Category Archives: Discernment

A.D. The Degradation Continues

Posted by Dan C. on

Episode 6 Highlights, in order:

1. Stephen’s mother has a fit as the wrapped body of Stephen is carried through the streets of Jerusalem.

2. Paul shows up at the desert camp of the Christians and preaches against the new movement.

3. Stephen is buried.

4. Caiphas discusses the pain the Jews are experiencing with his father-in-law(?) who wants Caiphas to stop persecuting the Christians.

5. Back to Paul preaching in the Christian camp against the new movement. Peter and Paul face off and argue about prophecy.

6. Paul is invited to sit on the Sanhedrin by Gamaliel(?).

7. Caiphas converses with Herod and gives him a gift, I guess demonstrating the political environment.

8. Paul tells Caiphas wife he has been preaching against the ‘movement’ in the Christian camp.

9. Mary Magdalene sternly counsels Peter in the Camp.

10. Paul asks Caiphas for ‘authority’ to continue preaching against Christianity.

11. Peter and John return to Jerusalem to preach in the city.

12. Paul shows up with ‘authority’ to continue his persecution, Paul and Peter face off again and Christians are arrested by Jewish religious leaders.

13. Pilate and his wife discuss Caiphas and Pilate wonders about the closeness of his wife’s relationship with Caiphas’ wife.

14. Pilate prays to ‘Minerva’ concerning who should be high priest.. Some interesting coin flipping takes place and Caiphas continues as high priest.

15. Paul gets sealed documents authorizing his persecution of the Christians, shows up again in the streets (better dressed), recruits a mob and distributes weapons and armor. They invade Christian homes, beating folks and making arrests. Paul and Peter face off again.

16. Paul and his mob head for the Christian camp. Everyone leaves, but Peter stays. Oil is poured in a trench that encircles the camp, that seems to have been dug for just such an occasion. When Paul & Co are inside the camp Peter sets the oil on fire, glares and shouts at Pauls, and leaves the scene. The end.

In terms of biblically accuracy, this might have been the worst of the lot so far. While it’s true to the biblical account that Paul had papers of authority to persecute Christians, the entire rest of the episode was pretty much ‘filling in the blanks’ left out of the Bible.

Why do I call it ‘The Degradation Continues’? Maybe because this entire series has been an adventure in missing the point of the message of the Gospel. My God and Savior deserves better.

The Trinity, The Assembly, and Sweet Potatoes

Posted by Dan C. on

Posted by Lyndon Unger

It seems like everyone and their dog is hearing “the voice of God” these days.

“Hearing the voice of God” used to be the mark of a prophet of God, but over the last century or so, it’s slowly become the mark of a “mature believer.”   These days, “conservative” folk (like Beth Moore or Francis Chan) regularly suggest that God speaks to them…not in audible voices, but definitely in some sort of propositional statements (ultimately the audible/inaudible distinction is meaningless).   The issue of “hearing the voice of God” is probably the most significant infiltration of bad Charismatic theology into non-Charismatic circles.  It’s a train hauling insanity and heresy that is steaming through Evangelicalism and it seems like there’s no stopping it.

Part of the danger of “God told me” train is that it’s seemingly immune to both Scripture and logic.  As illustration of that, I recently was doing some historical research into the foundation of Assemblies of God.  In 1906-1915, the “God told me” train was chugging like mad all over North America.  It was quite revealing to see how quickly the “God told me” train derailed when everyone and their dog was getting divine revelations.

In 1906, the Asuza street revival happened and Pentecostalism (at the time known as the Apostolic Faith movement) spread the “Baptism of the Ghost as exclusively evidenced by tongues-speaking” idea (among other ideas) throughout North America like wildfire.  For the record, I’m well aware that Asuza was preceded by an outbreak of tongues in 1901 in Topkea, KS.  There were also outbreaks of tongues every 5-10 years all the way back to 1830 (actually, long before 1830), so tongues wasn’t what was new.  The idea that tongues was the exclusive mark of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is what set the Topeka “outpouring” apart, and Asuza is what popularized that new idea.

By 1914, there were hundreds of Baptist, Methodist, Christian & Missionary Alliance, Congregational, etc. churches who had accepted this new “Apostolic Faith” and broken off from their denominations. 300 pastors and missionaries from these various churches/organizations (including several followers of John Alexander Dowie, aka “Elijah the Restorer.”  Here’s the nicest summary of his life I could find.  This one not so nice.) met together at Hot Springs, Arkansas in April, 1914, and banded together to form the Assemblies of God. (I just cannot resist mentioning something else. At that meeting in 1914, the closing address was by Bishop C.H. Mason, founder of the Church of God in Christ; America’s first and largest Pentecostal denomination.  He preached a sermon from Acts chapter 2, verses 16-21 [pg. 8] which was revealed to him by God speaking to him through a sweet potato.  You read that right.

