Why I Don't Roll Charismatic (The Third Installment)

This post can be added to a series on the Charismatic or Renewal movement that has been upon my mind somewhat more in recent months than in the past. This time I have in my mind prophetic utterances themselves from individuals within this movement. Specifically, the specific utterances that have been palpably wrong in what they specifically have predicted. According to Deuteronomy, such false utterances in the name of God warrant capital punishment (Deut 18:20).

This insuperably high view of the integrity of prophecy does not dissuade most within the ranks of the Charismatic movement from making painfully cavalier utterances in the name of God. This is because those within the movement make the distinction between being a "prophet" and "operating in the prophetic". This distinction really acts as a shield when the utterer of an erroneous prophecy can simply say "Well, I was speaking prophetically, we are right most of the time but sometimes we miss hear God."

This distinction is right up there with the Romanists distinction between "idol-latria" and "idol-dulia" the latter is what praying to statues and Mary fall under and thus are not in violation of the 2nd commandment's prohibitions. Once you have dissected one error it becomes easier to spot imitations of its kind.

The distinction between the office of "prophet" and "moving in the prophetic", the latter being what everyone today claims to be doing, as it grants immunity when they are wrong, is often said to have come about under the New Covenant. In the Old Testament the prophet was expected to be right all the time, but in the New...well not so much.

Logically, I have a hard time stomaching this, as those who labored under types and shadows would be held to a higher standard than those who have the Substance, namely Christ. Furthermore, scripturally, I see no scriptural reference to this downgrade in veracity of prophetic utterances. Somehow we are to accept that after Christ to whom all of the OT pointed, whose coming was the apex of history and the noon day shining, after His advent prophecy now became more fuzzy and amorphous.

This pseudo distinction between one being a "prophet" and one "operating in the prophetic" has caused much damage and served to grant immunity to all the bogus utterances made by the big dogs in the Charismatic movement. This is the ad hoc rescue invoked every time some one made an utterance a tad specific and the prediction has failed to become reality.

This is why it is safer to give the vague prophecies that have the skeletal structure of a pile of jello as well as being of like nourishment.

To give an example and to show that I do not cherry pick, as vague utterances is the rule rather than the exception, I pull the following excerpt from today's edition of "The Elijah List" (one of the most popular prophetic sites on the web) The is supposed to be a prophecy about what is in store in 2010 (emphasis his):

"During this earthly journey toward our eternal abode, we have more "spiritual set-backs" from Believers forfeiting inherent rights to the enemy than from the devil's cunning devices. However, there are three main components the Lord told me we will overcome in the year 2010:

• We must possess and abide in a land we have conquered.
• We must occupy our land by "title deed" ownership rights.
• We must realize our identity in God to rout our enemy.

Remember, God resides and inhabits eternity, not earthly existence. God IS SPIRIT! We are becoming His promised Word, and must grow more even daily as God reorders our vision of being eternally minded. "

2010 Will Be a Year of "Extreme Breakout"

... So, let us make a 2010 New Year's Resolution that: 2010 is the year to breakout of the 'naturally minded' wilderness.

We furthermore make a new resolution that: We are being repositioned into the vision of perpetuating our eternal purpose spiritually. -(John Mark Pool)

Prophecy that was neither vague nor failed to come to pass were what distinguished the prophets of the LORD from the pagans. Or in modern terms, what is the difference between an utterance like that above and what you would get from calling Wanda at a 1-900 number? Sloppy biblical allusions, are the only difference I can pinpoint. The above was the most specific I saw in this particular prediction, that is why I quoted it, as well as the fact that the author himself had these sections in bold. This is the 2010 prediction from John Mark Pool.

All that this prediction amounts to in less spiritualized words is, "Things are gonna be good in 2010 for the church." What a gutsy prediction!

As I said, this is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to prophetic utterances in the Charismatic movement, a pretty bland and forgettable prediction slathered in spiritual sounding frosting.

Furthermore, the theology behind these kinds of utterances are radically man centered, Luther would categorize them as "Theology of glory" meaning it is elevating man and man centered conquests, but that is a post in itself.

