what is Destiny Image doing, putting out this book?

A while ago, I did something crazy, and joined Destiny Image's book review club, or whatever it was at that time. Hey, if I'm going to read NAR junk and put reviews of it on Amazon, it may as well be for free. I've tried to be fair and my reviews, and some have even had a slight positive side to them, but overall...yeah, garbage.

Anyway, DI did change things recently, and now they simply offer e-books for free or on sale on Amazon, and send e-mail notices about them.

So, a few days ago, I got one of the e-mails. There was a bit of an ad for a book they will release soon. What got my attention about this ad was the quote from someone whom I guess had read the book, and liked it. Here's that quote and the person who is credited for it.

"This book may just save Christianity from us Christians"--Frank Schaeffer.

I don't do it much, for reasons of health, but I know that I have opined about Schaeffer a few times here. For example, Schaeffer is the one who gave us such gems as "...BEHOLD REPUBLICANS WILL NOW OWN EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A GUN". Please note, I did not add the all-caps, that was Schaeffer's doing. Or, these paragraphs...

The terror unleashed on Norway - and the terror now unleashed by the Tea Party through Congress as it holds our economy hostage to extremist "economic" theories that want to destroy our ability to function -- is the sort of white, Christian; far right terror America can expect more of.

Call this the ultimate "Tea Party" type "answer" to secularism, modernity, and above all our hated government. Call this the Christian Brotherhood. From far right congress people, to far right gun-toting terror in Norway and here at home, our own Western version of the Taliban is on the rise.

Foreigners, visitors from another planet and Americans living in a bubble of reasonable or educated people might not know this but the reality is that the debt ceiling confrontation is by, for and the result of America's evangelical Christian control of the Republican Party.

 Please note, yes, I have linked to my own articles above. You can find links to the sources for those quotes on that page, but, frankly (pun intended), I have little desire to stomach any more of Frank Schaeffer's hate-filled nonsense then I must, and so will not link to his words any more than I must.

So, Destiny Image is proudly putting a blurb of this man's words in an ad for a giveaway for this book, Undiluted, by someone names Benjamin Corey. Take a good look at the book's cover, and you'll see that there are a few words in praise of the book at the bottom of the page, by one Brian McLaren. Yep, the same man who has pretty much denied every cardinal doctrine of Christianity.

Now, since the book's page has the author's website, I made a quick little visit, and was certainly not surprised by what I saw, given Schaeffer's and McLaren's words of praise. Basically, it's a blog in favor of progressive --ianity (that may be my new word for it, as there is basically no Christ in it at all).

So, in other words, Destiny Image is proudly promoting a book put out by someone on the far left. Yeah, let that sink in.

If you want to find basically any book on bad Charismatic theology, Destiny Image is your source. So, don't (repeat: DON'T) be surprised at Destiny Image and charismania going to the left. This isn't the first time I've seen this in charismatic writers, and why should it be a surprise? Consider that both charismatics and progressives put much more emphasis on hearing a supposed voice of God inside themselves, over what is actually taught in the Bible. Since both get their guidances from the same source, why should a meeting of their minds not happen?

book review--Answering the Contemplative Call by Carl McColman

not very biblical

I received a free copy of this book from Speakeasy.

It's hard to escape the various flavors of contemplative practices out and about in the church nowadays. Whether its more refined versions of it like in this book, or the rough-and-tumble of the ways the New Apostolic Reformation folks do it, it's everywhere. Whether it's sitting alone doing mantra-like chants and lectio divina, like McColman recommends, or it's YWAmers practicing the supposed steps of prayer and intercession, then sitting around in a circle trying to get guidance from some inner voice, it's all the same and one.

The fact that none of it has much in the way of biblical support seems to be lost on all of these practitioners.

For the discerning Christian, there are plenty of things in this book that should cause alarms to go off. For example, while he makes a point of saying that he's teaching about Christian mysticism or spirituality, one gets the impression that the "Christian" part of that is much less valuable to him than the "mysticism" or "spirituality" part. "Saint Paul sees Christ on the road to Damascus. The Buddha achieves enlightenment sitting under the Bodhi tree. Mohammed takes the miraculous night journey of Isra and Mi’raj, carrying him from earth to heaven. And of course, Aquinas and Julian and Merton have their singular peak moments and their lives are forever changed." p 32. Experience trumps beliefs, one may well assume.

In fact, conversion seems to have become unnecessary. "He (Merton) also became increasingly interested in interfaith dialogue, and began to explore the points of connection between Christian monasticism and the spirituality of Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism." p 24. And the author of this work is also involved in such dialogues.

And the Bible? Well, consider this. "Here’s a comment that Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, a monk of the twelfth century and a renowned mystic, once made about nature—one I believe could just as easily be applied to any of life’s mysteries. “Believe me as one who has experience,” said Bernard, “you will find much more among the woods than ever you will among books. Woods and stones will teach you what you can never hear from any master."...Consider this: Bernard is not rejecting the kind of wisdom or under­standing that can be found in books or from a spiritual director. He just recognizes that nature—even the silence of “woods and stones”—is an even greater teacher. " p 7. If we are to believe that nature in superior to books, and the Bible is a book, would it be unfair to conclude that Bernard, and by extention this author, are saying that nature is a better teacher than the Bible? That God speaks better through woods and stones than throught the words He gave to the apostles and prophets?

