nonsense

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

Redeemed Students Pray: Kentucky to Texas, USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what would this spirit running free look like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

peter rollins demands what he already has

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

Peter Rollins does that here.

Please Give Me Freedom From The Pursuit of Happiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more thing.

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

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

sojo supports filth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sooooo...

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

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

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

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

that's not what happened

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sojo idolators condemning supposed idolatry

#OccupyWallStreet: Playing with Fire and Corraling the Golden Calf

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider this, from the article.

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

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

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

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

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

Occupy Wall Street: Darker Side Emerges

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

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

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

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

generation brats being bratty

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

Consider that, then consider these antics by Generation Brats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sojo celebrates the tasteless

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

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

Naked Before the Lord: Unitarians Have More Fun

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

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

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

Bozell Column: Unzipping the Male 'X Factor'

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

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

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

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

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

generation brats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

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

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

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

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

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

couldn't agree more

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

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

"Don't be jealous, don't be envious," Cain said as he signed copies of his memoir. "I don't have much patience for someone who does not want to achieve their American dream the old-fashioned way."

When asked about the thousands of people that have been protesting in lower Manhattan, Cain said, "They're basically saying that somehow the government is supposed to take from those that have succeeded and give to those who want to protest. He added: "That's not the way America was built."

He added that the protesters "should go figure out what America is all about."

There's more in that article, go read it, it's great. Outside of a few hiccups, Cain has been spot-on for much of his campaign. I'm glad he's getting some success, and may even win the nomination. Romney's been a waffler, and while Perry has a lot going for him, his associations with KC-IHOP types is troubling to me.

Cain is right on with those remarks. The Occupy Wall Streets brats need to grow up and stop being used by the left push an agenda they'll come to regret.

so they emphasize the point, again

Hey, Sojo, I think your marxism is showing, again.

Yep, scroll down that page, and you'll see a photo of a guy, sitting down (what kinda wussa protester is that, anyway), holding a sign, saying the exact same thing that was the Sojo photo from last week said. You know, the convenient fiction that Jesus was a socialist who gave out free health care and was anti-war, even though He wasn't, He didn't, and seemed to have a fondness for soldiers.

Which tells me that, if these Occupy Wall Street shenanigans have any religious aspect to them, it based on lies and really bad teachings. Just the sort of thing Sojo would be all in for.

now Rush is right, too

Last week, Sojo got a bit miffed when they took a statement by Limbaugh, one that Media Matters of course took out of context, and put it on their site.

On his radio show today (9/27), Rush Limbaugh ranted against … wait for it … COMPASSION. “If i had to say one word that has had the most disastrous effect on the advancement of everybody in this culture, that word would be ‘compassion.’ “The crap that has been done in the name of compassion in this country has robbed people of their dignity, of their chance, or their opportunity at their own greatness, and using their own ambition and desire. It has taken it from them,” Limbaugh said. Really. He did. Out loud. Listen for yourself (via MediaMatters):

And today, they prove Rush right.

WARNING: No Compassion. Proceed with Caution.

Compassion, he says “is the thing that holds society together,” and what our society is sorely lacking.

Why?

Because it “brings the powerful down to the level of the weak,” Sachs says. There is no room for compassion in an economy where “everything is for the top,” he says.

This is rather telling. "Compassion", how people like the Sojrones define it, isn't about helping people up, helping them stand on their own, helping them not be dependent on some kind of all-benevolent government; rather, it's about taking people down, making everything level, no blade of grass rises higher than any other.

Socialism--the equal distribution of poverty.

Where is the compassion in our economy and our politics? It says much of the economic system that Sojourners even needs to campaign for a “moral budget.” How do we, as Christians, challenge structures that allow billions of dollars to be wasted via tax loopholes while 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty?

Umm...all it says is that Sojo wanted a name for their campaign, and that is the one they chose. A campaign, btw, that seems to have less to do with morality than with making sure people continue to be dependent on government handouts.

And, as one commentor to this entry said, how is the fact that people keep more of the money they themsselves earn "wasted"? Only if one thinks it should be taken by the government is it in any way wasted.

So, Sojo proves that Rush is right, that their definition of "compassion" really is the thing that robs people of dignity, incentive, the desire to better themselves, and makes them dependent, helpless, and most of all, liberal.

YWAM focusing on the unimportant

At the 1988 YWAM International Strategy Conference held in Kona, Hawaii the 71 leaders present recognized that God was giving the Mission a specific new mandate: they were to actively work to release more nonwesterners, women and youth into greater leadership and decision making roles in Youth With A Mission (Thompson 1988). The understanding was that the inclusion of these groupings within more senior leadership levels in the Mission would bring a broader diversity of gifts and a better representation of the constituency of YWAM. But this integration would not just evolve into being: due to the fact that YWAM was born in North America in the 1962s and grew up in Europe in the 1970s, it was understandable that many of the current senior leaders were Caucasion males in their 40s and 50s. The achievement of this goal to involve more nonwesterners, women and youth--though fully embraced at the heart--would require intentional and possibly radical efforts.
Dawn E Gauslin, Principles Made Practical: a handbook for pioneering U of N courses, p 10

I'm really starting to find this kind of thing...odd. Weird. A little off. Maybe more than a little

Let's take, for example, what the Bible itself says about leaders in the church.

Titus 1
5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge; 6if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly. 7For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; 8but given to hospitality, as lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled; 9holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.