Moving to the more specific prophecies that fellows in the charismatic movement have uttered, as this is where the real blood in the water is. One of the most dastardly incidents that comes to my mind is when Bob Jones in 1997 predicted a massive earthquake in CA for the coming year, even going so far as to advise people to move away. Sadly, some listened to his ravings seriously.

This was all recorded in the 1997 predictions for 1998 at Morning Star Ministries. I have the damning tape. Since this obviously failed to come to pass, Morning Star in the newer releases of the tape have edited Jones' prediction to make it more bland. This tells you the pathology of these individuals, they will go around editing tapes to cover their tracks. (Bob Jones picture to the right)

Bob Jones it also must be mentioned admitted to having women undress in front of him in his van under the pretense of giving them "prophetic words" (article), he is a sex offender. Now, I would be the first to say that such people can be forgiven, and upon clear repentance should be admitted back into fellowship, BUT such a person should not occupy a pulpit again as he now fails to meet the requirements of leadership (see 1 Timothy ch.3 or Titus ch.1).

Yet, Mr. Jones continues on the Charismatic circuits like an aging rockstar who is constantly on "Fairwell Tour" thus worthy of double honor. It is entirely reprehensible on the part of the churches that allow Mr. Jones a platform to speak, as his conduct has thoroughly disqualified him from any place of leadership (not to mention his wild doctrine). This shows that the alleged "gift" these individuals possess is deemed as more valuable than the purity of the church and an upright life. This brings us to Todd Bentley.

Now, not to throw punches at a dead horse as I have written on Bentley's escapades here, I bring up the fact that he claimed that God gave him a vision and thus prompted him to marry his former wife whom he has recently divorced and committed adultery against. Here is the recounting of Todd's vision from God, which led to his marriage which he threw away for fleeting pleasures:

"“…the Lord had actually shown me an open vision of Shonnah [Todd's former wife]. It was my first open-eyed vision. I was in my living room and my fireplace opened up, kind of like a TV screen, and I saw us embracing in a wheat field that was ready for harvest. We were both weeping and I was wearing a tux and she was wearing a wedding dress. As the vision unfolded, her friend Roswetta (who was now my friend) was talking with me in the living room about Shonnah. I described the open vision to her as it happened.

The presence of the Lord fell and we both wept. Roswetta said, ‘I can’t see it but I can feel goose bumps.’ During this vision, I also received an anointing of creativity, poetry and writing. In fact, I even received a three-page prophetic poem that I read at our wedding. I still write prophetic poems for my wife to this day.” (From Bentley's autobiography)

Now, I don't want to make much of this as it speaks for itself, I honestly doubt Bentley had any vision, he strikes me as your run of the mill charlatan. If you question that maybe this video where he talks about a tumor exploding during a healing will help you. My point is that I don't know how seriously people making these utterances actually take them themselves.

The Bentley story is simply tragic, as he really threw away his family for a young trophy wife.

Yet, like Bob Jones, Todd Bentley is on his way back into the Charismatic conference circuit and is being "restored" to ministry by Rick Joyner and others. See my post "Swallowing the Spirit Feathers and All" for more on this.

Just like politicians, nobody ever resigns, and the apologies are palpably lacking sincerity.

The flippancy in all of this prophetic business I see as a major part of the problem. Let me assert that I do not doubt that God can speak to individuals directly, I am not a full blown cessationist (although I am closer to their end of the spectrum with unbridled mysticism being on the opposite end). However, what troubles me is the cavalier manner in which individuals within the Charismatic movement talk about hearing from God.

It is just an every day thing to hear from God to many of these individuals, He speaks to me when I am sleeping, when I am brushing my teeth, driving my car, etc. I often have heard the phrases "I feel like God is saying..." or even more odious "I just got a download from heaven..." both of these display that casual attitude people have to hearing from God.

In scripture when individuals hear from God it is quite another matter, they are simply "undone" and stricken by an overwhelming sense of unworthiness (Isaiah 6 for example).

Not so with the modern charismatics, they blithely talk about trips to the third heaven as though they had taken a train to Deleware, no big deal. Whereas, Paul wouldn't even say it was himself who had had a vision of heaven (2 Cor 12:1) as he felt so unworthy to utter what he had seen.