"Jesus has been loved and accepted by the mystics, not as a way of appeasing an angry God, but as a joyful entry into the mysteries of love." p 77. Now, I can look in Scripture, and see passages which speak of Christ's death being a substitutionary atonement for us, to among other things appease the just anger of a righteous God directed at sinful rebellious humanity. For example, read the biblical book of Romans. I can't read the scriptures to find where Christ's death was "a joyful entry into the mysterities of love". Why bother with crucifixion, if that's all Christ was doing?

He engages in some shenanigans. "Jesus’s followers were called disciples, implying that disci­pline is an essential part of the Christian wisdom tradition." p 128. No problem with the statement itself, but when he tries to sneak in these contemplative practices, I have to ask where the Bible says that Jesus had the disciples sit around trying to experience God inside themselves.

"God’s Word emerged out of “the sound of sheer silence” (I Kings 19:12), and words of the Divine mystery have been emerging out of silence ever since." p 125. I'm calling shenanigans again. The prophet Elijah did not get a message from silence, he heard the voice of God, even if it was calm and gentle. The Bible nowhere says that God's language is silence. God used real words to communicate to real people so that they understand what He was saying to them.

Nor did Elijah hear a voice inside himself. The voice He heard was outside himself, outside of even the cave he had been in.

In his book Broken, Jonathan Fisk writes "The plain words of Holy Scripture are the antidote to the poisoned dish of Mysticism. Reading those words carefully and learning their context is to inwardly digest the faith that God is not only real but also gives us real, pure, true answers. God is far more generous to us than to force us to endlessly seek Him in the flurries of the wind and the palpitations of our hearts. He wants us to do far more than merely imagine what His will for us might be. He wants us to be certain." (Kindle Locations 510-514). When I read works by these modern-day NAR contemplatives, I'm simply appalled by how bad they are theologically. Something seems very wrong with the people who practice these things. When people put the voices they hear inside themselves above the words plainly taught in Scripture, then that's a sure way to get led astray.

I agree with Fisk, God cares for us far too much to make us sit around trying to hear some kind of almost-impossibly-difficult-to-hear voice inside ourselves, that can be easily confused with our own thoughts, and that may not even be the voice of God at all (and probably isn't). God has spoken, we have His words in the Bible. God can still speak, I think there are reliable sources who have had dreams and visions from God, even in modern times.

I simply cannot recommend this book, or the practices recommended in it. They are unbiblical, thus spiritually unhealthy. Stop looking inside your heart to hear the voice of God, because you have God's Word at your fingertips.

book review--The Voice by Don Nori

faulty premise leads to other faulty teachings

I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.

The main problem with this book is that it's based on a faulty premise. "Yes, the Voice of God speaks to true intercessors", p. 38. "The Voice has much to say; as we hear, feel, and respond to the Voice, Heaven and Earth are forever changed." p. 41. We must let the River of His Voice literally gush forth from deep within our spirits, and then flow out to the spiritual wasteland that is all around us." p. 12

The problem with this striving to hear some kind of voice inside of us is this--the Bible never tells us to do that. When God spoke to the prophets and apostles, He did not do so through some ultra-quiet, difficult to hear inner voice. He came in instances like the burning bush, He gave them dreams and visions, He spoke directly to them. Even when he spoke to the prophet Elijah in a still, quiet voice, he did not speak to him with quiet inner voice, but with a voice that the prophet heard with his ears. God's messages to them were clear, they did not have some vague inner feelings that they had to try to create some interpretations for.

Seeing this faulty premise, it's easy to see how much of the rest of the book goes astray. For example, he tries to create a type of elite "true intercessors" that the Bible says nothing about, and the things he teaches about these "true intercessors" are rather odd. "True intercessors don't take prayer requests." p. 40. Really? Ok, I'll be sure to not tell any "true intercessor" my concerns. "There is only one allegiance, to God alone. Personal desires have no place counseling God." p. 40. Considering that it is God Himself who has invited us to "let your request be made known to God", then I can only think that there is certainly a place for letting God know our personal desires. It may be said that our prayers should be about more than just our wants, but there seems to be no biblical call for us to try to be so spiritual that we ignore our own needs and wants.

Another thing he contends has to do with the Most Holy Place. "For instance, if Christ dwells within, why do we sing, "Come into the Holy of Holies" when we are the Holy of Holies?" p. 134. "Our hearts are the Most Holy Place within which the Presence dwells." p. 180. However, he gives no scriptural support for this contention that we are the Holy of Holies, or that our hearts are the Most Holy Place; in fact, the Bible is rather uncomplimentary about the state of our hearts, calling the heart "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, more than we can understand".

In his chapter titled "Quiet Anarchy", he writes this about the word "anarchy", "This is the word that many folk fear. If you are one of those people who fear this word, close this book and go home. I am sorry. You are not a world-changer." p. 113. Since I see no place in Scripture where we are called to be world-changers, I see no reason to embrace any form of anarchy; in fact, anarchy is a very ungodly concept. It is the Apostle Paul who told the church that they needed to "do all things decently and in order". The New Testament tells us to obey and submit to rulers. We are not to be leftists who think that chaos is a good thing.