In the summer of 1913, at a camp meeting at Arroyo Seco, CA, a man named John Scheppe had a personal revelation about the power of the name of “Jesus”, which led many folks to study the name more carefully.  A Canadian named R. E. McAlister preached Acts 2:38 and taught that the apostles never baptized in the common Trinitarian formula of the day, but rather baptized in Jesus name only, since “Father”, “Son”, and “Spirit” were all names for Jesus (thus making sense of Matthew 28:19…apparently).  Several people at the camp were convinced.  They promptly rejected the Trinity and were re-baptized into Jesus name only.  Shortly after the meeting at Arroyo Seco, a prominent Los Angeles pastor named Frank Ewert converted to this “Jesus only” teaching.  Along with Ewert, Charles Parham‘s former field superintendent, Howard A. Goss embraced the “Jesus only” teaching as well.  Thousands of others embraced it too; people were simply following the “new revelation” and didn’t want to miss this “new work” of the Spirit.

Then, at the Elton, LA, Bible Conference in Dec. 1915, the “new revelation” of the Arroyo Seco camp meeting was spread by David Lee Floyd, Charles A. Smith and Howard A. Goss.  Many of the leaders of the Assemblies of God were at this conference, and all but one (George Harrison of Hornbeck Assemblies of God) of them publicly denied the Trinity and embraced the “Oneness” teaching delivered at Elton.  Many of the attendees found motivation to accept this “Oneness” teaching since E.N. Bell, editor of the denominational magazine Word & Witness and general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, had already accepted this “Oneness” teaching and had been re-baptized.

After all, it was a new teaching from the Lord.  Who wants to miss that?

The atmosphere of the early Pentecostal movement was one of expectation; expectation of new moves of God, new revelations, etc.  The first generation of Pentecostals thought they were living in the last days and were also experiencing the complete fulfillment of the various prophecies of Joel 2.  So at the Elton Conference, the new teaching was embraced and 56 people were publicly baptized into the name of Jesus only — the public mark of receiving this new teaching (which they wrongly thought was the restoration of the true faith of the apostles).

After a serious struggle regarding this “new issue,” which almost entirely assimilated the Assemblies of God in a year, a few men faced it straight on.

On Oct. 1-7, 1916, in the fourth general council of the Assemblies of God, there was fierce debate about the “new issue”.  Eventually, the Bible won out against the “divinely-revealed” heresy of the “prophets,” and the Assemblies of God adopted a statement of beliefs that was prepared (mostly) by D. W. Kerr, an ex-Christian & Missionary Alliance pastor. The statement was thoroughly Trinitarian, and the momentum to accept the Trinitarian statement was magnified when E.N. Bell and others publicly confessed their error in accepting a “Jesus only” message and renounced their “Jesus only” baptisms.  Apparently, as many folks studied the Scripture (and church history), they realized that this “new teaching” was neither “new” nor in the Bible at all…and it seemed really strange for God to be promoting something so overtly against the teaching of Scripture.

Not all were convinced though.  Of the 585 members in the Assemblies of God in 1916, 156 gave the new “revelation” preeminence above Scripture, left the Assemblies of God, and started a new Oneness Pentecostal denomination.

It is absolutely frightening to see how these early Pentecostal pioneers were essentially defenseless against blazing heresy until they, in a moment of sanity, abandoned (at least in practice) their belief in modern prophetic revelation.  Remember that this was in the days before people believed in fallible revelation  (that’s a development of Charismatic/Pentecostal theology from the late 1970s).  Either God had revealed this “Oneness” teaching or he hadn’t, but almost everyone immediately adopted the teaching because they had little to no defense against it.  Like today, nobody wanted to quench the Spirit or risk missing what he was doing in someone else’s backyard.

The leadership of the Assemblies of God weren’t stupid people either.  Many of them were trained in the Scriptures and many of them had been in ministry for several years (since most of them came out of other church traditions into Pentecostalism). Once God started “speaking,” things went south really fast.  The Assemblies of God was basically a Oneness Pentecostal organization for around a year and a bit.  I praise the Lord that they finally renounced the heresy of that cursed Canadian.

Our look at history doesn’t prove that the idea is unbiblical, but only illustrates the practical dangers and inherent theological instability of thinking that God still delivers propositional revelation. If God “speaks” to both of us, what do you do when God tells me something that openly and directly contradicts what he tells you?  By what standard do we judge between “words from the Lord?”  We can appeal to Scripture, but if we have to twist Scripture to support our position on contemporary prophecy anyway, we’re at a really bad starting point to evaluate anything else objectively.  In other words, if someone suggests that John 10:27 (“my sheep hear my voice”) teaches that Christians should get propositional revelation from God as part of their Christian experience (especially through sweet potatoes), they’ve already abandoned any reasonable interpretation of the text of John 10 and have, in practice, thrown hermeneutics out the window.

If John 10:27 doesn’t mean what it says (and I’m not talking about a simple, surface reading of the text, but rather a careful exegesis of the text), then there’s no real reason to assume that any other text does either.  What’s worse is that if God can authoritatively tell a person that “this verse means [insert bizarre idea],” then any biblical correction of heresy is quite difficult.  A person cannot be bound to Scripture if the meaning of Scripture is no longer tied to the words found in Scripture.  If there’s some sort of “Holy Ghost decoder ring” to the Bible, the Bible can have any meaning. And to say the Bible can mean anything is to say the Bible means nothing.

