology.
Tenney's fairy-tale evangelism will not happen.
Tommy Tenney, whom I had not heard much about for some time, has written a small article for Charisma magazine. It's a bit weird.
But there is little understanding of what I call "presence evangelism." This is what occurs when the residue of God on a person creates a divine radiation zone of His manifest presence that affects those around him (see Acts 4:13).Ok, so, let's look at that verse.
13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
This verse is in the context of Peter and John healing the lame man outside the Temple. They had done so, and when a crowd had gathered, Peter preached the Gospel of Christ to them. While Peter and John were doing that, some of the religous leaders had them arrested and later questioned them. This statement about Peter and John refers to the religious leaders recognizing what kind of people they were, and that they had been disciples of Jesus.
Sorry, there is nothing about "presence evangelism" there, nor anything about a "divine radiation zone".
"Shadow healing" would fall into this category. That's the kind of healing that took place when the shadow of the One with whom Peter walked created a healing zone around him (see Acts 5:15-16).That is kinda mentioned in the Bible. Here it is, with a bit of context.
12 Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon's Portico. 13 None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem. 14 And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they even carried out the sick into the streets and laid them on cots and mats, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. 16 The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.
Now, I guess one thing I could point is that while v 15 says the people tried to arrange it so that the sick people may be where Peter's shadow would fall, it doesn't say that the people were healed by that. Perhaps it is understood, maybe by what is said in the next verse, but I think that could be questioned.
But even if people were healed in that way, it does not mean that we should expect it to be happening in that same way today. Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel charlatans have played the "anointed healing handkerchief" trick quite often, based on the fact that at one poine the Bible mentions Paul sending such things to people who were then healed. We have no reason to expect that such things are going to happen today, or that we should do such things.
Today we need to hear the footfall of God as His foot touches the earth. When it does, we won't have to worry about telling demons to run. We won't even have to scream Scriptures against their princes or practice pulling down demonic strongholds--because the purpose of His manifest presence is to set the captive free (see Luke 4:18). This purpose will be fulfilled automatically when He shows up.
Huh?
Is Tenney really saying that we should expect God to walk on the Earth? If he were talking about Christ's return, maybe, but I don't think he is. He's talking about something here and now.
If the Father of us all can allow His manifested presence to touch earth just once, then the flood of glory it will spawn will bring revival throughout the land as demons flee and sinners fall to their knees!If God can allow that to happen? What does that mean? That God can't allow it to happen?
No, this just seems like a fairy tale type of theology.
His presence can so saturate us that unsaved guests won't be able to step into our homes or be around us with unrepentant hearts. His glory will bring conviction in their lives that leads to salvation--not because of the words we say, but because of His presence and power in our hearts.Funny, but the Bible says that it is by preaching that God saves people.
Tenney's fairy-tale evangelism will not happen.
and you thought it was over
Hey. First, yeah, it's been a while. Sorry. That wasn't exactly planned, it just kinda happened, one day after another. Things going one, life happening, blah blah blah.
Hope to get back into things again, with a bit of this and that. Hope you enjoyed the vacation.
Hope to get back into things again, with a bit of this and that. Hope you enjoyed the vacation.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
movie review: 2016
I had been wanting to see this movie since it came out a few weeks ago, and finally got the chance. And, overall, I wasn't disappointed.
Evaluating a documentary-type of film is somewhat different from doing so with the regular movie. I'll admit here that my own political views are very similar to d'Souzas, so knowing a bit going in about what the movie was about, it was the kind of thing I had anticipated.
It pretty much follows de'Sousa around, showing his conversations with other people. There are also a few re-enactments, and excerpts of the president reading from one of his books. D'Souza visits Indonesia and Kenya, along with places in the US that are associated with the President's past.
The over all tone of the movie is fairly reasonable; indeed, d'Souza at times seems not entirely unsympathetic to the President in some ways, as for example when he notes similarities in their backgrounds. But there's little doubt that his ideas are very different from the Presidents, and that this film is not one friendly to him.