The author makes some strange, unsupported contentions. "At one time, such anarchy was seen as pure heresy, rebellion, and immaturity. At one time, though, anarchy was a way of life for all those who truly loved God and sought diligently for a greater truth; to be a believer in Jesus was to openly oppose the government in power." p. 114. Really? Tell us, please, when and where this time was. No, please, do tell, my curiosity is piqued. I'm actually studying early church history right now, and I really haven't seen any time like this, where the church was fomenting anti-government sentiments.

Or this one, "History shows us that the greatest steps in spiritual renewals and advancements were made by those who were regarded by many as heretics, madmen, or worse." p. 123. Since the author does not show us his claim to be true, then why should we believe that history shows it? Who are these "heretics, madmen and worse" that he wants us to admire? Why does he not name them, so that we may determine for ourselves if they are people to be respected and admired?

Probably the most questionable part of the book is the chapter called "Brink of Heresy", as he pretty much says that experience trumps doctrine. "Whether or not they accept the experience is not the issue, for the experience is my reality, and I will not deny it." p. 137. Welcome to Postmodernism, where the only truth is what you experience to be true. Peter Rollins or Tony Jones could write that statement, and I'm not complimenting this author when I compare him to those two.

"It's actually too bad that Bible scholars don't subject their mountains of theology to the same tests as they use on the rest of us!" p. 139. What a nonsense statement! True Bible scholars do subject their doctrine to the same test, "What do the Scriptures say?". That's the test, that's the only test, and that's why this author's teachings fail. "The decision to put their studies above what they witness with their own eyes is both frightening and arrogant." p. 139 The decison to put experiences above sound biblical doctrine is unwise, and arrogant.

While every now and again he does come up with a bit of something that's interesting, it's simply not worth wading through all the unbiblical ideas and mystical mush that he tries to feed us. His unsupported claims make his book come off more as propoganda than any kind of serious biblical teaching. His claim that experience trumps doctrine is a sure road to failure.

a serious reason for concern about "The Bible" miniseries

While I haven't been able to watch the miniseries myself, some people that I trust have, and they don't speak very highly of it. But my concern isn't directly about anything in the series itself, though I can't help but think that it may well have effected the contents. It's about one of the main people behind it.

A gift from Heaven! Roma Downey returns to TV after five-year absence

For now, when she’s not shuttling the kids to their school–a 40-minute commute in each direction that’s earned her the carpooling crown–Roma continues broadening her horizons. She’s returned to painting, and is partway through a Masters program in “spiritual psychology“ from the University of Santa Monica. And yes, the fact that the university’s name contains “Monica” makes her smile.


Taking classes has been an eye-opening experience. “It’s like the peeling of an onion, layer upon layer of behavior, and learning why we do what we do and how we can potentially change our negative patterning,” she says.

So, a master's degree in "spiritual psychology"? Not sure how anyone has learned about how the minds of spirits work, but...

Ok, bad attempt at humor now over.

In reality, this "spiritual psychology" thing is hardly a laughing matter, especially when one is talking about someone who's behind something like this miniseries. Here are some excerpts from the school's site about this degree program.

M.A. in Spiritual Psychology

Experiencing enhanced spiritual awareness through knowing yourself as a Divine Being having a human experience.

Individual Evolution - Learning to relate to yourself with greater Compassion and Awareness of yourself as a Divine Being having a human experience.

Self-Counseling - Learning, through the process of Self-Counseling, to connect with your Inner Counselor, a source of Wisdom, Unconditional Loving, and Compassion that resides at the level of the Authentic Self.

  There's some other kinda mushy mystical language used on that page that may cause some alarms in one's mind, but these are the biggest, so I thought. How unbiblical can it be to think of oneself as "a Divine Being", basically that one is God? And how New-Agey can it be to try to "connect with your "Inner Counselor"?  

I suppose it could be said that it's unfair to bring this up; after all, I've heard nothing about the miniseries that says that these kinds of ideas are in it. So far as I know, no Old Testament person portrayed in the miniseries has told the people of Israel that they needed to know themselves as Divine Beings.  

Maybe, but can we say that a person who has been taught these things is someone whose views of theology are going to basically sound?  

Maybe Downey doesn't believe these things. Maybe she doesn't think that she is a Divne Being having a human experience. One could wonder how she hopes to finish her degree is she doesn't buy into those ideas, and why she would continue to pursue a degree that taught those things.  

But maybe someone should be asking her about what she's being taught.  

I know that many Christians in the media are all gung-ho over this miniseries, supporting it and telling others to watch it. Maybe they should be the ones asking the questions of Downey, to find out what she really believes, and make sure that what they are promoting isn't really theological poison.

book review--Burn by Eric Gilmour

New Agey gobblety-good with a thin covering of Christianese

There was a small village that suffered greatly during a time of severe drought, and the people of the village were starving. One day, a man, well-fed and well-off, came to the village, and standing in the center of the village, he spoke long and eloquently about steak, giving the succulent details about the many steaks he had eaten, and telling the people that if they could find steak, they would not be hungry. But he had no steak with him, and he did not know of any stores near them that had steak. The only advice he gave them was that they had to look within themselves, struggling to hear a faint voice within themselves, and if they do that absolutely and completely correctly, they would get the steak they wanted.


That little story pretty much sums up my impression of "Burn" by Eric Gilmour.