Again, not so with the modern subscribers to the renewal movement, I had a wild eyed fellow come up to me, whom I didn't know at all really, and just state to me rather matter of factly out of the blue "Yeah, I've been to the third heaven..." I looked at this man and it dawned on me that either he was mad or it was I who was mad, I concluded that the former was the case as he brought this up to me, a total stranger, completely out of nowhere. Again, I don't think this fellow has been to the third heaven, he was either delusional or a liar, because had he been there he wouldn't be so flippant about it. I think he thought this would impress me, like a general showing off his medals of valour he earned for his "bravery" against the Iraqi rebels.

Any time we claim to be speaking on God's behalf it should be with fear and trembling, as we hold a message that is greater than ourselves. This is true when we step up to exposit scripture, we are to preach as dying men to a dying world. It should certainly be true if we have indeed been given a prophetic word from God.

I personally don't go about seeking words from God apart from studying His revealed word in the Scriptures. I figure if God wants to give me some sort of direct word He is more than capable of doing so, as He is not impotent but sovereign and ruling and reigning. One doesn't go to a Charismatic school and learn how to hear God's voice, as many do. Frankly, the idea on its face is blasphemous as it presents to us a rather impotent god who really needs our help, he would like to speak to us if only we will listen. If God has something to say directly to us He will not have any difficulty arresting our attention.

That's my view of direct words from God.

This is the third installment in the growing series of "Why I don't Roll Charismatic", it is in part a response to some of the claims made by a friend of friends on his blogs about getting a prophecy from God that CA will be destroyed in Sept of 2010 by a massive earthquake. You can read of this HERE. I will not address him personally, as he is not a public figure, nor do I want him to feel shamed. Although, he believes in his message enough to put it on paper and put them under people's windshield wipers. Do I think there will be an earthquake in Sept 2010? I don't know, could happen.

What I am concerned about is what if it doesn't happen? Was not Christ's name taken in vain by being attached to a false prophecy? Does this not give unbelievers who got these pamphlets grounds to mock? I think the answer is yes to both of these questions.

To conclude, I simply do not know why the Bible isn't good enough for people. It claims to have all we need (2 Tim 3:16-17). C.H. Spurgeon once said if we had a thousand lifetimes and they were dedicated to the study of God's word, we still would not have mined all of the gems that are contained in God's word. Why then do so many go about chasing fresh words when there is already a sure word?

"Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food." (Isaiah 55:2)

The Lap Dog Media and "Climategate"

I have been holding off in giving comment to the recent "Climategate" emails for the simple fact that the emails themselves were received by people like myself with a "Well of course." reaction. I was more interested in how the shills in the media would spin this and shift the scrutinizing eyes from the supposed "consensus of scientists" who were obviously guilty of fraud, to the people or person who broke the story.

This is precisely the sort of treatment to be expected when these sort of revelations come to the light of day, and climategate is no exception. In an AP article entitled "E-Mails don't undercut science" I believe we have a shining example of what lap dog media looks like.

I shall give a blow by blow evaluation of this piece (quotes from the article will appear in Blue), my reasoning primarily is to put on display how propaganda works. Also, I use the George Orwell phrase "doublethink" a few times if you do not know what the term means the wikipedia definition including Orwell's own definition from 1984 can be found here. The entirety of the AP article can be read here. That said I will begin my assessment, the article begins as follows:

"LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press."

The first thing that stands out is the word "stolen", from the outset you are to get an opinion of who the real criminals are, namely the individual(s) that brought these emails to the light of day. Furthermore note the doublespeak, the sentence cites the fact that within the emails the scientists discussed "hiding data" (that made their claims less than convincing) but this fact doesn't indicate any fakery. Sure they may have talked about cooking the books and molding the data a bit but that doesn't discredit their claims. This is truly Orwellian double think.

"The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Yet again, we have to engage in double think to swallow this rather distasteful elixir. It is announced that the scientists admit to having doubts, these are described as slight and fleeting by the AP. I wonder how the AP was able to determine the intensity of the internal doubts these scientists harbored simply through reading their emails. Furthermore, there is as always a reference to a "vast body of evidence" that warming is man made, this of course begs the question in light of the fact that this body of evidence comes from guys who talked about intentionally fudging data, and even doubt their own claims.