I Timothy 3
1Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; 4one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10And let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless. 11Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

When I take a look at these things that should be characteristic of church leaders, there are things I do not see. Paul, a Jewish man, does not tell either Timothy or Titus that they must make sure that they try to find non-Jewish men to fill those positions, or even Jewish men since they were in Gentile cities. He does not tell them to make sure that they find people from the various Gentile peoples to lead the churches. In fact, race plays no part all in any of the things he lists.

When it comes to gender, well, Paul makes it rather clear that the leaders are to be men. Women are mentioned in I Timothy 3:11, but that likely refers to the wives of the deacons. Church leadership is limited to men, but God's own Word. It's certainly not because men are such grand creatures, but that is how God has set things up for the church to be run.

And concerning their ages, while nothing is explicitly said about that, there is a good bit said about thier spiritual maturity. They are not to be novices, I suppose that means recent converts, which may mean young or old, but should most definitely mean the young, since in almost all things the young are indeed novices. There is also the criterion that they be good husbands and fathers, who rule their homes well, have children who believe and have been taught to honor and obey them and not act like wild animals. They are to be sober-minded, even grave, along with many other signs of maturity.

In other words, the shallow postmodern goal of making sure that a certain, often unspecified, quota of all given races should be shoehorned into church leadership is absolutely foreign to anything in the Bible. Throw in as well the goal of making sure that women and youth be in these positions, and we can kind of get the idea that YWAM is going beyond anything taught in Scripture, and that this supposed "mandate" they claimed to receive from God was really not something from God.

I remember hearing or reading something a few years ago, along the lines of how YWAM had finally elected the first non-American or non-European to lead their mission, and where likely they would never again select anyone from the US again for that position, but rather would continue to find Presidents from among the non-western nations. Why is that so important? Isn't that rather a form or racism? A spiritually mature man who is from the US is passed over, simply because he's from the US, no other reason?

If we were to say that it would be unjust to say that a Chinese man who is Christian, spiritually mature, and meets the criteria Paul writes about to Timothy and Titus, is not fit for leadership because he is not American or European, why is it just to reverse that discriminatory practice?

Church leadership positions are not to be used for such shallow political maneuverings, nor should they filled based on race or skin color simply because it may "bring a broader diversity of gifts" (whatever that means), and may somehow better represent YWAM's racial make-up. It is spiritual maturity and how it is shown in things like family life that are the things that should be used in deciding who shall be church leaders, not other things.

I will say this here and now--these 71 YWAM leaders received no such mandate from God. It strikes me more as something with roots more in postmodern quota-making with a dash of charismanic nonsense thrown in.

so, Beck was right, after all

I think it was last year when Glenn Beck turned his attention to showing the solid red streak in Jim Wallis, and how Wallis tried to at least make it seem less than it claimed. See here.

Jim Wallis, yet another spiritual adviser to the president of the United States — a guy who believes a lot of the stuff that Jeremiah Wright does. He is a blatant redistribution of wealth advocate, a Marxist.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?

WALLIS: Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Being one who occasionally ventures over to Sojourners to see the latest wackiness there, I'd little doubt that Beck was on to something. Now, Wallis' little political blog, God's Politics, has a little something that makes me think Beck was indeed correct.

True Story.

Yes, that really is the article's title.

This Sojo entry is basically a photo of a sign, probably at some event. Here is what the sign says.

Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free health care. You're think of Jesus.

Rather odd, that the title "True Story" should be put to an entry that consists only of a photo of this sign, don't you think? Kinda like the Sojrone, going by the name of God's Politics Editor, thinks this sign neatly sums up what Jesus was all about.

It's interesting, too, that almost nothing on the sign is really true or verifiable. What color was Jesus' skin? Well, since photography wasn't around at that time, we really don't know. This may tell us something about Him, though.

Revelation 1
12Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw(AI) seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands(AJ) one like(AK) a son of man,(AL) clothed with a long robe and(AM) with a golden sash around his chest. 14(AN) The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow.(AO) His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15(AP) his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and(AQ) his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16(AR) In his right hand he held seven stars,(AS) from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and(AT) his face was like the sun shining(AU) in full strength.

It tells us that His feet were like bronze. Perhaps a tad on the brown side, then, though maybe more tan than anything else.

One would be hard-pressed to find anything in the Bible that says Jesus was anti-war (one would be hard-pressed to find anything in the Obama administration that says he is anti-war, either). In fact, consider this from Revelation as well, emphasis mine.

Revelation 19
11Then I saw(W) heaven opened, and behold,(X) a white horse! The one sitting on it is called(Y) Faithful and True, and(Z) in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12(AA) His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are(AB) many diadems, and he has(AC) a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in(AD) a robe dipped in[d] blood, and the name by which he is called is(AE) The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven,(AF) arrayed in fine linen, white and pure,(AG) were following him on white horses. 15(AH) From his mouth comes a sharp sword(AI) with which to strike down the nations, and(AJ) he will rule them with a rod of iron.(AK) He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh(AL) he has a name written,(AM) King of kings and Lord of lords.

Jesus does not seem to be anti-war here, and this is not the only place in the Bible that speaks of Christ returning as a warrior, despite the absurd attempt by Brian McLaren to make this passage speak of pacifism.

Did Jesus give out free health care? Jesus healed people, yes. But His healings really were free, in that sense--meaning, He didn't take the healings He would have given to the rich and give them to poor. Nor did He take anything from the rich of His day and give it to the poor simply because they were poor.

In fact, Jesus' healings seemed based on something else--faith. He even spoke very highly of the faith of one of those evil Roman soldier types, when the Roman came to Him asking for his servant to be healed.