First, he is all law. "He is only made manifest in us as much as we can host Him in our lives through such a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance." (Kindle Locations 339-340). Ok, so, we have here Gilmour's law, that we have to have "a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance". But like the starving people in the story, at no point does he tell us how to attain those things. How, for example, do we reach a place of "real, absolute surrender"? Dunno. All he says is that that is what we need, but nothing is said about how to get there.

The language he uses in regards to this state he says we must attain is rather disturbing. "It is burning inside of His heart to possess His people. God possession is the formula to create the Jesus people. There is only one route to God possession: God obsession." (Kindle Locations 47-49). Possession? I'd be very surprised if Gilmour wasn't aware of how such language would bring to mind demonic possession. Is he saying that God is suppose to "possess" us in a similar way? Does the Bible say that that is how God does things? I would say, not in the least. "Have you an inward burning attraction to be absorbed up into your God?" (Kindle Locations 247-248). Absorbed into God? Wow, that sounds like something from Eastern religious mysticism.

And, at times, his language is as silly as the notion of getting steak by looking inside yourself. "As the rain rests upon the ground after the storm, it yearns to return back to the high place from which it has fallen." (Kindle Location 256). How does he know that? Has he gone outside and asked rain droplets what they want? "God can forgive you, but time will never forgive you." (Kindle Location 204). So, time is an even stricter judge than God? "Throughout this book we will look into the ascent of the soul into the state of unbroken awareness of His abiding presence and its effects." (Kindle Locations 207-208). The ascent of the soul? Please, slowly put down the Deepak Chopra books, and no one will get hurt. "The tree doesn't focus on bearing fruit, but on receiving the sap." (Kindle Location 549). I suppose he's asked a bunch of trees about that? "What called down an angel to release Peter out of jail? It was not power, but prayer." (Kindle Locations 877-878). That passage doesn't say that prayer called down an angel. "We possess divine interaction and exchange from each individual's specific unique color in which Christ proceeds." (Kindle Locations 1215-1216). We each have a "specific unique color"? Nothing about that in the Bible, but that sure sounds like the New-Agey idea of auras.

On top of all of that, there is his constant belittling of sound doctrine and correct beliefs, and even of the Bible itself. "The wisdom of God is an octave too high for the minds of men. Such heavenly wisdom is not wisdom that can be explained; it must be demonstrated." (Kindle Locations 94-95). Outside of having no idea where he gets the idea that God's wisdom is so high that only dogs can hear it, there is simply the idea that it cannot be explained. God wrote a whole big book called The Bible for nothing, I guess. "There lies in the midst of Christendom a great danger, a danger that is deeply woven into the fabric of modern American Christianity. It is not as much a danger of doctrinal error as it is an absence of the most vital underlying element of spirituality." (Kindle Locations 395-397). If someone tries to dismiss the danger of doctrinal error, you should check his own doctrinal luggage. "Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible is unable to give life. As Jesus noted in John 6, "The Spirit gives life." Paul had the same understanding, stating, "... The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3: 6)." (Kindle Locations 424-425). I've seen Bill Johnson use that argument, and it's a bad one, no matter who uses it. Paul is not denigrating the Word of God, and it at least borders on blasphemy for Gilmour to even imply that. "The Gospel is not a verbal argument for the existence of God." (Kindle Locations 960-961). Makes one wonder why Jesus bothered telling the disciples to preaching and proclaim the Gospel, then. "They couldn't possibly be born from above by a nominal belief system or by adherence to correct thinking patterns. Doctrine has never saved a person." (Kindle Locations 996-997). So, correct doctrine and beliefs are unimportant? "Freedom is in a Man named Jesus-- not a belief system, religion, or an attempt to make a life change." (Kindle Locations 1005-1006). Again with the attacks on beliefs. At no point does the Bible treat beliefs and doctrine with such distain.

"Leonard Ravenhill said, "No one can change God's opinion of you but you."" (Kindle Location 580). We should be very glad that this statement is very wrong! Christ has changed God's opinion of those who repent and have faith in Him, taking us from being enemies of God and children of wrath to become children of God.

Geting back to his idea about having to have a "a real, absolute surrender, utter dependency, and total reliance", one might wonder if Gilmour is holding himself up as one who has attained to those things. I think we can question that about him, because if he is, I'll admit that I don't buy it. Why? Because of those with whom he fellowships and supports. For example, he proudly tells us of his connection with the Pensacola revival, and his admiration for Steve Hill. Now, Hill is someone who has fabricated many things concerning this revival, things that have been shown to be lies. Several times during the book, he uses quotes from Benny Hinn. Hinn is the worst of the worst among the Faith Healers, a known charlatan and fake, whose 'ministry' has been a blight and shame on the church. You may learn more about these men in these books, Christianity In Crisis: The 21st Century and Counterfeit Revival.

If these are the people Gilmour looks up to, then there are ramifications. At the end of Chapter 6 of this book, he gives some "Testimonies" which he claims are of healings he was involved in. But because of his association with a known liar like Hill, and his admiration of a known fake like Hinn, I must say that I see no reason to believe his "Testimonies". Has he had these healings documented? Has anyone independent of his ministry verified them? Can he provide proof that what he claims happened is what really happened? Short of irrefutable proof, I'll consider him a fake like so many of such 'ministers' like himself.

In the end, this book is rubbish. His teachings have more in common with New Age gobblety-gook than biblical Christianity. His attacks on the Bible, correct beliefs, and sound doctrine should be instant and insistent warning signs that we should steer clear of him. There are so many more biblically sound teachers and ministers out there, why bother with the nonsense this guy is peddling?

