AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Mercy Ministries in trouble

From the department of church and state not separate:

They call themselves the Mercy Girls. And after years of searching they have found each other.

Bound by separate, damaging experiences at the hands of an American-style ministry operating in Sydney and the Sunshine Coast, these young women have clawed their way back to begin a semblance of a life again.

Desperate for help, they had turned to Mercy Ministries suffering mental illness, drug addiction and eating disorders.

Instead of the promised psychiatric treatment and support, they were placed in the care of Bible studies students, most of them under 30 and some with psychological problems of their own. Counselling consisted of prayer readings, treatment entailed exorcisms and speaking in tongues, and the house was locked down most of the time, isolating residents from the outside world and sealing them in a humidicrib of pentecostal religion.

This is a very damaging news report. I have heard a lot about Mercy Ministries - they are an arm of the Hillsong church in Sydney's North West.

The fact that a report has come about detailing alleged abuse is not surprising to me. Within the church today - especially amongst Australian Pentecostal or Charismatic churches - there has developed a "semi-cult" mentality that is not truly part of biblical Christianity. This mentality has resulted in many damaged lives.

This is not to say that Hillsong, Mercy Ministries or Australian Pentecostal churches are some gigantic cult trying to harm people. Such an idea is rubbish. What I am saying is that there are tendencies in these groups to have controlling behaviour.

I have no doubt that there are many women who have been helped by Mercy Ministries... and I also have no doubt that there are many women who have been harmed by it. This is not as strange as it seems. Throughout recent history - pretty much since the early 1970s - new religious movements within Christianity that evolved out of societal change have tended to develop very authoritative structures. This has been felt in, for example, Youth With a Mission and Jesus People USA, over many years. Moreover, churches like The Potter's House have also developed similar controlling behaviours. All of these groups have well documented cases of abuse and control - but also people who have benefited greatly from their work.

What is different about this issue is that, from what I understand, Mercy Ministries is both a charitable organisation that advertises in the Gloria Jean's coffee shop chain (which is owned by Nabi Saleh, a member of the Hillsong Church), and receives some form of federal government funding for the welfare work they do.

That tales of abuse should be present in Christian organisations is one thing - that such tales of abuse should come from a charitable and government-funded organisation is another. If these allegations prove true, it will bring the matter of the separation of church and state here in Australia to a head. After all, if an organisation receives money from the "world", shouldn't they have to run by the "world's" rules? Moreover, are people giving charitably to an organisation whose religious beliefs do match those of the giver? It would be like me - an evangelical Christian - giving charitably to an Islamic welfare group whose first priority would be to convert its clients into Muslims.

These reports are disturbing. They have not been created out of thin air by Christian-hating reporters in the media. There is obviously some truth in them, and there needs to be a further investigation.

Apocalypse when?

From the department of predictable social reactions:

Louisiana pastor Larry Stockstill had a disturbing dream last week. He saw military trucks and armored vehicles getting in formation for a surprise strike on an American city. Stockstill felt alarmed, but when he tried to warn a pastor in his dream, the man ignored him.

“I knew in my dream that a siege was going to happen the next day,” Stockstill says. “The enemy was being positioned. But no one would listen to me.”

Stockstill, pastor of the 10,000-member Bethany World Prayer Center in Baton Rouge, believes his dream was a prophetic warning about the spiritual condition of our nation. While America teeters near an economic and political precipice, many American church leaders are going on with their business as usual—without realizing that the church is in a state of serious moral crisis.

“I believe we are facing a window of opportunity for repentance,” Stockstill says. “Unless the pastors wake up to avert judgment, there will be judgment on America. If we don’t respond we are going to lose this nation.” Permanent link here.

A few bad employment reports and someone thinks the world's about to end. Is that it?

This article was written by Lee Grady, my favourite Charismatic Christian commentator. The guy is an interesting "prophetic" voice within the American Charismatic church because he seems to focus mainly on forthtelling God's anger towards the current American church, which is beset with bad theology and sexual and financial sin. He's done a good job of doing this.

Sometimes, though, Grady goes overboard, which serves as a reminder of the fact that, well, he IS Charismatic after all.

Let me first respond to this article from a theological perspective. Like Stockstill, I too believe that the American church is in for a big fall, but I don't claim direct divine guidance for this opinion. There are a number of problems that I see for the American church which will, eventually, result in some level of decline over the next two decades. In short, I would summarise them as follows:

• Adherence to worldly philosophies associated with modern conservative politics.
  