"The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets."

I found this passage to be absolutely hilarious. I think it is supposed to comfort us that scientists in presenting their "findings" are just behaving like politicians. We are all used to politicians crafting a pack of lies, so well, the modern scientist should be viewed like Bush, Clinton, or Obama, you know they're lying but we are all expected to engage in the fiction that they mean what they say. Well, science is now kind of like politics, by its definition full of falsehoods and empty platitudes, this again is an attempt to reassure us that what these emails contain is no big deal, we see these sort of games all the time in the world of politics, therefore we should just accept them.

We are then introduced to an expert (Frankel), who again attempts to placate us stating:

"Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

So again we are back to double think, 1.There is NO EVIDENCE of falsehoods yet, 2.We can be concerned over "Very Generous interpretations"....Hmm, one would think that if someone knowingly gave a "very generous interpretation" that would be synonymous with fabricating data. I read stuff like this and what amazes me most is that this sort of propaganda actually works. One has to suspend reason for the above statement to seem coherent and consistent.

The article continues:

"One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it."

Ok, this statement is an honest assessment of the material found within the emails, the scientists in the good ol boys club who roll with the UN and the likes of Al Gore had some data they thought it worth their while to keep from those who reject the man made global warming theory. Furthermore, given the already cited dishonesty of these fellows why should we trust their claim that they never destroyed like data they didn't want public?

"The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists [sic] repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests."

This again can stand on its own, the scientists (in a looser sense of the word) state that they had data they didn't want scientists holding to rival theories to get a hold of. This again is dishonesty, yet we are supposed to view the findings of scientists like a papal decree...the majority has spoken, sit down and shut up. This shows how shaky this sort of science is, it is based upon mob rule rather than hard empiricism. That being the case the mob in favor with the powers that be and part of the inner circle or round table must keep a tight lid over undesired information, lest the unwashed masses of independent scientists get a hold of it.

The article then unfortunately goes on and tries to justify hiding data. It then gives an attempt to justify the clear vitriol for the scientists who are skeptical of the anointed theory. Ultimately when attempting to justify dubious behavior it is always best to invoke "experts":

"As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

The experts on "research ethics" have spoken, let us humbly submit to their proclamations. Given the fact that these fellows no doubt have no objective reference point to guide their ethical judgements their proclamations are rather weightless. All we can conclude is that some "experts in ethics" have put their crayons to paper and determined that no ethical wrongdoing has taken place.

I suppose this would mean that lying, hiding findings, and hating people who disagree with your position are all within the boundaries of upright behaviour when it comes to research. We should however accept their statements about the political nature of science, and this indeed murkies the waters. Anytime something becomes political the incentive to lie and spin comes to life.

We must also accept the proclamation that science is far less objective then we often think, a lesson my Atheist friends would do well to heed. It is chalked full of subjective agents, with their own wants and needs necessarily coming to bear on their findings. This is particularly true in the soft sciences (Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Archeology, and Climate science) harder sciences are less prone to this sort of fudging as they really can fully apply the scientific method these would include (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry etc). It is sciences of the softer variety that we seem to receive an embarrassing amount of crack pot theories that are held due to the necessary mob rule that reigns in these sciences.

This following excerpt is another great example of how propaganda works given the Left vs Right false paradigm we are all supposed to accept:

"In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science [sic] have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible."

This is the ace of spades the establishment can always throw out no matter what the issue. Why was it necessary to tell the reader that the congressmen who have cited these damning emails were "Republicans"? Why do the writers of this article have to bring up Sarah Palin and her doubts of the IPCC's findings?

The answer is simple, to make it a partisan issue. Almost everybody sees Sarah Palin as an uneducated rube, so in order to discredit the sensible reaction that these emails indicate fraud in the research the climate change posse has been putting forth, you bring up Sarah Palin and her opinion. This makes it a left vs. right issue, thus inherently pitting people on one side or other given which brand of soda they like to purchase. Link a position to Sarah Palin and every sensible person will out of respect for his own intellectual dignity want to react and say, "Well if she holds to X then I DO NOT."

Its a simple game, and again it is rather amazing that it continues to work.