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.


Kevin Basconi Angels in the Realms of Heaven: Real Life Heavenly and Angelic Encounters, Prologue

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...

...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?” “

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.”

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.

Sorry, not buying it. Basconi's ignorance of the Bible only made him more prone to being deceived by these experiences.

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".

it's not that complicated

Hosea 1
2 When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD.” 3 So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. 4 And the LORD said to him, “Call his name Jezreel, for in just a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. 5 And on that day I will break the bow of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel.” 6 She conceived again and bore a daughter. And the LORD said to him, “Call her name No Mercy, for I will no more have mercy on the house of Israel, to forgive them at all. 7 But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.” 8 When she had weaned No Mercy, she conceived and bore a son. 9 And the LORD said, “Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.” 10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God.” 11And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head. And they shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

Psalm 85
LORD, you were favorable to your land; you restored the fortunes of Jacob. 2 You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin. Selah 3 You withdrew all your wrath; you turned from your hot anger. 4 Restore us again, O God of our salvation, and put away your indignation toward us! 5 Will you be angry with us forever? Will you prolong your anger to all generations? 6 Will you not revive us again, that your people may rejoice in you? 7 Show us your steadfast love, O LORD, and grant us your salvation. 8 Let me hear what God the LORD will speak, for he will speak peace to his people, to his saints; but let them not turn back to folly. 9 Surely his salvation is near to those who fear him, that glory may dwell in our land. 10 Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other. 11 Faithfulness springs up from the ground, and righteousness looks down from the sky. 12 Yes, the LORD will give what is good, and our land will yield its increase. 13 Righteousness will go before him and make his footsteps a way.

Colossians 2
6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

Luke 11
Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” 2 And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread, 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” 5 And he said to them, “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, 6 for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and he will answer from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything’? 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs. 9 And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12 or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

I am currently anticipating a coming hardship. Perhaps it will not be as bad as I fear, it does appear promising, in a bad way. It will be something that must be endured, though the fact that is in essence has blindsided me does not make me feel any more well-disposed to it.

In my quest to continue learning, particular in regards to the Bible, my road lies through a course that, had I known what it was about, I would likely have either tried to avoid it, or even not enrolled in courses at the place of study. The name of the course did not give me a hint about what it will be about, it wasn't until I was looking at a draft of the syllabus online that it's real contents were made known to me. Assuming the draft will be anything like the actually course contents, I'm not anticipating things.

The course is about something called “spiritual formation”. In getting a jump on the class, and out of a morbid sense of curiosity, I've already read one of the books the draft syllabus says we will use during the course, and am just now starting another. I'm not impressed with either.

“Spiritual formation” has to do with certain practices, or disciplines. The one books I've read so far lists several, such as solitude, lectio divina, breath prayer, some weird form of discerning, and a few other I may mention if the need arises. The other book, which I haven't gotten far into, stresses much the same kind of thing, though it calls it “contemplative spirituality”.

Call it this or call it that, it's complicated. They try to make it seem all simple and natural, but really, it's complicated. If you're going to do the breath prayer thing, for example, you have to come up with a simply phrase you need to say whenever you breath. You need to remember to say it, not necessarily aloud, every time you breath. You're going to forget, but don't feel guilty about that, though if forgetting means you've somehow broken the command to “pray without ceasing”, should you feel guilty and repent of having broken that command? No, don't think about that, just get right back on that horse and start doing it again, and soon enough, you'll be doing it without even thinking about it. Thought that does kind of raise the question, how good is it to be praying without really thinking about what you're saying?

Or lectio divina. This is complicated, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. And it takes time, or so I guess, not having really done it myself, and myself having no desire to engage in it anyway, but still, from my reading of it, it'll take a while. It's a four-step process, where you take some few verses, read them r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y several times, then...well, it's...messy. What the verses actually teach isn't really important. The important thing is that, as you're reading, watch out for a word or phrase that “stands out” from the rest, or that makes you react, or some such thing. Again, let me repeat, what the passage means in an objective sense is not important in this kind of reading. Then we read ourselves into the text. Then there's some kind of response to what you've...gotten, for lack of a better word...from your reading between the lines. Again, remember, it's not what the text has said, but what you've somehow gotten outside of the text that's important.

And if you're thinking “Wouldn't it be better to simply read the Bible?”, I think you're right.

But let me be real, this isn't the first time I've been around people who have tried to complicate things.

When I was in Youth with A Mission, we use to do similar things. It wasn't as polished as these comtemplative things are, but it was closely related. There were, for example, the “principles of prayer and intercession”. These were steps that some YWAM leader had determined must be taken in order for prayers to be effective. Why Paul or some other apostles, or even Jesus himself, had not expounded these things, and told us to do them, is hard to figure out, but thankfully YWAM had a woman who after almost 2000 years of church history had figured them out. Anyway, there would be about 10 or so of us, and we'd be sitting in chairs and sofas around a table, I suppose kind of like sitting in a circle thought that actual shape was more rectangular, and one by one we would do whatever step in the principles was next, until such time as we had come to one where we were to sit silently and listen for whatever God was saying inside of us. Then, at some undefined time, we would start praying again, finishing up the all-important steps of prayer, and then share what things we thought God had told us.