Of course every Charismatic/Pentecostal is wildly inconsistent at this point, and that’s a good thing.  The reason that many hang on to orthodoxy (in other areas) is in spite of the hermeneutics they use to arrive at their distinctively Charismatic/Pentecostal beliefs.  I rarely encounter Pentecostals and Charismatics applying the “Holy Ghost decoder ring” to ideas like the deity of Christ…though that’s not always true.

I agree with the early leaders of the Assemblies of God who had to deny that God had prophetically revealed the Oneness teaching to R.E. McAlister, and did so because the revelation given to McAlister contradicted the biblical teaching on the Trinity.  I just suspect that if the same hermeneutics and exegesis that supported the biblical teaching on the Trinity would have been applied to the biblical teaching on prophets and prophecy, the “new issue” would never have found support in the first place…and the Assemblies of God would currently have a noticeably different statement of faith.

Online source: The Cripplegate.

Why Do These Pentecostals Keep Growing? – Part 2

Posted by Dan C. on

Last November Christianity Today published an article with the above title, minus the ‘Part 2’. That article can be read here at The Battle Cry. The article, while seeming to applaud what it termed the ‘orthodox’ Pentecostal movement. i.e., Assembly of God churches, at the expense of non-Pentecostal Protestantism. Those whose comments haven’t been exactly in agreement with the praise heaped upon the Charismatic Movement were counseled about abiding by the ‘rules’ of debate, some comments ‘edited’, and at least one ‘blocked’ (that would be me).

The conclusion of the author of the original article, Ed Stetzer, based on a survey of faith groups, was this concerning those faith groups that are declining in numbers:

“Most are mainline, a few are evangelical, but most simply are not as excited about what they believe—and don’t think it needs to be propagated as much—as the Pentecostals.”

Well, having been in the ‘orthodox’ Pentecostal camp for a number of years (Assembly of God), and have observed/participated in the ‘excitement’, I have to agree with Ed Stetzer, up a point. At that time, as a recently ‘returned home’ prodigal, I found the excitement and evangelistic fervor of my Pentecostal brethren both genuine and contagious. I wanted to be part of a body of believers who were as excited about their salvation as I was, and many were. Others, however, were more ‘excited’ about the ‘higher’ life defined by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts, especially ‘speaking in tongues’. If there was ‘something more’ than just salvation that God wanted me to have, I wanted it! And who was I to argue with any of the ‘spiritual’ leaders who were telling me there was indeed /something more’?

It’s more than a few years since we moved away from Pentecostalism and I don’t intend to get into all of the reasons why we left that church environment. The reasons are many and I think very sound. What I would offer is what I consider as the very bottom line concerning the above question. Here is my answer to the question “Why do these Pentecostals Keep Growing?”, and in my mind, it’s rather simple.

The Pentecostal/Charismatic community/churches are growing and will continue to grow because they are at their core based on OUR EXPERIENCE and thus man-centered and focused on what WE can/should have as believers in a quest for the ‘higher’ life. Not only have I ‘been there, done that’, a quick Google search on “History of Pentecostalism’ will return documents from Pentecostals themselves attesting to the centrality of ‘experience(s)’.

Mr. Stetzer didn’t want to discuss the validity of Pentacostalism in his article, which I found rather disconcerting. To just assume all of the excitement and experiences are genuine moves of God and accept his conclusions would have been for me, rather pointless.

I wish I hadn’t been banned from commenting on the original article, because this just popped up over there, and was directed to me:

“Hi Daniel – I am convinced, especially in such an opinionated world, that direct experience with God through the Spirit causes church growth. We have way too many doctrines for our own good. I am glad you are excited about your salvation. However, skipping out on hell is just the beginning. Once we are sons and daughters we have no need to lay foundations of salvation in our lives any longer. Church growth seems to need excited senior saints to infect a younger generation with the glory of a Spirit-filled life.”

If that isn’t a declaration of personal experience trumping doctrine, I don’t know what does. And when subjective experience trumps objective truth…”Houston, we have a problem!”

‘Nuff said……….

Just Relax, A Little Liquid Drano Won’t Hurt Anyone – Pastor Matt Richard

Posted by Dan C. on

 

I can recall hearing, as a first year seminarian, one of my professors criticize Pastor Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life.  Upon hearing this critical assessment, I was deeply angered.  I thought that his actions were severely inappropriate and that it was not proper to disparage another fellow Christian who was simply attempting to promote the Christian faith.  From my reasoning, the presence of a Christian voice was better than the absence of a Christian voice and it was certainly better than a voice speaking contrary to Christian truths.  Even though my professor took the time to show me the countless errors in Warren’s book, I still concluded that a faulty Christian voice was better than no Christian voice at all.  Besides, I felt that is was rude, insincere, and un-ecumenical to criticize those within the Christian sphere; we are all on the same team after all trying to do our best for God.