Furthermore note in the above quote that it says that the emails only "appear" to show fraud. We just went through a number of citations where I don't know how one can read them as anything but fraud, yet we are to conclude that they merely appear to be engaged in fraud...after all we have to look at all of this in context.

The AP has not found fraud, just trying to present the "data as convincingly as possible". Well this of course begs the question as the reliability of the data is the very thing being questioned, and the very thing that the scientist's comments within the emails show that we should indeed question. All in all this is a very delicate way of saying the AP found that, "The scientists were cooking the books and trying to convince people of something of which the evidence is questionable."

That is what it should say were we not dealing with a lap dog media shilling for the establishment.

"None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates [sic] in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write."

Funny that these guys after reading their buddies emails didn't change their minds, this again is supposed to show us that there is nothing in the emails that should cause us to question the integrity of the findings given by these scientists after all "moderates" didn't change their minds and if anybody would it would be them.

""In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said."

I am wondering what context statements like "hide the decline" (referencing temperature) can be seen as innocent in solid scientific research. I love it when appeals to context are made in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

To conclude, I see articles like this as great examples of propaganda. The media comes to the aid of a rightfully tottering establishment policy, giving simply absurd reasonings for why we should give the establishment our unwavering support. The issue of man made global warming is rather moot to me, it is ridiculous on its face. The fact that calling Co2 a pollutant, and the remedy is to tax its output, smells like a con-game and a power play is probably because it is.

Christians should be on the front lines of real environmentalism as we know who made the earth and we know to whom the beauty of nature testifies. We are called to be good stewards of the planet and to take care of it. Yet this kind of alarmism and fear mongering based upon dubious science with the solution being global governance should be rightly rejected.

Faithfulness Without Comprimise (Or Speaking the Truth in Love)

"And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 9:3)

The above verse immediately upon my reading of it became precious to me. The land of Israel had become polluted with lies and the reasoning given was that the people were not "valiant for the truth". This verse in our age is like a rabid rhinoceros in a fine china shop, upon which tranquilizers have become useless. I say this because the spirit of our age is one that has given up on objective truth.

When I say objective truth I mean truth that is true for everyone, whether they fancy it or not, whether they know of it or not, and whether they accept it or not. Modern man has given this up as he has either accepted that there is no God, or if there is how should I know what He's all about? Thus, everyone has their own "truth", and it is the height of insolence to come along and correct another saying, "Sir, you are wrong."

This is very much the spirit of our age.

Now in this post I am not aiming to address the unbeliever, but rather how this spirit of the age or zeitgeist has affected the Christian mind. Ever since my coming to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ I have heard incessant calls for unity, and observed furrowed brows in discussion of church division. That seemed all well and good until as I grew in my knowledge both of the scriptures and what was going on in churches, that I realized that some people claiming to be Christians believed some pretty off the wall stuff.

Some were saying, "Come to Jesus he'll give you that raise. And send me a check as a seed of faith showing that you believe your raise is coming."

Others were saying, "Remember, O most loving Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to your protection, implored your help, or sought your intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, we turn to you, O Virgins of virgins, our Mother. To you we come, before you we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, do not despise our petitions, but in your mercy hear us and answer us. Amen." (link here)

Still others said, "You need to be baptized in order to be saved."

Many females of the more "progressive" type have said, "When it says 'I don't permit a woman to teach' it just applied to that specific church for a few years because the women there were especially rowdy, so women should be in leadership, remember Deborah."

Some other chap would come along and say, "If you just believe, you will be healed from your sickness, because healing is in the atonement."

Yet another fella would say, "When the Bible says 'predestined' it just means God saw what you would choose ahead of time."

Lastly, and this one takes the cake for me, as I heard a wild eyed lewd fellow of the baser sort say in all seriousness, "In heaven all the women will become men, if it wasn't so we'd all be a fighting over who would get the girl and that just wouldn't be heaven, now would it? People fighting all the time like that, no sir, not in heaven, so all women become men."

Well, lets get out the marshmallows and hot dogs for a hearty round of Kumbaya arms locked as we celebrate our unity around the campfire. Surely this is the appropriate action as division and splitting would simply be out of line right?