There are still other, newer things being implemented too, inside and outside of YWAM. There is a group out there that tries to build what they call “boiler rooms”, where people meet and pray at all hours of the day and night. This group even calls itself 24-7 Prayer. There are others that focus on worship, claiming that significant spiritual things happen when there is worship. People in either group speak about things like “thin places” or an “open heaven” or somehow establishing the tabernacle of David so that God can dwell there.

I know that tone is sometimes hard to get when reading, but if you've understood that I'm at least now very critical of these activities, both the ones I've been involved in myself and ones I've encountered in my reading and studying, you've understood correctly. I am very skeptical that these kinds of activities are so important.

Look at the biblical passages above. Look at what Paul says. He tells the people of the Colossian church that no one has the right to judge them because of what they eat and drink or by what days we celebrate, not even in regards to the sabbath. Not only that, but we can disqualify ourselves from a prize by listening to those who brag about their ascetic practices and who go on about the kinds of visions they have had, putting their faith in what they do and have experienced rather than in Christ.

Prayer is one of the things that often becomes the focus of these practices. The 24-7 people think that their continual or near-continual praying will open some door for God to do something in a certain area. The contemplatives and spiritual formation people think that mindlessly repeating a short prayer will somehow be pleasing to God. Others, such am Mark Batterson, say that if our prayers are too small, if we aren't praying for something that we would consider impossible, if our prayers are not big and bold and audacious enough, if what we pray for doesn't scare us, then we're insult God.

When His disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, how does He do it? If you are familiar with the current crop of popular prayer methods, perhaps even some I haven't mentioned here, you may be surprised by Jesus' response. Instead of saying they need to pray for hours at a time, he gives them a short prayer that can said in seconds. Instead of having them prayer a short phrase they can mindlessly repeat over and over, He gives them a prayer that requires thought and a good form of contemplation, a contemplation that has them consider how they have forgiven others for their sins against them. Instead of having them pray big, bold, audacious, scary prayers, he says that they should pray for the food they will need for tomorrow. Instead of giving us a method and steps that we must pray through, he gives a prayer that is fairly plain and simple and does not require things like principles in order to pray it properly.

This is important. Jesus does not give us hoops to jump through. While He does encourage persistence in prayer, He does not encourage mindless repetition. In fact, in another place, He speaks strongly against those who think that God will hear them if they practice multiply words in prayer, thinking that through such wordinessGod will more readily listen to them.

When Jesus teaches his disciples, and us, how to pray, He does so in a way that is devoid of any great complications. How great is the contrast between what Jesus' taught and what these spiritual leader today teach us. For them, it is all hoops. We must do things a certain way in order for our prayers to be acceptable, or to make our prayers more effective. It is, in effect, all about us and our efforts, all about the things we do to put ourselves in position.

Can we at least for a moment put aside the temptation to try to impress God? It is useless, but still a great temptation. It is true that God knows us, but let us not think that this is only a positive thing. God is familiar with everything in us, and has already declared, “There is no one who does good, no, not one”. Colossians 2 says that we who are now children of God were among those “were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh...”. God has no illusions about us. Our attempts to impress with ascetic practices is in vain. Our attempts to impress others with the any visions we may have had is silly.

It is telling that the New Testament knows nothing about such spiritual practices. Now, those who teach them do point to their antiquity, pointing out that they go back to some people in the fourth or fifth century who went out into the deserts. But they cannot find them anywhere in the Scriptures themselves.

Prayer wasn't meant to be an intricate thing designed to appeal to our pride. Our pride must be killed, pure and simple. In His death and resurrection Christ has already opened for us the way to the Father. Christ has done the work, Christ has done the difficult part, the part that we cannot do ourselves. We can stop trying to add works to prayer.

And studying the Bible isn't suppose to be about trying to get some kind of message apart from the text, to essentially make the text worthless while we're trying to hear God apart from what He has written. Is that not simply insulting? God spoke to the prophets over thousands of years, the Spirit worked through the writers to insure that what was written was true, God sent His Son Jesus to be born among men, then to teach and preach using the language of His day and place, and then He sent the Spirit to the Apostles to remind them of what He had taught. The Bible is a unique book, inspired by God, inerrant. And we would dare to say that what God said in it is not important? That we're suppose to read Scripture, not to learn what the Bible says, but to get some message from God apart from the text?

That's arrogance, something to be repented of.

There is something I wish to address. There are some things that seem similar to these contemplative practices, but that are different. I have only recently been introduced to what is called the Church Calendar, and also to using a lectionary to assist in reading the Scriptures. So far as I know, I think there is some good in these things, especially the lectionary, as they give some structure, which for one like myself is helpful. But these are merely tools, and we need to be careful of making them anything else, and especially in making them necessary. Let a person not observe a sabbath or any ceremony before he or she thinks that doing so earns merit from God. Let a person read the Scriptures at random before thinking that following a lectionary makes him or her superior to one who does not.

What is the difference? Lectio divina is wrong because it seeks to hear God beyond the Word He has given us. Repetitions as prayer are wrong because it is about attempts to make our prayers more acceptable to God by our efforts. The lectionary is something that provides structure, it is about reading and studying the Scriptures as they are, not to gain some kind of message through or behind or beyond them. There are dangers in that a person may do it legalistically, or may think themselves superior because they follow it, but there is in itself nothing against it.