Was Jesus a Socialist? It's amazing, what people get from the account where Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give it to the poor. One might think that they think Jesus told everyone to do that. But He didn't. One may guess He let Zaccheaus off easy for only giving away half of his goods. One may think that He wasn't hard on the Roman Centurion mentioned above, because He didn't require that the man give anything away before healing his servant. And, well, if he stayed in the home of Lazarus and his sisters, it seems logical that they have had a home for them to stay in, and probably a rather large one to house Jesus and the disciples.

You will find much in the Bible about caring for the poor, but nothing about using government coercion to force them to do so. You will find Jesus preaching the Gospel to the poor, but also to those who were rich, too. What you will not find is Jesus trying to make Israel into a communist utopia.

But, it seems that is the jesus Sojo believes in, and so, Beck is proven right by Sojo's own blog entries.

he must have lost it, then

I was with Loren (Cunningham), I think in Switzerland, many years ago. And he was with...many youth(?), in a big conference. And they were asking him questions. And one of them asked a very bold question. They said "Loren, what is the worst sin you could commit? What are you afraid that you might do?" And I thought, whoa, I'm glad they didn't ask me that. And he did even pause, he didn't even stop, his answer came just like this, he said "To lose the active awareness of the active presense of the Holy Spirit in me, (maybe something indistinct here), moment by moment, day by day, in every situation, in any context, doing ministry or having fun."
Maureen Menard, Celebrate Asia U of N Workshop, beginning roughly 25 minutes in of the first part of her lecture on The Holy Spirit

Just to note, I've put in quotation marks here, because how she sounded made it seem like she was quoting. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the exact words may have been different, it's likely just how she's speaking about this event.

Now, this answer of Cunningham's is...rather interesting. One might consider it a spiritual answer, or if you're like me, you may consider it a bit over-spiritual. I'm not going to deny that this may have been an fairly honest answer, so far as it goes, but another part of me if fairly skeptical. I have this temptation to ask something like, "Really, sir? You're not worried that you may do something the Bible considers a sin? Maybe you're not so worried about commiting adultery, but if you consider how Jesus spoke about lusting after a woman as being adultery in your heart, is that not something you must guard against? Or what about greed, covetousness, wrath, injustice? Or, more to the point, concerning what I know about you, Mr. Cunningham, should you not be more worried that you may be putting too much trust in false apostles and prophets, like the ones at the Kansas City IHOP, not to mention people like Rick Joyner? Should you not be more concerned that your attempts to institute dominionism may be against biblical teachings? Are those not more serious sins you could do, or even are doing, than you're supposed sin in your answer?"

Because there is one thing I'm sure of--it is not God's Spirit that is leading him to connect YWAM with those false prophets and apostles, nor is it God's Spirit that is telling him to work at a dominionist agenda.

undue blaming

Why the Impact World Tour

Language, gender, age and values are all elements of culture. To really reach people, we must minister cross-culturally. If our appearance or methods cause people to miss the message of the Gospel, the burden is on us to change!

Is it?

Ok, let me look at those four things they list. Language I could agree them on. If one is going to preach the Gospel to, let's say, the Chinese, it would be good to do so in the language they understand, or to have someone around who can translate the message for you.

Gender seems a bit trickier. I suppose one could consider that in light of a particular culture's views of gender and how the men and women should relate to each other. On the other hand, I get the impression that respect for those rules only goes so far; for example, it seems Jesus probably bent those rules a bit when he talked with the Samaritan woman and the Syrophoenician(sp) woman.

I suspect that age is the bit one IWT is concerned with, from things they say elsewhere on that page. Values is an interesting word, I'm nor sure what they mean by that.

Now, how important is it for the church to change to fit any particular culture? I remember hearing stories of people who would go to these remote tribes, among people who essentially went around with little or no clothing. The stories went that their ministering would be largely ineffective at first, until they got some kind of message from the God telling them to go around naked like those they were ministering to, at which point for whatever reason the people listened to them.

Now, considering how much the Bible makes about things like proper dress and modest clothing, I have to question this tactic by those missionaries. The question of what constitutes modest clothing may be debatable on some fronts, but public nakedness surely crosses that line. It is one thing for us to take the Gospel to others, it is another for us to descend to their level of morality. It would be wrong for a man to become a pimp in order to minister to prostitutes, or for a woman to become a prostitute in order to minister to other prostitutes. It would be wrong for a man to commit murder in order to get into prison to minister to prisoners. It would be wrong for a person to try to get a disease in order to minister to those in hospitals.

There are things we can do to make the message of the Gospel more understandable to others, such as presenting that message in the language the people understand. But there are lines that should not be crossed.

The Gospels present a good case for this. Consider this from Matthew 11.

11Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12(N) From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,[d] and the violent take it by force. 13(O) For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14and if you are willing to accept it, he is(P) Elijah who is to come. 15(Q) He who has ears to hear,[e] let him hear.

16"But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,
17"'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'

18For John came(R) neither eating(S) nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came(T) eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard,(U) a friend of(V) tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."[f]

John and Jesus acted in two very different ways, and both were rejected. We have to remember that people are fallen, sinful, and that no matter what we do or how culturally sensitive we are, many will reject the Gospel. The Bible does not have a high view of mankind, and does not say that all we have to do is convey the message in just the right way and people will fall all over themselves believing. That's not how it goes.

So, up to a point, IWT may have a point in saying we may need to change some things, but eventually, we simply have to accept that if we change too far, we'll be changing the message of the Gospel, or acting in ways we should not.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for us believers is to do what Jesus did, leave “our worlds” to reach another. The methods Jesus used were relevant to the culture of the time, but very different than the culture of the “church” in its day. Most of today’s younger generation are not open to the methods that reached their parents.