 The problem with my rationalization was that I believed that a Christian voice with small and subtle doctrinal errors was more advantageous and less of a concern than a voice that was obviously unchristian or a message that lacked a Christian message altogether.  To me, subtle and small errors were less of a concern than obvious and blatant errors.  I said to myself, “Why sweat the small stuff; why fuss over small errors that might upset the unity of a Christian community?  Why quibble over every pixel of God’s excellent picture?”

 It was not until several years later that my faulty view was finally exposed and reversed.  I can remember it so vividly.  I had graduated from seminary and had taken several church youth to a conference.  At the conference, the speaker gave a lesson while he baked a batch of chocolate chip cookies.  In his presentation he had several youth add flour, vanilla, chocolate, and eggs into a mixing bowl. Right before they were going to mix the ingredients together, the speaker subtly announced that he was going to add a teaspoon of drain cleaning Liquid Drano to the ingredients in the bowl.  He said it quietly, did it quickly, and kept talking.  Surprisingly, several of the youth sitting in the pews really did not even catch it.  At the end of his session, he wrapped up his teaching from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and invited all the youth to partake of freshly baked cookies.  Some revolted!  Others were enticed!  The point had been made.  The point being, what is worse than Liquid Drano in a batch of cookies?  Answer, a ‘little’ Liquid Drano in a batch of cookies.  Otherwise stated, it is the trivial comma placed after Jesus that should concern us; it is the small footnote attached to the doctrine of justification that should alarm us.  Yes, there is tremendous subtle corrupting power in small errors. 

 Martin Luther captures this theme in his book, Bondage of the Will.  To summarize his thoughts on this subject, let me phrase his assessment in the form of a question and answer.[1] 

                 Question:  What is worse than Pelagianism?

                Answer:  Semi-Pelagianism.

 In other words, what is worse than a heretic?  Answer, a subtle or crafty heretic.  Indeed this is true.  The reason why?  A Pelagian, one holding to the heresy of Pelagius, generally tends to confess and assert their beliefs candidly.  They call a spade a spade.  They teach openly what they believe.  However, a Semi-Pelagian is a bit trickier.  A Semi-Pelagian is indeed heretical; however, the emphasis of Pelagian theology is less candid, which results in people being more easily conned.  Otherwise stated, Semi-Pelagianism is toned down Pelagianism, which results in the same theological ethos being purported, but it tends to be more palatable because of the de-emphasis of the outright heresy.   

 Is this not the same tactic of the evil one that we see in the scriptures?  Keep in mind that the scriptures say that the devil disguises himself as an angel of light (See: 2 Corinthians 11:14). Furthermore, in Luke chapter 4 and Genesis chapter 3 we clearly see that the devil’s scheme is not to entirely eliminate scripture (i.e., God’s Word), but to twist it ever so slightly.  Did God really say? 

 What we learn from Luther and the scriptures is that it isn’t the blatant lies that are of extreme danger, though they are dangerous, rather, it is the subtle lies that should be of great concern.

 Looking back to my old professor from seminary, I now realize that this professor was not being divisive, insincere, or inappropriate.  Rather, he was demonstrating love and pastoral care by attempting to protect me from elements of false truth.  While I was ignorant to these errors, he was not.  While I was metaphorically eating cookies with Liquid Drano, he was fighting to keep me from ingesting poison.  You see, my old professor knew that these false truths would act like yeast and would spread through the whole batch of dough.  He knew the danger of a small teaspoon of heresy; that a small error can corrupt and erode a Christian’s theological framework. 

 I now regret how I branded this professor as an unloving, divisive, anti-chocolate chip cookie grouch.  This could not be further from the truth.  Metaphorically speaking, my professor did enjoy chocolate chip cookies, but he hated Liquid Drano and he hated the adverse effects of the poison upon the church.  Frankly, he loved me enough to disrupt my enjoyment of Liquid Drano cookies and he was courageous enough to criticize those who baked these corrupted cookies for me, even though these actions would earn him the stigma as being unloving, nitpicky, and an anti-cookie grouch. 

 Honestly, I believe that what we need most in the church today is more anti-chocolate chip cookie grouches, for there are indeed a lot of individuals cooking up and distributing Liquid Drano cookies in our post-modern pluralistic context.  Furthermore, I believe that it is truly dangerous and foolish when we rationalize in our minds that a little poison won’t hurt anyone and when we attempt to preserve tranquility within a community by applying ad hominem stigmas to those who are attempting to expose stealthy poison.   

Rather than naïvely consuming the plethora of ideologies in our world, may we hold steadfast to sound doctrine as Paul instructs Timothy and Titus in the Pastoral Epistles (See 2 Timothy 1:13 and Titus 2:1).  May we also recognize that it is truly good, right, and salutary when false doctrines are refuted, exposed, and laid bare (See Titus 1:9).  Indeed, it is good when poison is exposed; it is good when yeast is prevented from fermenting the whole dough; it is good when the twisted-ness of the evil one is uncovered; it is good when God’s people are not tossed to and fro, blown about by every wind of doctrine; it is good when the church recognizes the trickery and deceitful scheming of man; and it is good for Baptized Saints to know what they believe and why, so that they are not a reed shaken by the wind. 