The answer I hope is obvious, the main problem comes when in our dividing we behave less than Christian. Ugliness is detectable to all men, and when Christians behave in an ugly manner towards one another the watching world has grounds to say, "See! See! Where is the manifestation of what you talk about!"

Christ Himself said this as he stated that "the world will know you are Christians by your love". Note that He didn't say by your seamless agreement and unity in all things, but by our love. Schaeffer stressed this point greatly in his wonderful book "The Mark of the Christian". It is a small book and it is less academic than Schaeffer's other works, so if you have the means it is simply a must read.

One of my favorite Schaeffer quotes comes from this book and reads as follows:

"Before a watching world, an observable love in the midst of difference will show a difference between Christian's differences and other men's differences. The world may not understand what the Christians are disagreeing about, but they will very quickly understand the difference of our differences in an open and observable love on a practical level.

That is different. Can you see why Jesus said this was the thing that would arrest the attention of the world? You cannot expect the world to understand doctrinal differences, especially in our day when the existence of truth and absolutes are considered unthinkable even as concepts." (Francis Schaeffer)

The point stressed is that the world knows of disagreements and divisions, we see them all the time, in marriages, friendships, and of course in our points of view. It is in these areas that the grace of God can shine, as it is not in the areas that we agree upon that will demonstrate love but where we disagree. It is here, when most we are tempted to ugliness that the church can stand before the watching world, not shirking the disagreement or sweeping it under the rug, but boldly having the matter out...all the while not ceasing to love one another.

In part this is why rug sweeping is so detestable, not only is the matter not resolved, but further, an opportunity to be the church before the watching world is missed.

We are called to love all men as ourselves, because all men bear the image of God and thus have value and dignity commanding our respect and love. Thus, in our evangelistic witness as well as in our relationships with Christians with whom we disagree sharply, we are called to "Speak the truth in love." (Eph 4)

Ours is an age skittishly averse to saying, "They are wrong." It smacks of arrogance, because nobody can know the truth, and thus nobody can utter such as pronouncement with authority. This again is the spirit of the age, and more often than not Christians react in like manner to such utterances.

Rather than throwing truth under the bus and leaping into relativism we need a robust display of speaking the truth with love. There will come points where the person with whom we disagree is so far out that they probably are not really a Christian, nonetheless, we are called in our being valiant for truth to love that person and hope for their repentance even though they may be excommunicated from the church.

This is the attitude of Paul in his epistle to Titus as he states that we are to be, "showing all meekness unto all men for ourselves were onetime foolish" (Titus 3). There is no justification for displacing compassion, even for people espousing foolish things, as we ourselves were once foolish. Equally, there is no room for acting as though it were not foolishness, a spade must be called a spade.

I must confess as I wrap up here that I have failed terribly at this, my disposition is to be like a wild ogre clubbing people in the name of the truth yearning for more blood. At other times I have been silent when I know I should say something. I have failed at this in both ways, being zealous for the truth at the expense of the person, and being zealous for relationships at the expense of the truth.

However, the times by the grace of God I have seen the balance struck it has been glorious, in evangelism as well as doctrinal disagreements. The paraphrased quotes I gave vary in their degree of gravity, however, one thing they have in common is that they are issues we absolutely have to divide over. Yet, in our division we are called to love one another, as this is the mark of the Christian, love.

Bill O'reilly: "I don't care about the constitution"

Here the stallwart voice of the neo-conservative movement Bill O'reilly states the sentiment of many who call themselves "conservatives" as he announces that "I don't care about the constitution" to former judge Andrew Napolitano who defends the actual trial of Khalid Sheik Muhammad the supposed "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks...yeah right. The constitution is what is to keep us from mob rule and the rule of a tyrant, its amazing that a "conservative" would say this but it shows yet again there is little to no difference between the "liberals" and "conservatives" neither care about the constitution when their party is in power. Here's the video:

the thing that disappoints me most is that people get their political opinions from hacks like Orielly and Oberman, and just bulimically regurgitate what they say even though it is a tangled mess of contradictions and inane platitudes. I have talked to people on the left and right who really have no principles but spout the one liners of political hacks in the place of reasoned discourse.