I'm not so sure what that means. What methods reached their parents? Why will they not work nowadays? How were Jesus' methods relevant His culture? What methods have been used since then, and how have they worked?

Finally, is such pragmatism the best way to determine if a method is good or not? Many churches are drawing big crowds, but in listening to their sermons and messages, one can really wonder if the people are being taught God's Word or the ideas of men. Do numbers justify a method? If Jesus' methods were relevant for His time, then we have to conclude that they were failing methods, because He was rejected, and His Apostles and early followers suffered a lot of persecution. "He came unto His own, and His own did not receive Him".

The Gospel of Jesus Christ has never lost its power and relevance. Our greatest challenge now, as a Church, is to present this message in a relevant way...

Relevancy is a tricky thing. The pursuit of relevancy can lead to a lot of foolishness, not to mention bad teachings. And, finally, the message of the Gospel will simply cause offense and be rejected.

a little more depth

Voices from the Web (and World): Responses to the Troy Davis Execution

Sojo has been up in arms, so to speak, over the legal execution of a man who killed a police officer. After scouring the web for views that support their views, they found a few that were against them. One was this.

“HOLD THE PICKLE, HOLD THE LETTUCE. FRYING KILLERS WON’T UPSET US.” — Conservative pundit and self-described “mean Christian” Ann Coulter via Twitter

Ok, probably not the way I would have expressed it, either, though I'm not sad that a cop killer got justice. But considering that her quote here reads a lot like the rather simplistic chants that those on the left like to use when they're out causing problems, though lacking the profanities too many of them like to use, I do wonder how much of a right Sojrones have to express distaste.

But if they had wanted to give a little more depth to Coulter's views (which I doubt they did), they could have taken some things for one of her articles about the crime. Which I'll do here.

Cop Killer Troy Davis Is Media's Latest Baby Seal

The bulk of the eyewitness testimony established the following:

Two tall, young black men were harassing a vagrant in the Burger King parking lot, one in a yellow shirt and the other in a white Batman shirt. The one in the white shirt used a brown revolver to pistol-whip the vagrant. When a cop yelled at them to stop, the man in the white shirt ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again, smiling.

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

I'm quite willing to admit that Coulter's Twitter remark was a bit much for my taste, and probably crossed lines, but whatever else may be thought of her Twitter comment, her views were hardly as simplistic as Sojo tried to portray. Perhaps they should have dealt with her article linked to above? Maybe taken some excerpts from it to add along with the other, more liberal ones they had?

And, perhaps Sojo can join in protesting some other distasteful Tweets?

‘Go Give Someone a Pedicure Chink’: Alec Baldwin Fans Attack Michelle Malkin Over Davis Execution

I'll not hold my breath on that, though. After all, they never get up in arms when conservative women are attacked in their favorite commentary shows, why start now.

bad theology = bad thinking

Why Christians Should Be Biased

Another theological/political train wreck, courtesy of Sojo.

Make no mistake, Christians should be biased.

Biased? Really? A bias based on what?

Nowhere is the Christian conformity to this world more obvious than in our failure to be biased on behalf of the poor.

Oh, I see. Christians haven't been charitable enough? Really?

I can think of good rejoinders to that charge. I think I've done this a few times before, but since it's appropriate here, let me recommend this book again, The Tragedy of American Compassion. The author shows how in the early years of the US, religious groups and organizations were the ones engaged in charitable work, up until about the early 1900s when the government began nosing in and even discouraging private charity.

Just 25 chapters into my assignment I was shocked. I’m sure I had heard it before but I had never paid attention. But, as an Evangelical Christian who takes the Bible very seriously, I was quite troubled to read about Jesus dividing the world into just two categories — those who took care of the poor, hungry, sick, needy and imprisoned and those who did not.

Though he gives no reference, it's pretty clear that he's referring to Jesus' account of the last judgment, when He divided the sheep from the goats, and talks to them about how they treated His brethren. It always surprises me how these Sojo types always leave off that part about "my brethren". But then, if they mentioned at, it would probably put paid to their notion that this passage is some kind of a call for class warfare and wealth redistribution.

He tells his followers to go hang out with those who are marginalized and picked on by the rest of the culture. He told the poor they were blessed and sent the rich young ruler away.

I'm not sure where Jesus ever told his followers to go hand out with the marginalized and picked on, and the Sojrone gives no reference. I do know that what he wrote about the rich young ruler is wrong. Jesus did not send him away, but he went away because he did not want to do what Christ told him to do. To read this Sojrones take on it, Jesus sent him away as if He were disgusted with him for being rich.

To be conformed to this world is to be biased for the wealthy and powerful.

Really? So, people like Marx and the Socialist and Communists since then, they were not being conformed this world when they engaged in class warfare rhetoric? Or when they called for the taking and redistributing of what the wealthy had? Or when they took power and implemented their theories, to the detriment of almost everyone they ruled?

Or, maybe this Sojrones call to bias is being conformed to this world? To do the rather questionable practice of quoting myself...

To say that, in any aspect of justice, God favors any social or economic class or another, is to go against what God Himself told the people to do. Consider these passages.

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 19:17

Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike...
Deuteronomy 1:17

These are the sayings of the wise: To show partiality in judging is not good:
Proverbs 24:23

So, I will contend here, that to say that "God favors the poor" is to say that God practices injustice. God Himself has said that justice should be given to both rich and poor without partiality, and to show partiality would be to pervert justice.