_______________________

[1] Martin Luther.  Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia, PA; The Westminster Press, 1969),  311.

 

 

The ‘Imago Dei Campaign’–A Noble Undertaking, or Spiritual Compromise?

Posted by Dan C. on

There’s a new campaign afoot, called ‘Imago Dei’. The Web page says the campaign is:

“Committed to shining the light of Christ by Reconciling Billy Graham’s message of salvation through Christ with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s march for justice.”

To join the movement all you have to do is affirm the following:

“I recognize that every human being, in and out of the womb, carries the image of God; without exception. Therefore, I will treat everyone with love and respect.”

The site also offers further explains and encourages:

Who We Are

Imago Dei is a global movement committed to shining the light of Christ. A type social media/ digital platform component with the metric of committing millions to the cause.

Join Us

By signing up for the Imago Dei Campaign, you are committed to changing the world by recognizing that we are all made in the image of God, without exception.

Question: Do we who call ourselves Christians need a ‘campaign’ to treat others with love and respect when the Bible already provides the very same guidance, and more concerning how we are to treat others?

Answer: Only if we are lacking in Biblical literacy – and I mean LACKING, or if the power of God working in the hearts of his children is insufficient to the task. (See Phil 2:13).

Question: How can anything that sounds so noble be bad?

Answer: There are at least two possibilities to consider.

1. If it fosters a false form of ecumenism. This movement does just that, as have other interesting developments in recent months and years.

One must consider the fact that this ‘movement’ has as its leaders both Protestants and Catholics. The protestant leaders. The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, along with James and Betty Robison affirm Roman Catholicism (salvation = faith plus works) as genuine Christianity. It must be added that although there was a group of liberal Lutheran and Catholic leaders who seem to have come to a meeting of the minds, complete with a declaration that appears to equate salvation by faith alone, The Council of Trent, with its pronouncements of ‘anathema’ against those who maintain salvation by grace alone, has NEVER been abrogated.

The Catholic leadership consists of Roma Downey and her husband Mark Burnett, producers of the doctrinally “The Bible’ miniseries and ‘Son of God’ big screen production. Both of those never presented the true gospel that is about the issue of sin, repentance, and belief, but rather asserted that Jesus came to ‘change the world’ World change is a product of Christ’s death for the sins of men, not the main reason he came. I won’t get into all of the connections Roma Downey has with New Age spirituality, Contemplative mysticism, and Eastern religions’ panentheism.

2. If it can be used by other ‘movements’, steeped in practices the Bible calls sinful, to demand that their ‘sin’ be accepted or ‘affirmed by Christians. That is exactly what the LGBT community has been after for years, and this gives them another opportunity/tool to use for making their demands. It goes like this: “I’m made in the image of God just like you and I’m ‘gay’, and if you say anything against my sexuality, you are not treating me with love and respect. People have already been prosecuted for ‘hate’ crimes for agreeing with the Bible on certain issues. Isn’t this just a ‘logical’ outcome? Is this ‘campaign’ just a convenient way for professing Christians to be silent concerning ‘sin’ without feeling guilty for being spiritual cowards?

The “Son of God” Movie – Faithful Adaptation?

Posted by Dan C. on

A recent Newsweek magazine special edition  titled ‘Jesus’ there was an article at the back called:

FAITHFUL ADAPTATION : Two of the church’s most influential voices explain why Son of God is a meaningful benchmark for Christianity’s future..

Here is the article. I have underlined the interviewer questions/statements for clarity :

FAITHFUL ADAPTATION

Two of the church’s most influential voices explain why Son of God is a meaningful benchmark for Christianity’s future.

REV. JOEL OSTEEN

 

Pastor of Lakewood Church, the largest church in America, and the author of several books, including the recent Break Out!

 

What was it like for you to work with Mark Burnett and Roma Downey on Son of God?

 

I was technically a consultant, but I didn’t do much. That’s not my expertise. I felt they could get theologians or experts, so for me it was more about being a friend. . I was just there to support them as part of the Christian community. When I heard what they were doing . . . I was there to be supportive in any way I could.

What kinds of conversations did the three of you have about the way the story was going to be presented? Did you ever debate Scripture versus a good script?

 

I was on board the whole way. I never saw anything that was off base. . . . At one point in Son of God, Jesus walks out to Peter’s little fishing boat, and Jesus says, “We’re going to change the world.” I loved that. Some people might say, “But that’s not in the Bible,” but I said, “Look, guys, you’re making the Bible contemporary.”

Does that attitude also inform the way you minister to your community at Lakewood?

 

I get criticized for it, but people already know what they’re doing wrong. When I look at the congregation, I don’t have the heart to tell these people they’re crewing up. They already came in here and spent their time and energy. I want to tell them God is there for them, that they can overcome addictions, that they can make good decisions. I want to empower them. I don’t think Jesus came to condemn. He lifted people up. People are tired of being told what to do and tired of being talked down to. Of course, there are two sides of it.