Overall, the movie is fairly well made. It seems fairly coherent and doesn't engage in much over-the-top rhetoric.
But the value of a film like this is in how accurate, or not, it's claims are. We've had examples from Gore and Moore that have played fast-and-loose with the facts, so has d'Souza, too? I'm not sure how to answer that, though if he had, I would imagine in the couple of weeks since it was released, someone's fact-checked it more thoroughly than I'm able or have the time to. Not to encourage sloth or mindless acceptance, because claims by anyone on this side or that should be tested and confirmed so far as possible.
I know that this movie is essentially an election movie, and the fact that it's released a few months before an election in which it's primary subject is a candidate should be noted and kept in mind.
I recommend it. The information it gives seems relevant, especially since it's stuff we should have been told this time four years ago.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
even further down the slippery slope
Gawker: 'Pedophilia Is a Sexual Orientation'
I'm linking to the Newsbusters' article that itself mentions and links to the original article, and has some excerpt. Mostly because I've not desire to. While such garbage thinking should be brought to light, I've no desire to give it even a bit of a search engine bump.
Monday, September 3, 2012
slightly mixed feelings about this
Joss Whedon coming back to TV for Marvel S.H.I.E.L.D. series
This sounds like a pretty good idea, except for one thing...
ABC
When that network does good, it usually does very good, like Lost. But when it does bad, it does very bad, like almost everything else. They got hooked on some kind of attitude, thanks I suppose to Desperate Housewives, that I can only describe as snarky towards all things decent and moral. So many of their attempts at DW clones have flopped quickly, but that does seem to be their trend.
I hope The Avengers avoids that, and works well. Having Whedon be a part of it does seem promising.
ABC and Marvel have confirmed that Whedon is developing a TV series spinoff from The Avengers, based around the top-secret Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division (S.H.I.E.L.D.) organization that recently brought Earth's Mightiest Heroes together on the big screen
This sounds like a pretty good idea, except for one thing...
ABC
When that network does good, it usually does very good, like Lost. But when it does bad, it does very bad, like almost everything else. They got hooked on some kind of attitude, thanks I suppose to Desperate Housewives, that I can only describe as snarky towards all things decent and moral. So many of their attempts at DW clones have flopped quickly, but that does seem to be their trend.
I hope The Avengers avoids that, and works well. Having Whedon be a part of it does seem promising.
movie review--The Expendables 2
I have to say, first off, that I liked the first The Expendables. I thought it was a pretty good movie. It was a pretty serious movie, dealing with a rather serious if also far-fetched situation. The guys on the team were rather human, not necessarily the typical action heroes, and a bit messed up.
If that movie had one big problem, it was that it wasn't overly fun. It was serious, and seemed to want to be fairly realistic.
I'm glad to say, The Expendables 2 is neither of those things. It has serious moments, but right from the first the overall mood of the team is different. The vehicles they drive into the town/complex right at the movie's start have phrases emblazoned on them. Realism also gets a quick boot out the door, and the people both good and bad are larger-than-life.
Most reviews I've seen or heard about this movie have been rather negative and unimpressed. I understand that, but for my part, I enjoyed it heartily, and recommend it as a fun movie. Yeah, suspend your disbelief, don't expect the best acting in the world, but overall, I think it works for what it is.
Look, consider the one scene in the first movie that has Stallone, Willis, and Schwartzneggar together. It was only one scene, and all they did was talk to each other. True, it was "tough guy" talk, but still, that's all it was.
For the average movie watcher, if you're going to have guys like Stallone, Willis, Schwarzneggar in the same movie, not to mention Statham, Li, and even Norris for the second movie, then what do we want? Yeah, the tough guy talk is fine, but we want Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzneggar side by side by side, guns blazing, bad guys being mowed down before them! We want Chuck Norris taking out bad guys and telling Chuck Norris jokes. We want Statham hacking and slashing through the bad guys. Having Jean-Claude van Damme as a very convincing, slimy bad guy only adds to it all.
A bit more Jet Li would have been nice, but his character is only in the first 15 or so minutes of the movie.