This coming situation bodes, and not well. I'm not looking for conflict, but I will not be pressured into doing things that I am sure are wrong. I see no biblical reason to do these spiritual practices, and if I refuse, I anticipate only that it will be taken as an act of rebellion or in some other negative way. I hope it won't be that way, but that is possible.

more rotten fruit

I will warn you, if you choose to watch this video, it is more than a little disturbing.



It's sad that this is where we are now. Godly living and character and sound doctrine are of little to no consequence, despite the occasional verbal bone thrown to them to give a surface appearance of orthodoxy; instead, what we have now is a pursuit of "manifestations", suppose spiritual things that the Bible says nothing about unless it is to condemn them. And some ignorant little girl can get on stage, twitch and spasm and talk about giving some 'sermon' that isn't even about the Bible, and be not accepted but encouraged to continue in this madness.

Let's go ahead and call Bickle's IHOP what it is--a cult. There is nothing godly here. There is nothing of any worth here. God is not in these spasmatic manifestation, God has not part in being "drunk in the spirit" or "slain in the spirit".

james goll doubles down on false visions

On one Mother's Day, I decided to give Michal Ann a very special Mother's Day present. The best gift I could think of was to pray for her. As I began to pray, my spiritual eyes were opened for a moment and, over Ann's head, I saw a clear crystal pitcher etched with the numbers "9" and "2" in the mathematical configuration of "nine to the second power." Then I heard the words in my spirit, "We are going for the double this time."

James W. Goll;Michal Ann Goll. God Encounters: The Prophetic Power Of The Supernatural To Change Your Life (Kindle Locations 2143-2146). Kindle Edition.

If you're familiar with math, even from high school, you may have read that started scratching your head.

"Nine to the second power" is not that same as "nine doubled". "Nine doubled" would 9x2, or basically 9+9. "Nine to the second power" is very different, it would be 9x9, or adding nine 9s together. In other words, this spirit talks about doubling, 9x2, but the symbol on the jar stands for 9 squared.

And if you think this may be just a bit of a mistake on his part, read on...

I watched as this beautiful pitcher was tipped down, and clear water poured out upon Michal Ann's head. The fluid seemed to literally go down inside her being. The Holy Spirit said, "I am going to teach you about `the double: You have heard that Elisha asked a difficult thing-he asked for a double portion of the anointing that rested upon Elijah, and he received it. We are going for `the double' this time." I continued to watch as the water poured into my wife, and it seemed that brown sediment was pushed deep down inside her (as it is with all of us!). Then light brown water began pouring out of her, as the clear water kept pouring in from above.

James W. Goll;Michal Ann Goll. God Encounters: The Prophetic Power Of The Supernatural To Change Your Life (Kindle Locations 2146-2150). Kindle Edition.

So, the voice in his vision (it's not the Holy Spiirt) even relates it to Elisha asking for double from Elijah.

Oh, and don't miss the context of his little vision--this is his gift for Mother's Day to his wife, the mother of their children. Funny, when I read that, I thought I had a vision of seeing a bunch of little chicks running about saying "Cheap!"

look familiar?

Take a gander of this, emphases mine.

There will be a major transition in religion. Those who have chosen this profession will have to make another choice. The choice will be rather to serve an institution or God. They will have to choose whether administering to the needs of the people takes precedence over the demands of the institution. Those who have chosen a religion will also have to make a choice. Does this religion serve Humanity or is it self-serving? Does it promote Universal Peace, Brother/Sisterly Love, Equality, Individual Freedom and Prosperity for All? Does it empower the individual to make one’s own personal God connection? Does it promote fear, unworthiness, guilt, and wrathful images separate from man and nature? Are the images lacking in omnipresence which separates man from God, his neighbor and nature? Does it honor the Creator in all creation? Does it demonize, judge and condemn others of different cultures and paths? If a man or woman knows God by another name, has a different master, saint or sage, yet offers the same basic understandings, are they welcome and listened to? One of the most misunderstood quotes which has separated Christians from other cultures is one passage attributed to Jesus when he said, “I AM the way, the truth and the light; no man shall enter heaven but through me.” Beforehand he said, “I of myself do nothing for the Father within doeth the works.” God was speaking through Jesus. Often those who do not accept Jesus the personality and the man are judged, condemned, etc.. God is the way, and that same God consciousness was reached by other saints, sages and mystics throughout the various cultures around the world. This separation and judgment must end. Jesus stood for infinite love, compassion and forgiveness, and it is time we made that our ideal. Most master teachers of all faiths transcended all religious and cultural boundaries into a universal love for all people and all life. This is where religions will need to go in the days to come because love and compassion for all people are necessary attributes for the future. It would better serve Humanity and God to focus on
Universal Peace, Brother/Sisterly Love, Equality, Individual Freedom and Prosperity for All, and a strong reverence for life in all forms. Now is the time for churches to inspire the Universal Principles and Understandings necessary for a healthy society and environment and administer to the needs of those less fortunate. Warring over names, images and doctrines in endless power struggles is a disservice to God and Humanity. It is time for everyone to come together in one great harmonic chord each singing praises each in one’s own unique way to the one Creator of all people all life. Look for the similarities not the differences and allow love to be the first and foremost priority as well as the manifesting force behind all creation.