 

Because other ministers feel they have a different calling?

 

Exactly. I can see the other side. Some people need to have somebody in their face saying, “You have to straighten up.” But that’s not my job. My role is to celebrate anyone who is doing something good. They don’t have to be like me. I don’t have to agree with them I00 percent. None of us agree 100 percent on everything. We’re in this together. We’re going to see the good in each other, and I think that’s one of the beauties of what Mark and Roma are doing. It’s a tool for us to celebrate who we are.

Lakewood is one of the largest churches in the country. Is it helpful for you to have a film like Son of God, which gives your congregation a common vocabulary or experience?

 

It is harder to have community in a church like ours. The church is very diverse, not only racially but economically. You could have a CEO sitting by somebody who took the bus. But the pros outweigh the cons for me. There are services that have 15,000 people, and it’s very empowering. It’s like a concert. It’s about bringing people together. So we see a movie like Son Of God as a tool; we see it as a way to get together. It’s easy to say, “Let’s go sec a movie.” People think, “I don’t want to go to church, but you know what, I’ll go see a movie.” And that can create a spark on the inside that says, ‘Tm not religious, but maybe I need a relationship with God,” and that’s who we’re trying to reach- not just the church people. Plus, the film is so well done .What I love about Mark and Roma is that they know how to do it right, with that added production value. Son of God is on par with anything you would go to see in the movies.

 

Do you feel Son of God is finally giving the Greatest Story Ever Told the treatment it deserves?

 

It really is. I say this all the time, but Mark and Roma could be doing anything. They have the opportunities, they have the fame, they have the money. These guys have chosen to use their gift, their power and their celebrity to do something great for faith and to bring the Bible to life. That’s why it’s easy to get behind it.

REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ

 

Leader of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Council l and author of Path of Miracles

 

Tell me briefly how you got involved with The Bible series and. ultimately, the Son of God film.

 

Roma Downey, Mark Burnett and their team engaged Christian leaders for the sake of The Bible series. The primary purpose was to advise and consent: We said, “Let’s look at the series, some of the segments, the trailer, the script. Is there anything that will cause great angst or consternation within the Bible-believing community?” So I was engaged at the initial stages, and it became a wonderful journey. The Christian worldview via the conduit of popular culture appears marginalized and ridiculed. But now there’s this redemptive opportunity to offer the Bible to a new generation n. It became a visual presentation of the wonderful life-changing narrative that’s stems out of God’s word.

How much course correcting did you do as an adviser?

 

None. Mark and Roma did their due diligence beforehand. For me, as long as the core message and core themes were, without compromise, about love and grace and redemption and taking care of those in need :and changing the world for good, I was covered .And they not only adhered to that, they actually elevated that message through the Bible series and now the Son of God movie.

What does Son of God do differently than The Bible?

 

By focusing on the Jesus narrative exclusively, Son of God takes The Bible and raises and amplifies it on a very powerful scale. There’s a difference between seeing the story through your television and seeing this radical journey of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ on the big screen. And because it’s being released in theaters, it offers an opportunity for fellowship and fraternity ty. It’s a convocation. It invites us to have a conversation about faith, religion and God.

Why do you feel that’s paramount at this point in our history?

 

We have so much confrontation and so many debates taking place in America on a plethora of issues every single day. I ‘m only 44 years of age, but I’ve never seen my nation as divided as I see it now. Son of God says, “Let’s come together and let’s have a conversation. Let’s experience something different, something that’s conciliatory, something that’s redemptive.” And that’s why it’s more than a film to me. It really is a call for gathering.

How significant is it that the film is being released nationally in English and Spanish on the same day?

 

I can’t find the words to describe the significance. It speaks to the hearts of Mark and Roma. The Hispanic-American community is not just a segment or a demographic. It’s the fastest-growing segment of the Christian community. By mid-century, the majority of Christians in America, in both the Catholic and in the Evangelical – Protestant world, will be of Hispanic-American descent, according to Pew research. Mark and Roma picked up on that, they acted proactively, and they’re releasing it in Spanish on the very same day. I commend and applaud them for that.

© 2014 Newsweek LLC

I could probably add a lot of personal comment, but I will only ask a question:

If “Son of God is a meaningful benchmark for Christianity’s future.”, and it just might be, what does that  really mean?

What to make of the Francis Chan at IHOP

Posted by Dan C. on

Last week I read about Francis Chan speaking at the 2013 Onething Conference at IHOP in Kansas City. Knowing the background and heretical roots of IHOP I had the same questions as others – Why did Francis seem to give legitimacy to a movement with roots steeped in heretical doctrine? To be fair, I listened to Francis Chan’s entire presentation. What I learned from listening to the whole enchilada is that the comments made at the beginning needed to be taken in the context of Chan’s entire message. Some of what he said, and some of the scripture concerning false/lying prophets would seem to indict IHOP rather than lend credibility to it, although what Chan had to say specifically about IHOP was that there were great things going on there.