Over all, this movie delivers. It ain't great, it ain't a classic, but it's fun.
If that movie had one big problem, it was that it wasn't overly fun. It was serious, and seemed to want to be fairly realistic.
I'm glad to say, The Expendables 2 is neither of those things. It has serious moments, but right from the first the overall mood of the team is different. The vehicles they drive into the town/complex right at the movie's start have phrases emblazoned on them. Realism also gets a quick boot out the door, and the people both good and bad are larger-than-life.
Most reviews I've seen or heard about this movie have been rather negative and unimpressed. I understand that, but for my part, I enjoyed it heartily, and recommend it as a fun movie. Yeah, suspend your disbelief, don't expect the best acting in the world, but overall, I think it works for what it is.
Look, consider the one scene in the first movie that has Stallone, Willis, and Schwartzneggar together. It was only one scene, and all they did was talk to each other. True, it was "tough guy" talk, but still, that's all it was.
For the average movie watcher, if you're going to have guys like Stallone, Willis, Schwarzneggar in the same movie, not to mention Statham, Li, and even Norris for the second movie, then what do we want? Yeah, the tough guy talk is fine, but we want Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzneggar side by side by side, guns blazing, bad guys being mowed down before them! We want Chuck Norris taking out bad guys and telling Chuck Norris jokes. We want Statham hacking and slashing through the bad guys. Having Jean-Claude van Damme as a very convincing, slimy bad guy only adds to it all.
A bit more Jet Li would have been nice, but his character is only in the first 15 or so minutes of the movie.
Over all, this movie delivers. It ain't great, it ain't a classic, but it's fun.
james goll really needs to just stop
Those commands do not imply that we have to believe that our circumstances are fitting exactly with God’s will for us. We’re just supposed to be thankful. As we worship with words of gratitude, our sacrifice becomes a railroad track of faith and it can carry a payload of prayer:
Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:6-7).
Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving (Colossians 4:2 NASB).
In other words, thanksgiving is the key to releasing God’s supernatural power. Even Jesus used this key. Look how He performed the miracle of the multiplication of the bread and fish (see John 6:1-13). First, He picked up the skimpy number of loaves and fishes in both hands. Then, “having given thanks” (John 6:11 NASB) and having lifted them up before God, He was able to distribute to the hungry thousands as much bread and fish as they wanted.
Goll, James W.; Dupre, Chris (2012-06-19). The Lost Art of Pure Worship (Kindle Locations 502-512)
In other words? How do either of those passages equate to Goll's "in other words"? Neither of them even come close to saying that "thanksgiving is the key to releasing God's supernatural power". Then, pointing to the time in John 6 when Jesus gave thanks for the food that was distributed to the thousands is rather weak. Jesus did many miracles, and there is no obvious practice that He went acted similarly every time. Nor does it hint that somehow thanksgiving is the ultimate way to get God to do something.
Yes, being grateful to God is a good thing, that's not being disputed here. But it's not what Goll wants us to think it is. Nothing in Scripture even hints that thanksgiving releases God's supernatural power, that's just silly.
Having read a bit of Goll's writings before, it's not like this kind of thing is surprising. I'm pretty convinced that he's one of those who doesn't so much go to the Bible to find out what it says and then adjusts his own thinking accordings, but takes his own ideas and speculations to the Bible and shoehorns verses and verse fragments to force them to fit those ideas and speculations. Thus, in order to claim that "thanksgiving is the key to releasing God's supernatural power", he simply finds some verses that mention giving thanks, and smashes them into the shape he wants, even if those passages don't.
So, yeah, someone needs to tell Goll to retire. Please, for the love of all of us, please, someone, do that!! I'm sure he's well-off, he's a Word of Faith false teacher after all, surely he has enough holy-hanky and miracle-selling funds stored up to live well for the rest of his days, so long as he avoids Benny Hinn miracle-selling crusades. But I assure you, James Goll has writing quite enough books to make his NAR apostasy influence last for many, many years. At some point, it's just too much. If he goes much further, he'll become a parody of himself, kind of like Bill Johnson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)