If I were to tell you that some progressive or liberal or emergent theologian had said this, would that be a hard claim to believe? Perhaps if I were to attribute this to a McLaren book, or maybe an Emergent Village Podcast? Or maybe I came on it while reading Marcus Borg or John Caputo, the little I read of them?

But, no, none of them said this. Perhaps it would be better to say that this came, as it were, straight from the horse's mouth.

Self Mastery in the Christ Consciousness
An Andromedan, Pleiadian, Orion Alternative
These are things that people who claim to have been visited by aliens are saying that the aliens have told them.

It would be easy to dismiss them as crackpots. I'm not so sure that's wise. For my part, I have no doubt that they have been visited by...beings. One may even call them alien beings, though not as one may think from watching The X-Files (one of my all-time favorite shows, btw).

No, I think they were visited by demonic beings, disguised, if you would, by what these people would consider an angel of light. Look at how Scripture is used deceitfully in the above quote.

But the ways in which this quote resembles things said by emergents and progressives is notable, so much so that I think it is not accidental. When they begin by saying that "There will be a major transition in religion", one can hear all of the emergents going on about how we need, A New Kind of Christianity, A Christianity Worth Believing In, or Phyllis Tickle going on about rummage sales every 500 or so years. "Does it promote Universal Peace, Brother/Sisterly Love, Equality, Individual Freedom and Prosperity for All?" could be the question most important to Sojourners. "Does it empower the individual to make one’s own personal God connection?" is exactly the sort of thing progressives say we should strive for, what Christianity should be become--not to convert people to Jesus, but to see God in other religions. Faith House Manhattan would approve of this question.

I'll not deny the possibility that this communique may be entirely man-made, but I doubt it.

What does it tell us when the words of emergents and progressives sound so much like the words given to men by demons?

heretics and goddesses

On pages 58-60 of A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor offer a list that could be considered 'spirituality vs religion'. It's an interesting list, and I'm planning to comment on some or all of them, a bit as a time, as time allows.

Spirituality encourages us to treat each human being equally and to explore the feminine of the divine as well the masculine. Religion, conversely, is dominated by male imagery and in many places continues to oppress and undermine women. The patriachal nature of most of the world's religions often means that women have to fight for the right to be treated equally.
p 58

Interesting. Let's see...

The Bible is filled with imagery of God in the masculine. In fact, much of it comes directly from God Himself. One of the strongest biblical images of God in the Bible is as Father. He speaks of Himself as a bridegroom, especially in relation to Israel. While I suppose a warrior could be man or woman, it's a predominately male image. And Jesus is so obviously male. And, finally, the Bible constantly uses male pronouns, 'he' and 'his' and 'him', to refer to God.

One may rightly say that God is really a spiritual being, and likely without gender as we know it, and it is a good point. But the fact remains, outside of a few possible cases such a in Proverbs and the feminine Wisdom, almost all of the imagery concerning God is masculine. And if we believe that God inspired the words of the Bible, then the predominately masculine imagery is itself inspired by God.

As such, then, I can only see a potential danger in any attempt to "explore the feminine of the divine". First, what does that mean? If a man is saying that he's going to "explore the feminine of the divine", what is it he's looking for?

Religions have had feminine deities. The Greek Hera, for example, seems to have epitomized the bad wife (not that Zeus was all that great a husband). They also had a goddess (Artemis?) who was a hunter, not exactly something we associate with women--men are usually thought of as hunters, and women as the gatherers and farmers. There was also the one (Aphrodite?) who epitomized beauty. And the Fates, who were women. You can find a rundown on Greek goddesses and supernatural beings here, though I will warn you about much of the artwork.

Hinduism has some feminine deities, too. Perhaps most famous is Kali, a blood-thirsty assassin and murderous goddess.

Perhaps those examples should give one pause in one's attempt to "explore the feminine of the divine". One may not like what one sees.

But I think the rest of the excerpt shows what the real agenda is. The Bible is pretty plain that pastors and church leaders are to be men. In the OT, the priests were all men, and that was how God set things up. Jesus' disciples and apostles were all men, though some say that some later apostles may have been women. When NT writers deal with pastors and deacons, perhaps the thing they take for granted is that those leaders are men.

And as well, the Bible says that in marriage, the man is the head, the leader. The husband has authority and responsibility. The Bible even plainly tells wives to 'submit'.

This is, of course, very not-PC (and I don't mean it's Mac or Linux). That is offensive to the "women need men like fish need bicycles" types. It's offensive to the "women can preach as well as men" types. It's offensive to Emergents, who pride themselves on their women-pastors.

Since the Christian religion attempts to follow the Bible, then one must appeal to something else to work around it. Hey, look, 'spirituality'. We today are more spiritual than those guys way back 2000 years ago. Oh, they were fine, we revere their works and all that, but in some things, they were just so stick-in-the-mud. And anyway, what they wrote has been misused and used to abuse women, and since that's happened, we must rethink all they taught instead of trying to understand how to apply their teachings rightly.

It should be said that, yes, there are many examples of women being abused and oppressed. I can't think of anything more anti-woman than Islam, and can't understand why any woman would choose Islam if she were not forced to.

Perhaps one could point out things in largely Christian nations that could be improved on. That's a given, and should be addressed, but it isn't helped by appealing to some kind of extra-scriptural "feminine of the divine". This has a more new-agey ring to it than biblical Christian.