Francis Chan’s real goal in appearing there might not be known for some time, if ever. The contrast between his lead-in comments and the content of some of what he preached prevents me from a judgment call, which would be unwise.

My own personal feelings about IHOP and Mike Bickle come from hearing things that caused me to study IHOP and even listen to hours of Mike Bickle’s teaching. He’s still peddling the same old stuff and playing the role of a Pied Piper – stealing emotion/feelings driven children  (along with adults who, if they read their Bibles should know better), sucking them into a false ‘dominionism’ theology in which ‘Forerunners’ are needed to prepare the world for the 2nd coming of Christ, who will usher in the ‘pure’ church that must be in place for Christ to return.

The parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13 presents a different picture of the ‘end time’ church in which the church on earth will not be purified until Christ returns in judgment to purify it himself.

Of course there are other resources one can use to investigate IHOP that discuss other rotten roots of the movement, some of which are linked to at the ‘Stand Up For The Truth’ link below.

What to make of the Francis Chan/IHOP union | Stand Up for the Truth.

“Lot, thinking to get paradise, found Hell.”

Posted by Dan C. on

I mentioned in an earlier blog post that this year I intended to read through the Bible using the 1599 edition of The Geneva Bible, along with all of the comments/footnotes found therein. The title of this post is actually the comment given for one of the passages in the following account from Genesis, Chapter 13.

Abram and Lot Separate

10 And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other. 12 Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the valley and moved his tent as far as Sodom. 13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord.

Genesis 13:10-13 (ESV)

We don’t know if Lot knew the extent of the wickedness in Sodom, but we do know that he saw what was pleasing to the flesh and made his choice. I’ve read a lot of commentary concerning Lot’s choice, but never before read anything as harsh as: “Lot, thinking to get paradise, found Hell.”

I don’t know if it means anything, but the first thought that crossed my mind upon reading the comment was:

“And thousands upon thousands, looking for their ‘best lives now’, found Hell.”

You can substitute any number of specific things for ‘your best life now’; health, wealth & prosperity, a better job or career, nicer house or car, whatever. . . it all comes down to ‘lifting our eyes, seeing the lush Jordan valley’, and going after what seems to be paradise on earth. . .and meeting Hell.

Think about it.

Why is the charismatic movement to appealing to so many?

Posted by Dan C. on

I found an interesting quote below in an article with a political bent at the American Thinker website. The article discussed the success of the Democrats to capitalize on human emotions and a few significant examples of Republicans missing good chances to do the same.

“People vote with hearts not heads. Statistics might make sense; yet, if your pitch has no emotional appeal, it’s a dead letter. Budweiser doesn’t sell adult beverages, beer companies sell tradition, babes, and parties. If your message doesn’t touch an emotional “g” spot, the product will not sell.” – G. Murphy Donovan

At the same time, I’ve finally finished listening to the audio from the Strange fire Conference (online here) at Grace Community Church, and have spent considerable time pondering a period of about five years I spent in a charismatic church and two reasons why I changed my own opinions about some things.

While I don’t really initiate conversations concerning those years, when I am asked about what changed my mind and opinion concerning various charismatic teachings, my first reply has to do with reading the Bible for myself, especially the scripture passages used to support charismatic ‘doctrine’.

Well, this blog post isn’t about why just reading the Bible ought to cause a pro-charismatic person to question some things, although serious Bible study certainly should generate some re-thinking. From what I’ve experienced, using that reasoning just doesn’t work with many die-hard charismatics. I actually tried to use that argument on one Web site and was answered with the old “if I had a nickel for every time someone has said that, I’d be a rich man” mantra. That response to ‘read the Bible’ points to a deeper issue going on here, and I think the ‘political’ quote expresses that issue quite accurately, if not exactly eloquently – “If your message doesn’t touch an emotional “g” spot, the product will not sell.”

In other words, get hold of a person’s emotions and the product DOES sell! I fear that much, if not the majority of ‘rebuttals’ to the Strange Fire Conference point to the Charismatic Movement’s validity based on having connected to human emotions, either through ‘personal’ pleasurable experiences, or appealing to excitement (another emotion) over thousands/millions having come to Christ, wonderful music having been produced by charismatics, some of them having been martyred, and other such appeals.

As I write this, I am listening to a response to John MacArthur by a Dr. Michael Brown in a 2-hour podcast that 1:17 into it has not addressed a single passage of scripture exegeted at the Strange Fire Conference, but has demonstrated everything in the previous paragraph. I am hearing callers, one after another, swearing to the reality of speaking in tongues just because it happened to them accompanied by a ‘feeling’ that confirmed the experience.

I think the personal experiences/emotions arguments are the easiest to refute from a careful study of familiar ‘charismatic’ passages taken out of their natural context(s). The “look at how many have been brought to Christ” argument is a bit more difficult to refute. After all, how CAN you argue against a movement that has brought so many to Christ? Having been in the movement for more than five years, I can begin by asking a single 2-word question: “Which Christ?”