• A militant, abrasive and separatist attitude towards unbelievers.
• A failure to focus upon the Gospel of Christ in public worship.
• The propagation of unbiblical teachings like the "prosperity gospel".
• A failure to act consistently and in accordance with the bible's teaching on godliness - a failure which is seen at both the private and the public level (the latter especially with a litany moral failings amongst leaders dating back decades).
• An inability to discern truth from fiction, leading to numerous urban myths being propagated about modern culture, such as the Harry Potter Satanism link.
  
• An inability to read and understand the bible properly, which leads to the development of ungodly teachings, adherence to worldly philosophies and everything else mentioned above.
• An almost wholesale support of the Iraq War, not just when public support for it was high, but also now when public support has turned against the war. The embarrassing and fawning tone of The Land Letter is an example of this.
• The tacit assumption that true Christians will only vote Republican, and that the only issues worth battling about are Abortion, Homosexuality and Evolution.
  
• The rapid secularisation of American society and the rise of popular atheism.
  

If you put all these together, we see a church that is in trouble, and a church that is in for a fall.

Of course, as an Australian Christian, I would say that many Churches in my own country here suffer from the same problems. However, Christianity in Australia is relatively small and does not have as much influence in modern society or politics as our American brothers and sisters.

Unlike Stockstill, however, I am loathe to link the current malaise in the church with the current economic situation. I suppose some links could be made, namely that the church has supported Republicans who have, in turn, created policies that have led to the current economic problems - but that is about as far as I can stretch it.

From a sociological perspective, though, Stockstill's concerns are quite predictable and normal. Think back to the last time America was in an economic malaise - the mid to late 1970s - and ask how many people appeared as "prophets" who worked to call the church back to its fundamental principles. One "prophet", of course, was Keith Green, whose music and lyrics at the time reflected a restlessness with the state of the church. I'm certain that other Christian leaders - especially those linked in with The Jesus Movement - had similar concerns at the time.

Economic and social conditions in the US are currently declining. Unemployment is on the up, as is inflation and mortgage foreclosures. There is a general trend of unhappiness spreading across America that is leading people like Stockstill to call the church back to action, and people like those on the Calculated Risk comments thread to seriously consider purchasing firearms... "just in case".

Yet while I have been predicting big economic problems for America for quite a while, I have never become apocalyptic in tone. America will eventually recover from this unofficial recession but it will take time. It is not the end of the world, it is just the end of an era.

Matthew J. Murray and YWAM

Matthew J. Murray, the shooter in the recent spree killings in Colorado, had some interesting history.

His parents were deeply religious; they homeschooled him; and he attempted to join a 12 week YWAM course.

I've seen YWAM at work. I was once moved to tears by a gospel presentation they did in a local high school many years ago. I was also led into spiritual confusion in my early Christian days by a YWAMer who got us to do some form of "Prayer visualisation" which was pretty much a Christianised version of guided meditation.

Sadly, YWAM has a reputation as a hotbed of bad theology and emotional abuse. Click here to read more about them. I wouldn't be surprised if Murray's actions had some basis in his experience with YWAM.

I'm not blaming YWAM for this of course - personal responsibility and all that - but when you abuse people for as long as YWAM does, it's only a matter of time before something or someone cracks.

And as for home-schooling, this is this second time I have read of a home-schooled "evangelical" taking up arms and committing murder, David Ludwig being the first.

Homeschooling only works if the parents are godly and knowledgeable. Both Ludwig and Murray didn't suddenly turn into killers, their actions were likely the result of emotional abuse that they had been put through. Homeschooling parents - especially evangelicals - should have some level of accountability.

Personal responsibility? Certainly. But also community responsibility as well.

The rise of a true Charismatic Prophet

J. Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma magazine, is one of the best things to happen to the Charismatic/Pentecostal church for decades. This is a fearless man who calls upon Christians to live Godly lives and who is not afraid of revealing the truth behind various scandals. This man is using his weekly blog - which is then published in Charisma Magazine itself (which is, as I understand, the most popular Charismatic magazine in America) - and he uses it to call God's people to holy living and to move away from hypocrisy.

Here is Grady's latest posting, which I provide for you in full:

When I started my job at Charisma in 1992, one of my first assignments was to sort through dozens of files of disturbing allegations made against one of the largest charismatic churches in the country. A group of women had contacted our magazine with shocking claims that Bishop Earl Paulk Jr. and other staff pastors at the 15,000-member Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Atlanta had sexually abused them. These frustrated women came to the Christian media because no pastors in our movement would listen to their horror stories.