Once again, a writer has Sojo has tried to make injustice seem right. That is wrong.

RESPECT ME!!!

Man, Woman, and Original Sin: A Response to Al Mohler (by Morgan A. Guyton)

The controversy over whether or not the primordial stories of Genesis are historical or allegorical reveals a basic fault-line in American evangelicalism between fundamentalists who need for the gospel to be hard for others to swallow (perhaps because they’re trying to “earn” their salvation through anti-intellectualism) and true evangelicals whose genuine interest in sharing the gospel makes them yearn for a way of explaining the Bible that will not get laughed out of the room by herpetologists and others whose life vocations make it impossible for them to treat a divinely-inspired ancient Hebrew poem like a biology textbook. In any case, the latest controversy in this sad waste of God’s time called the evolution/creationism debate is that some conservative evangelical biologists are “coming out” as legitimate scientists and ruling out the possibility of a single original homo sapien couple named Adam and Eve based on their genomic research.

Oh, dear, the Bible says things that are hard to believe. Who knew?

So, we have to tailor/butcher the Bible, the unchanging Word of God, to fit the ever-changing claims of other people. God did not give His message so that man might be changed, but man gives his theories and insists that God change His message to fit them.

The latest fundamentalist to weigh in on this topic is Al Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Seminary. Mohler writes that without a historical Adam and Eve, “we will have to come up with an entirely new understanding of the Gospel metanarrative and the Bible’s storyline.” I agree. It’s time to jettison forever from Christian doctrine the abominably stupid idea that God blames people today for the actions of some random historical figure named Adam. There is a more Biblically accurate and compelling way of explaining original sin.

Really? More biblically accurate? You mean, more biblically accurate than when Paul tells us that in Adam all died? More biblically accurate than all even the account of the Fall itself?

So, what does this "...more Biblically accurate and compelling way of explaining original sin" amount to?

All of us together as man and woman have participated in eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which has left us with the curse of self-awareness that means we are no longer part of an un-individualized immortality in which animals’ bodies cycle through birth and death within a species that lives on forever according to the Earth’s natural equilibrium. We are under the curse of mortality and sin because we have been individualized and are no longer just part of a collective herd. It makes sense for the beginning of sin to be associated with the moment that “the eyes of [the man and woman] were opened, and they realized they were naked” (Genesis 3:7). Sin can only exist in the context of self-awareness. Once we gain self-awareness as a species, then we become self-centered people who quarrel with one another, squander the resources of creation God has given us, and generate an enormous residue of pain and guilt that no human being can avoid being tainted by. It is a curse for which we did not ask, but it does no good to blame God, since humanity has entered into this curse through our combined actions as a species.

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH.

So, instead of 'original sin' meaning an act of rebellion against the one, plainly state rule that God implemented, it was an accident of Evolution. Silly Evolution, giving us self-awareness and individuality, how cruel of it.

So, instead of God blaming us for a conscious act of rebellion committed by two people long ago, we're all victims of the fiat of Evolution, which for some reason gave us self-awareness and individuality. Heck, if God's directing Evolution, we go beyond blaming Evolution and blame God.

At the least, it's no longer our fault. WE didn't ask for this. WE didn't ask for individuality. WE didn't ask for self-awareness. WE didn't ask to not be part of the collective herd. We are just innocent victims, we can't help ourselves.

Ok, everyone, join with now...


AH-HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Yes, it is that hilarious.

Seriously, this Oozey article is an absolute train wreck.

If individuality and self-awareness are 'original sin', then we can get an idea of the cure--communism and losing ourselves in the collective herd. We lose our individuality into the group-think that postmodernism is so proud of, subsume our individual good in the collective good that social ideas like communism espouse, we do not fight against the dictates put out by the pomo overlords but give all due praise to them like the people whose letters McLaren responds to in his blog.

Also, personal responsiblity at the least gets reduced. We don't really sin against God, we're just accidents of nature. Did Christ die so that we can be forgiven of our sins by repentence and confessions? Or did he die so that we can simply rejoin the collective herd?

but he already said that

Mark (Anderson/Andersen/something like that) shared from his encounter with God, and he began to help us see what God was doing throughout the earth. And he told us that a time is coming when believers are coming together, in many cities throughout the world, believers in Jesus, every one of them with the person of the Holy Spirit who is in them, gathered in a building to consider the business of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And together, they will ask, how do we bring your kingdom to every place our foot will tread. Now here's the thing, At that gathering, when we come from every church, different denominations, different cultures, differenet experiences of God, what unites us? Who unites us? And in that moment I believe Jesus is going to speak. Every time that session convenes, just as we are gathered right now, there will be a Great Commission call, but not from any human being, from Jesus. From Jesus. And they will hear, you will hear, "All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me, and I commission you to go, but wait, wait, wait, remember the Holy Spirit, remember the Holy Spirit. I won't leave you alone, but it's the Spirit of God who is with you, and he will make everything that is of me available to you."
Maureen Menard, Holy Spirit part 1, Celebrate Asia U of N Workshop, roughly 10 minutes in

So, let me get this straight...

This guy (not Menard, she's telling what Anderson said) says that believers in Jesus are going to gather together, and have these meetings, in buildings, about spiritual stuff. Menard throws in her $.02 worth, too, saying that the people at those gatherings will get a Great Commission call, apparently from Jesus Himself. She even gives the kind of message Jesus is going to give to them.

Now, I listen to all that, and I think "Couldn't they just read the Book, and get that same message?"