Knowing Better Than God (Or, Why I Don't Roll Charismatic Redux)

My family, again due to weather, visited a local church rather than going to our usual home church for the Lord's day. This church was fairly charismatic, but to my relief the pastor stuck to the Bible in his preaching and although the gospel wasn't preached he did a fair job of expounding the text. This is leaps and bounds beyond what I have experienced in churches that are into charismatic expression where often the service disintegrates into utter chaos and subjective expressions because "the spirit is moving".

What I found in the book sale area was a book by Bill Johnson, a pastor whom many of my charismatic friends admire and see as a sort of mentor. It is by no means my goal to slander men, I let them slander themselves with their own words. The book title is "Face to Face with God" and this book seems like your standard technique type book seeking to arm the reader with tools to manipulate God into doing things we want, to put it crassly. I merely had to read the back of the book and the urge welled up within me to throw it across the room (as I did with another tawdry installment by Mr. Johnson), the only thing that restrained me from taking such appropriate action is that it was marked at $10, and I certainly did not desire to pay for this book as a result of the damage that surely would have been incurred.

These technique books are a dime a dozen and it really is a marvel to me that people continue to lap them up like chicken soup on a cold day. The back cover is what betrays the genre as it always has a list of what the book promises to deliver to the reader in the form of new and cutting edge insights. This book by Johnson fits the mold to the T, and one of the techniques contained in the book highlighted on the back cover that enraged me read:

"How to "set up an ambush" to apprehend God rather than just waiting on God"

I simply don't know how anyone who fears God can read that as anything but blasphemous. If you need help seeing the problem let me point it out.

1.) God's word commands us to wait on Him, Johnson says we shouldn't, he seems to think he has a better technique than God. This is a prevalent theme in charismatic fanaticism, our experiences and feelings and impressions are right up there in authority with scripture. (See my previous post on Bentley for another example of Johnson knowing better than God)

2.) God is omniscient, He's not going to be taken off guard by our efforts to "trap or ambush" Him, it is He who has decreed all of history. We come to Him as beggars with outstretched hands.

3.) God is a person, He is not some force that we tap into, the treatment of God like some sort of cosmic force comes up over and over with these types of writings, and no doubt that is in the work on techniques to manipulate God by Mr. Johnson.

I really don't know how bible believing Christians can make these sorts of statements, it shows gross misunderstanding of God's character and nature, and therefore it betrays ignorance of scripture itself or in this case just outright disobedience to or slighting of what scripture says. In short, this sort of stuff just makes me tired.

Andrew Napolitano on the Health Care Boondoggle

Judge Andrew Napolitano (probably the only commentator working with Fox News worthy of a hearing) in commenting on the health care bill, soon to be yet another unconstitutional "law", in a recent article as follows:

"We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties.

Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms. Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat."

I thought the line in bold to be an excellent description of the relationship between government and individual liberty. It could be likened to light and darkness, darkness (government) being by its nature the absence of light (freedom). Government is an exercise in pure consumption and legalized plunder, government does not make things what it has it has by theft from those who are producers.

The only reason why this parasitic relationship continues as an accepted relationship is that we have been trained to believe that government is a sort of god. This idol makes the sun to shine, the grass grow, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, prospers us all, keeps us save from the hordes of infidels by mercilessly bombing third world countries, and in general keeps us safe from ourselves. Like all idols government demands sacrifice, through your giving what is yours through honest labor or even your firstborn through conscription.

It bothered me under the reign of Bush the lesser to hear people constantly defend the indefensible even to this day believing there really were WMD's in Iraq, and the liberal media covered this up. The "Terrorists are gonna get us if we don't do X!" line was tirelessly invoked to assuage the inklings of concern over the freedom destroying policies like the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, warrantless wiretapping, and torture. You know what, it worked, Americans on the right accepted these policies and continue to by and large although they now have reservations as a man with a (D) next to his name now has these insidious tools at his disposal.

It is no less troubling to see Barack H Obama (peace be upon him) picking up the ball right where Bush left off and running with it. This time the card incessantly invoked is one of tolerance and compassion for the disenfranchised. This is how the hate crimes law was passed (attached to a military funding bill gaining bipartisan coverage at the cost of lives in the countries the government ruling us chooses to bomb) as well as the now Health Care "reform" bill. If you have a problem with these government power grabs at the expense of individual liberty you must be insensitive or in the worst case an outright racist/bigot.