Despite the fact that several women had the same experience with Paulk or other men on his staff, he insisted he was innocent and even brought legal action against a group of the women after they staged a press conference to make their grievances public. He also put a guilt trip on his followers, warning them that anyone who accused him of wrongdoing was “touching the Lord’s anointed.”

Today, people are finally admitting that Paulk was a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing. He was the liar and we were the naive dupes who fell for his act.

This became obvious last year when former Cathedral staff member Mona Brewer filed a lawsuit claiming that Paulk coerced her into a sexual relationship that lasted for years. Her suit forced Paulk, other staff members and numerous Paulk relatives to give depositions in court—and the ugly truth began to unfold. The church quickly shrank to a few hundred people, and today the congregation can’t afford to maintain their 7,000-seat gothic building.

The most revolting side of the Paulk scandal hit the fan last Sunday. The Cathedral’s current senior pastor, Donnie Earl Paulk—who has been known his entire life as Earl Paulk’s nephew—admitted to his congregation that he is actually Earl Paulk’s son. A DNA test required by the court has proved that Donnie Earl is not the son of Earl’s brother, Don. He is actually the product of a relationship between his mother, worship pastor Clariece Paulk, and his “Uncle Earl.”

I know it’s beyond outrageous. But as repulsive as the Paulk scandal is to us, we should try to imagine how grieved God is that such blatant immorality was allowed to thrive unchallenged for so long in a church that dared to call itself “Spirit-filled.” Why have some staff members remained at the Cathedral to this day when they know the truth? Why didn’t national charismatic leaders listen to the countless people who left the Cathedral years ago when they learned about the wife-swapping and debauchery? We should be ashamed that our spiritual fathers ignored the whistle-blowers, withheld biblical discipline and allowed Paulk to ruin the lives of countless people.

When the apostle Paul learned that incest was occurring among Corinthian believers (“immorality of such a kind that does not exist even among the Gentiles,” he said), he rebuked the church for refusing to bring correction and gave them a clear directive: “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:1-2,13, NASB).

Paulk and his cohorts at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit created a bizarre environment full of mind control and emotional manipulation. We charismatics, who claim to have the gift of discernment, should have smelled this cultic deception a mile away. But instead, even though the list of allegations grew year by year, leaders in our movement continued to allow Paulk to air his broadcasts on national television.

We are now reaping the consequences of this sloppy grace and misdirected mercy. Throughout our movement today, ministries and marriages are imploding because we built our spiritual houses on the shifting sands of “anointing” rather than on the solid rock of character and integrity. The embarrassing scandals of 2007—from the high-profile divorces to the parking lot wife-beatings to the Oral Roberts University fiasco—should prompt us to cry out to God for a biblical reformation that will restore genuine holiness in a wayward church.

I cannot give a loud enough Amen to this posting. Grady is probably a typical Pentecostal. He probably speaks in tongues, believes in the second baptism of the Holy Spirit, believes in extra-biblical prophecy, believes that God has some special plan for us that we have to somehow discern. In other words, Grady believes stuff that I think is quite unbiblical and is one reason why the movement is so seriously wrong in many ways. Yet I have to admit that God is using this man powerfully as he uses his position as a prophetic voice (not predictive but courageous) to bring the church back to holiness and obedience. Praise the Lord!

Are Pentecostals vote-stacking Australian Idol?

From the department of low-culture:

Australian Idol finalists have been gagged from talking about Christianity.

The final six, who made a public appearance at Sydney's Motor Show yesterday, may not answer questions about their religion or personal beliefs.

Channel Ten's publicity team, acting on instructions from the show's maker Fremantle Media, has cancelled media interviews that broach the subject.

After television reports suggested some finalists were being supported by a huge Christian voting audience, the makers of the show have tried to distance themselves from the issue.

Although no wrongdoing has been proved (most Idol contestants have huge communities supporting them, whether it be a country town or a church community) television chiefs are concerned about the effect of the stories on the "street cred" of the show.

"They promised the Idols they wouldn't have to talk about Christianity," a spokeswoman for Channel Ten said.

The only group of Australian churches who would support a TV show that glorifies vacuous, talentless and soul-destroying pop music would be the Pentecostals.

And that includes you Ron ;).

A Broken Church

From the department of Jesus-wept:

(Pentecostal preacher) Thomas Wesley Weeks III, who is now facing charges of assaulting his wife, recently stood in his pulpit in Atlanta during a marriage conference and proceeded to teach married couples how to use profanity during sex.