As humorous as that seems to me, it shows a decided shallow outlook on the part of this lady. People have to hear Jesus Himself say those words in order to actually do them? Jesus has already said them, those words are recorded in the Bible, why do we need to have them repeated?

There is nothing profound here, no matter in how many exclamation points this woman speaks, and she does seem to speak in them all the time in this truly gargantuan lecture. But this statement is closer to asinine than profound. Her Jesus that speaks today doesn't say anything that those people couldn't read very well in the Bibles they would hopefully have close at hand. Those people don't need to gather together in order to know that Jesus has commissioned them to take the Gospel to the world.

Jesus has already spoken. Why do they need Him to say again the things He's already said?

where does God put his feet?

Out of the mathematics of general relativity would come ideas and postulates that are themselves also matters now of household conversation: time as another, and fourth, dimension; time as capable of being slowed; the ongoing expansion of the universe; the Big Bang. And in conjunction with the work of other brilliant, popularly known physicists like Edwin Hubble, general relativity would eventually make it possible, on July 20, 1969, for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to walk on the surface of Earth's moon. In doing so, they walked on what always before had been the footstool of God, and that made all the difference. Literalism based on inerrancy could not survive the blow (though it would die a slow and painful death); and without inerrancy-based literalism, the divine authority of Scripture was decentralized, subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers. Where now is our authority?
Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence, p 82, emphasis mine

I think I commented on this or a similar quote of Tickle's some time ago, but something struck me in this statement--the contention that in going to the moon we had somehow walked upon "the footstool of God".

So, doing a little search in the Bible on what is the footstool of God, I found a bit of something that makes Tickle's statement rather amusing.

Isaiah 66:1
This is what the Lord says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?

Matthew 5:34-35
But I tell you, Do not swear at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne, or by the earth, for it is his footstool; of by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

And Acts 7:49 quotes Isaiah 66:1.

I have not found any place in the Bible where the moon is referred to as God's footstool; rather, it is the Earth itself that is given that moniker.

Which makes Tickles statement about us walking on God's footstool rather amusing, since long before astronauts set foot on the moon, we were walking quite frequently, openly, and with impunity upon God's footstool. It seems that setting foot on God's footstool didn't make all that much of a difference, after all.

Which leads me to think that Tickle's declaration of the death of biblical literalism is based more on wishful thinking than reality. But just as people on Tickle's side of the aisle have tried to declare things dead that really are not, like political conservatism and the Republican Party, biblical literalism is still alive and well. Tickle need not whistle as she passes by the graveyard, for the ghost of literalism is not there.

Nor is the ghost of liberalism there, either, though that spirit I would wish was confined within the walls of the cemetery of ideas, where it richly belongs. But it would be wrong of me to say that it is, no matter my own preference for it's swift demise. Liberal politicians are still out there, still defending the rights of certain 'doctors' to take the lives of the most helpless of human beings, the unborn; still trying to normalize sexual perversion; still trying to take the US down the failing road of socialism; still trying to use class warfare rhetoric to take more and more tax money from people; still using questionable science to gain more and more control over us; still making criminals into heroes; and so on.

And liberalism is still alive in religion, too. Tickle's statement about the death of literalism and Scripture losing its divine authority could be considered among the hallmarks of religious liberalism.

following the inner voice

It's been quite a while since I've used a Dilbert strip to comment on something, or just post it just 'cause.

Anyway, take a gander of this oozey statement. Emphasis mine.

Are Some Sins Worse or Better Than Others? (by Christian Piatt)

Then we got to Jesus so-called Greatest Commandment. The rule upon which all other rules hang, according to him. The two-part rule for a righteous life is to love God with every part of your being, and to love your neighbor (not just your next door neighbor, but everyone else) like you love yourself.

What if I don’t love myself? Does that mean I have permission to treat others as badly as I treat myself? Can I lower the bar on self-care on purpose so I have greater latitude in how I love others?

Finally, we came together on the idea that what Jesus was getting at was that you would know in your heart what is right and what is wrong. If you follow that inner voice – that moral compass, so to speak – you’ll always point in the right direction.

And now, we have this recent Dilbert strip.



And to look at the oozey nonsense above in a more theological way, emphasis mine again.

Jeremiah 17

5Thus says the LORD:"Cursed is the man(K) who trusts in man
and makes flesh his strength,[a]
whose heart turns away from the LORD.
6(L) He is like a shrub in the desert,
(M) and shall not see any good come.
He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness,
in(N) an uninhabited salt land.

7(O) "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
(P) whose trust is the LORD.
8(Q) He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit."

9The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
10(R) "I the LORD search the heart
(S) and test the mind,[b]
(T) to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds."

Jesus was NOT, repeat NOT, making some kind Disneyesque statement about how are hearts will know what is right or wrong, nor was He say that we had to follow some kind of inner voice or inner moral compass. God's commandments were known to the people Jesus was speaking to, and nothing He taught was against them.

attempting the impossible

Becoming Influencial

"The LORD will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the LORD your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom" (Deut 28:13-14).

I would have to say the body of Christ in America is not the head, but is still the tail. Part of the reason for this is that we have not understood our biblical mandate to have dominion on the earth as was modeled in Genesis with Adam and Eve. When Jesus returned to earth He came to save that which was lost and restore this principle of dominion (Luke 19:10). When Jesus prayed in the Lord's prayer: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:9-10), He was praying that His dominion would be restored on earth just as it is in Heaven.

First, let's put that passage excerpt in it's context.