It is a shame that people can not see through these sorts of games, it is rather simple, you divide people into artificial groups of race, gender, socio-economic class, and party affiliation, get them all fighting with each other, meanwhile, the plunderers sit up top continuing their pillage and metastasizing into a grotesque size.

With this formula, people will insist that their group is constantly being cheated, create lobby groups to strip their enemy group of money or freedom (often under the guise of "rights" for their group) to right the wrongs done to said group, this is a wish the government is more than happy to acquiesce to as they are in the business of sanctioning theft, and managing the lives of individuals.

What I just said may go right over people's heads caught up in these artificial fights which are created for us to supply us with our outlet of political action. However, the formula Napolitano lays out is simple and clear cut, government by its very nature is the negation of freedom.

Swallowing the Spirit Feathers and All

"He swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all!"

That is what Martin Luther said of the fanatics in his day who claimed they had Divine inward revelations that were on par with the revealed word of God in scripture.

The same sentiment can be said of much of what passes for the "revival movement" in America, it is high on excitement and low on faithfulness to biblical doctrine, even spurning it as a byword. I have avoided these sorts of issues as no fruit seems to come from stating the obvious, however the rise and fall and seeming rise yet again of Todd Bentley is a case in point example of the fiber of this movement.

I take no joy in the fact that Mr. Bentley fell into gross sin as some critics of revivalism seem to have. Bentley is a man made in the image of God and has inestimable worth and dignity based upon this reality. My beef however, is that the folk who occupy this movement seem to think they know better than God, at least as He has revealed Himself in His word.

Todd Bentley had an adulterous affair with a woman, then divorced his wife, and subsequently married said woman. Obviously, this was frowned upon. Scripturally, Bentley is not only disqualified from ministry as Paul states the requirements a church leader is to possess but due to his continuance in sin should really be excommunicated:

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," (1 Tim 3:2)

Bentley lacks most of these traits, I can not judge his hospitableness. The most flagrant compromise is that Bentley continues living in adultery by virtue of his new marriage to the woman with whom he committed adultery. Christ could not be more clear in His view of adultry and remarriage as He states:

"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:31-32)

The latter clause is why I say with Christ that Bentley is still living in adultery.

A fairly recent article in Charisma displays the attitude in much of the charismatic circles toward leaders found in gross sin. The article basically describes Bentley as a victim, and there is not the slightest hint that the continued relationship with the woman and continued ministry of Bentley is in any way improper. The only victims I see in all of this are Bentley's children and former wife, which get barely a mentioning.

In fact it is suggested that there is something wrong with you if you have a problem with this by Rick Joyner. Yes, we should forgive a repentant person, but Bentley is disqualified Biblically from ministry, AND biblically he hasn't repented as he continues his adultery.

Right now Todd Bentley is being "restored", allegedly based on Gal 6:1, to ministry, yet another move in defiance of scripture (as one who has fallen into sin can be restored to fellowship but NOT to leadership as he now fails to meet the requirements of leadership).

These biblical requirements for leadership unfortunately do not daunt the individuals over seeing the "restoration process", Rick Joyner of Morningstar Ministries, and Bill Johnson of the Bethel church in Redding CA. Todd Bentley still "ministers" the article states and I would assume in the eyes of most within the revivalism movement I am the bad guy for having a problem with any of this.

The reason why one who has run headlong into iniquity while in leadership simply is disqualified from ministry is because it gives the enemies of the gospel grounds to mock. We are called to refute the gainsayers, not only with our sound doctrine but our godly lives (Titus 1:9-13).

It is the loose lifestyles of all of these big named speakers/revivalists, the gross avarice and love of worldly riches on display in these lavish churches, and the wretched theology incessantly spewed out of the meetings that have caused me to long since avoid this movement like the swine flu shot.

I am not a full blown cessationist, but, the constant compromise of biblical teaching and biblical morality within these charismatic circles is the strongest case for cessationism in my mind. Articles like the one in Charisma to which I linked cause me to yet again review why I even believe that the gifts are for today.