While I am not indicting all charismatics, nor am I denying that many in charismatic circles have been brought to genuine faith in Christ, I ask that question with all seriousness. “Which Christ?” I remember my experience in a ‘conservative’ Pentecostal church (Assembly of God) having been highly focused on experiences, feelings, and the ‘gifts’. I remember reading tracts about how one can live in a state of ‘divine’ health, the alleged ‘words from God’ spoken in tongues, sometimes ‘interpreted’, and the ‘all we need is love’ type of gospel (emotions again).While there was great appeal to human experience/emotion, I don’t remember hearing any powerful sermons that addressed in a significant way the serious nature and problem of human sinfulness in an address from the pulpit.

If the ‘non-extreme’ segments of the Charismatic Movement appeal to experience and emotions above all else, the ‘extremes’ do so exponentially! Not only do they claim all sorts of things like regular conversations with God, Jesus and angels, they do some really weird things. I won.t go into any of the details here; you can listen to the Strange Fire audio for yourself. They claim to be ‘anointed’ apostles and prophets and even tell us we can have the same ‘anointing’. They make much of the ‘glory’ and ecstatic worship in the ‘glory cloud’ while when the manifested glory of God in the Bible put people on their faces, flat on the ground in shame for their sinfulness in it’s light. It’s all about experience and emotions.

Sadly, the calmer, saner charismatic leaders seem very reticent to speak against the Benny Hinns, Rick Joyners, Todd Bentleys, Mike Bickles and Cindy Jacobs (and the list goes on and on) types out there who claim to receive so much direct revelation from Jesus, angels and glory clouds, that one has to wonder if any person in the Trinity has any time for the rest of us regular folk! While they will confess to ‘extremes’ in the movement, they hesitate to expose the heretics in their midst.

The emotional appeal in the Charismatic movement is HUGE, and it works. However, being sinners saved by grace, and although we have a ‘new’ nature, the vestiges of the ‘old’ nature are strong enough and still as sinful as they ever were. The words spoken by the prophet Jeremiah are still true:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)

Having said all that (I hope it was understandable), let me say in all honesty that I once was sold on the charismatic movement and as anti-MacArthur as many are today. It does however escape me, at this point in my spiritual walk, how any thinking, rational, biblically literate Christian can swallow some of the ‘charismatic’ junk that’s not only on the street, but is also all over the airwaves. Unless of course it IS true that “People vote with hearts not heads” and subjective experiences and emotions tend to draw us away from the objective truth of scripture.

Food for serious thought. . .

May God bless you as you try and ‘process’ the Strange Fire Conference and the Charismatic movement for yourselves.

The Berean Principle and/or The Voices in our Heads

Posted by Dan C. on

“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” – Acts 17:11(ESV)

In the above passage, a group of believing Jews in the town of Berea were commended for their practice of listening to the preaching of the Apostle Paul and them examining what he said under the light of the Scriptures they had available to them, to see if what Paul had spoken was true. In other words, for these Berean Jews the written scriptures were the final arbiter of what was true and what was not, when it came to listening to preaching.

What I don’t see anywhere in the New Testament is any instance of, or license to listen to little voices in our heads. We do however, hear some evangelical leaders tell us we can, and even need to recognize God’s still small voice when he speaks to us, because he still communicates to his people with whisperings and through the natural senses in ways unique to them individually.

This phenomena doesn’t come to us just from some of the ‘interesting’ folks on TBN and God TV, it also comes from some notable and popular evangelicals. It is not my intent here to get into ‘names’, but only to ask, "Why?"

I’m not asking however, why the ‘pseudo-prophets’, self proclaimed ‘Apostles’, and even the prominent evangelicals personally justify the practice of listening to little voices in our heads, I know their reasons, including the alleged scriptural support from passages of scripture taken out of the context of the Bible. What I am asking is "Why listen to and trust little voices in our heads, period.

OK, this is where I need to shift into the 1st personal singular so nobody ‘feels’ judged (I’m learning). Here goes.

How can I ever be absolutely, positively, 100% certain that that ‘still small voice’ IS God, even after I’ve followed all of the ‘training manuals’ from the Christian bookstores and/or CD’s and DVD’s I can buy from TBN and God TV? I don’t know about you, but I know I just can’t, and here’s why.

Although I am a blood bought, adopted into the family, child of God, there still remains in me a heart that can be very deceitful, sinful desires and passions, as well as ‘itching ears’. There’s scripture that tells me all of that, but I won’t quote them here, because someone might think I think I know it all or ‘feel’ judged. (1st personal singular – remember?)

So. . .because I can’t ever be absolutely, positively, 100% certain that that ‘still small voice’ IS God, I would still need to apply the Berean Principle and check it out in the Scriptures. And if I still need to do that, why not just forget about little voices in my head and take everything straight to the source?

But that’s just me and somewhat of a DUHHHHHHH moment indeed. If you have somehow reached a state of heart and mind that is somehow completely pure and immune to deception (you have perfect voice recognition software installed in your brain housing group, good on ya!

______________

Food for thought early on a Thursday morning (in Colorado that is). Have a great day and please don’t feel judged.