Deuteronomy 28

1And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice
of Jehovah thy God, to observe to do all his commandments which I
command thee this day, that Jehovah thy God will set thee on high above
all the nations of the earth: 2and all these blessings shall come upon thee,
and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of Jehovah thy
God. 3Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the
field. 4Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground,
and the fruit of thy beasts, the increase of thy cattle, and the young of thy
flock. 5Blessed shall be thy basket and thy kneading-trough. 6Blessed shalt
thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest
out. 7Jehovah will cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be
smitten before thee: they shall come out against thee one way, and shall
flee before thee seven ways. 8Jehovah will command the blessing upon
thee in thy barns, and in all that thou puttest thy hand unto; and he will
bless thee in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee. 9Jehovah will
establish thee for a holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee;
if thou shalt keep the commandments of Jehovah thy God, and walk in his
ways. 10And all the peoples of the earth shall see that thou art called by
the name of Jehovah; and they shall be afraid of thee. 11And Jehovah will
make thee plenteous for good, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of
thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which Jehovah sware
unto thy fathers to give thee. 12Jehovah will open unto thee his good
treasure the heavens, to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless
all the work of thy hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou
shalt not borrow. 13And Jehovah will make thee the head, and not the tail;
and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if thou shalt
hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah thy God, which I command
thee this day, to observe and to do them, 14and shalt not turn aside from
any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand, or to
the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Look at some parts of this passage. First, God was giving this message to the children of Israel, right before they were to go into the Promised Land. As such, it seems rather spurious to take that little excerpt about being the head and not the foot, and trying to apply it the church. Deuteronomy 28 is quite a long chapter, and right after v 14 it goes into a very long discourse about the curses God will send on them if they do not keep all the commandments. Why not focus on them, instead of holding out the thing about.

Second, consider how all-encompassing their obedience had to be. "...to observe to do all his commandments which I command thee this day", "...if thou shalt keep the commandments of Jehovah thy God, and walk in his ways", "... if thou shalt hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them, and shalt not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day". They had to obey ALL of God's commandments, they could not disobey ANY of the words which God had commanded them. It had to be perfect obedience to many chapters worth of commands, I think they begin in chapter 5 and go up to 27.

Israel failed to do that. The Old Testament gives the accounts of their inability to keep them. But they are far from alone in failing to obey God's laws. All of us have sinned, and in showing us, Israel and Gentiles, that we have sinned, the law had done it's duty.

Romans 7
7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not
known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except
the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: 8but sin, finding occasion, wrought
in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the
law sin is dead. 9And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the
commandment came, sin revived, and I died; 10and the commandment,
which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: 11for sin, finding
occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me.
12So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and
good. 13Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid.
But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through
that which is good; — that through the commandment sin might become
exceeding sinful.

Galatians 3
10For as many as are of the
works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one
who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to
do them. 11Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident:
for, The righteous shall live by faith; 12and the law is not of faith; but, He
that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of
the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one
that hangeth on a tree: 14that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of
Abraham in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith.

In tying the so-called dominion mandate to this passage in Deuteronomy about being the head and not the tail, this writer is tying the right to have dominion to obedience to the law. Does it not say that only through following and obeying the law God had given would Israel be the head and not the tail, be above and not below? If that is the condition, then it follows that the yoke of perfect obedience is the yoke these dominionists have taken upon themselves.

Good luck with that. If any dominionist has bothered to read all of what I've written here so far, you've likely already sinned in some way or another in that time. You've already disobeyed. You have disobeyed today, should you live tomorrow you will disobey. If at any time in your life you have disobeyed God's commands, you have forfeited the right to be the head, you have no right to be above anyone else.

ched myers and twisting peter's statement

At the structural center of Marks story is Jesus famous double question to his disciples, upon which all Christian theology turns:

"Who do the people say that I am?...
Who do you say I am?" (8:27, 29a)

Here Mark boldly transforms teh foundational declaration of Hebrew faith--"God said to Moses, 'I am who I am!" (Exod. 3:14)--into a query. Significantly, Peter sees in this remarkable solicitation a happy occasion for confessional orthodoxy: "You are the Christ!" (8:29b). Yet Jesus responds to Peter as if he were merely another demon attempting to "name" him--he silences him (8:30; cf. 1:25, 3:12, 9:25).

This precipitates what I have called the "confessional crisis" in Mark (8:31-33). Jesus repudiates Messianic triumphalism by invoking the political vocation of the Human One; Peter attempts in turn to repudiate such a "negating" theology. Jesus then utterly problematizes the matter by aligning the Petrine confession (which was, let us not forget, the creed of the churches to which Mark wrote, aand which still read him today) with Satan! The struggle conclude with Jesus' invitation to his disciples to a practice of the cross (8:34ff). Mark thus displaces Peter's confession with Jesus' quandary about losing life in order to save it.
Ched Myers, in his entry """I Will Ask You A Question": Interrogatory Theology", in the book "Theology Without Foundation", edited by Hauerwas, Murphy, and Nation, pp. 100-101

It seems like a theme is starting to pop up here, dealing with some rather bizarre scriptural twistings. I don't know if I can say that the above is among the most bizarre, as the so-called apostles and prophets are among those who regularly go to some strange places, but it may be among the most distasteful.

First, the passage in question.

Mark 8
27And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea
Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do
men say that I am? 28And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and
others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets. 29And he asked them, But
who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the
Christ. 30And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. 31And
he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and
be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be
killed, and after three days rise again. 32And he spake the saying openly.
And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33But he turning about, and
seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan;
for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. 34And he
called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any
man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and
follow me. 35For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and
whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it.
36For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his
life? 37For what should a man give in exchange for his life? 38For
whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he
cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

First, Myers tries to say the Jesus silenced Peter as He silences the demons in other passages. But is that so? Emphases mine.

Mark 1
40And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to
him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 41And
being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched
him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean. 42And straightway the
leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean. 43And he strictly
charged him, and straightway sent him out, 44and saith unto him, See thou
say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for
thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto
them. 45But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread
abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a
city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every
quarter.

Mark 8
31And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through
Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of
Decapolis. 32And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an
impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him.
33And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers
into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue; 34and looking up to
heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
35And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and
he spake plain. 36And he charged them that they should tell no man: but
the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it.
37And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all
things well; he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

Mark 9
1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of
them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the
kingdom of God come with power. 2And after six days Jesus taketh with
him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain
apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them; 3and his
garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can
whiten them. 4And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they
were talking with Jesus. 5And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it
is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee,
and one for Moses, and one for Elijah. 6For he knew not what to answer;
for they became sore afraid. 7And there came a cloud overshadowing them:
and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye
him. 8And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save
Jesus only with themselves. 9And as they were coming down from the
mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they
had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.
10And they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising
again from the dead should mean.

From these passages, we can see that Jesus did not tell only demons to be silent about who He is or things He had done or shown to them. Jesus telling the disciples to not say anything about Him being the Christ at that time does not mean He was equating Peter's statement with something said by demons; iu fact, I think Myers is falling into blasphemy when he says that.

Also, the incident is mentioned in other Gospels. In Matthew, for example, it does like this:

Matthew 16
13Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? 14And they
said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one
of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? 16And
Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not
prevail against it. 19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then
charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the
Christ.21From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and
scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. 22And Peter took
him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall
never be unto thee. 23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind
me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the
things of God, but the things of men.

Interesting that this pasage contains all the elements Myers appeals to, but has other things that perhaps Myers wouldn't like; for example, rather than Jesus repudiating Peter's statement that He is the Christ, Jesus says that he is blessed for making it, that the Father is the one who has shown that to him.

A far cry from Myers' attempts to make Peter's statement the problem, isn't it?

Myers' statement that Jesus tried to align Peter's statement with Satan is simply blasphemy. Peter's statement that Jesus is the Christ was revealed to him by God, yet Myers' says it is aligned with Satan. Would it not be logical, then, that it is Myers who is speaking the words of Satan here, since they contradict Jesus' own statement that Peter's insight was given to him by God?

another case of the text not saying that

There are time I read something, and I wind up asking "How on Earth did they find that in there?" I gave an example of it a few days ago, but that was from a Sojrone, and that's par for the course for them. This one is from what I think is the other side of the political aisle.

The Dominion Process

Perhaps many of the events mentioned in the Bible as being signs of Christ’s return are instigated by the church.Take for instance Satan’s reaction to the dominion authority of the advancing church.

"Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”
Revelation 12:10-12

According to this verse, many of the subsequent events in the Book of Revelation are due to the fact that the church has taken the initiative and cornered the devil, and like a frightened animal, he comes out fighting because he knows his days are numbered.

So, which of those verses says what this writers says it says?

First, context.

Revelation 12

1And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman arrayed with the sun, and
the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; 2and
she was the child; and she crieth out, travailing in birth, and in pain to be
delivered. 3And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold, a great
red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven
diadems. 4And his tail draweth the third part of the stars of heaven, and
did cast them to the earth: and the dragon standeth before the woman that
is about to be delivered, that when she is delivered he may devour her
child. 5And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the
nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto
his throne. 6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a
place prepared of God, that there they may nourish her a thousand two
hundred and threescore days. 7And there was war in heaven: Michael and
his angels going forth to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and
his angels; 8And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any
more in heaven. 9And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he
that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was
cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him. 10And I
heard a great voice in heaven, saying, Now is come the salvation, and the
power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ: for
the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before our
God day and night. 11And they overcame him because of the blood of the
Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not
their life even unto death. 12Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe for the earth and for the sea: because the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. 13And when the dragon
saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman that
brought forth the man child. 14And there were given to the woman the two
wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her
place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from
the face of the serpent. 15And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the
woman water as a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the
stream. 16And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her
mouth and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make
war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and
hold the testimony of Jesus:

So, again, where is anything said here about the church "taking the initiative" and "cornering the devil"?

The woman mentioned at the first part of the passage seems to represent Israel. Her son seems to be Jesus. Then there is the account of a war in Heaven, and in a blow against the no pre-emptive war people (as if the concept of war in Heaven isn't enough to deflate the extreme pacifists out there), it seems that Michael and his angels start that battle, and even win, casting the dragon from Heaven and to Earth, along with those angels on his side.

The only mention of the church, except maybe at the end, is from the voice John heard, the words the dominionist writer refers to. 11And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life even unto death. Where are the concepts of "taking the initiative" and "cornering the devil" here?

When the devil realizes he has been defeated and cast out of Heaven, who does he persecute? The woman mentioned at the first part of the passage, Israel. And when he couldn't harm her, he turns his attention to who are called "the rest of her seed, that keep the commands of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus". These are Christians, though if it means the whole church or Jewish believers or some other subgroup of Christians, I'm not sure. May be something worth studying into.

But some things are pretty clear in this passage--the devil's hatred is primarily directed at Israel and at Christ. He was not cast out of Heaven by the church cornering him or taking the initiative, but by angels taking the fight to him and his. Even after being cast out of Heaven, he wants to harm Israel. The church is at best a bit player in this passage.