Yes, the man who allegedly kicked and punched Juanita Bynum in a hotel parking lot last month told attendees at a “Teach Me How to Love You” event that they should get over their hang-ups about cussing. The bedroom, he said, is the place to get down and dirty.

“Don’t bring your salvation into the bedroom,” he said in a sermon segment that has been posted on YouTube. “All those special words that you can’t say no more because you’re saved … save that for the bedroom!”

It is bad enough that Weeks told his followers that it’s OK to use filthy language with your wife during lovemaking. It’s worse that he said these things as a minister speaking from a pulpit during a church service. Thankfully he didn’t bring a bed on stage and give a demonstration—but now that he has taken pulpit crudity to a new level, someone else is sure to introduce Pentecostal porn to an audience somewhere.

I enjoy my weekly read of J. Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma magazine and the author of the above quote. Praise the Lord that He has put this man in a position to speak prophetically against the excesses he sees in the modern church.

Signposts is now closing

That's really annoying.

Dealing with other Christian groupings

As we all know, there are different Christian "groupings" in our world today. For various reasons, these groups tend to stay away from each other because of the big differences that exist. Yet to cut ourselves off from other believers is also to potentially cut us off from legitimate aspects of God's work within their group.

Let me present three Australian groups: Sydney Anglicans, Pentecostalism and Evangelical Uniting Church people. Each of these three groups has its own subculture, unwritten rules and ways of doing things. All three, in my opinion, have errors in biblical interpretation which manifests itself in ungodly behaviour.

Of course, God knows that these groupings exist - but He also knows that his church, the body of Christ, is one.

I'm not advocating some form of top-down, ignore-all-differences sort of solution that has been offered in the past. I don't know what the future will hold for these groupings. However it is becoming clearer that the emergence of the internet has led to many crossovers between these different groups, which is why I can appreciate the musings of the Signposts people as they work for change within the Pentecostal church in Australia.

A few years ago I came up with this simple table to describe the four different ways that groups can approach each other. It is based upon two basic ideas: The level of engagement and the level to which differences are ignored or expressed:

	Disengagement	Engagement
Differences are ignored	Who cares?	"Ecumenism"
Differences are expressed	Those evil people	Loving Confrontation

Let me pick a group. Let's say Sydney Anglicans and their view of Pentecostalism. I would probably place them in the box labeled "Those evil people" because there is most definitely a desire to express differences (by explaining how unbiblical modern Pentecostalism is, mainly), but there is no real engagement with them. The result is, in practice, things like sermons and magazine articles critiquing modern Pentecostalism but without any form of relationship being formed.

Let me reverse it. How would Pentecostals view Sydney Anglicans? I would say that one part of it would be similar ("Those evil people") but I would hazard a guess that many Pentecostals wouldn't care. In other words, they're not really interested in Sydney Anglicans or what they believe. This ends up fitting into the "Who Cares" box - differences are ignored, and there is no engagement to speak of.

Here in Newcastle we have a whole bunch of churches that get together every few years to host "Hunter Harvest", a biannual evangelistic event organised between mainly Pentecostal, Anglican, Uniting and Roman Catholic churches in Newcastle. While there is a firm level of engagement, there is an explicit attempt to ignore differences (or "celebrate" them). This results in "Ecumenism", which I have placed in inverted commas because I am referring to it in the way that most evangelicals understand it, rather than it being interpreted in its literal sense.

I would say that the first three boxes - "Who Cares", "Those Evil People" and "Ecumenism" - are not what God wants of us. God wants us to move beyond our grouping, our subculture, and reach out in love to those in other groups - yet this is not done without pain or without confronting the issues that divide us. "Loving Confrontation" is the best place for all groups to be because that is where the issues are being dealt with while trying to work out how to love one another.

It means, for example, that while I stand firm on the core of my belief system, I make a concerted effort to reach out and understand Christians from a different grouping. Of course the way I do this is far from ideal, but I wish to head in this direction.

One great advantage that we have with the internet is that we now have the ability to communicate with those in different groupings. I have no Pentecostal friends that I meet in the flesh, but I at least can listen to their thoughts and dreams and pain when I go to signposts. Similarly, I have no friends who are Uniting Church Evangelicals, but I can read their articles and listen to their plans when I visit their website.

Just recently I have been contacted by some friends I went to Bible College with. At the time (1992-93), he and his wife were seriously considering ministry in the Uniting Church while I was pretty much ensconced in Sydney Anglicanism. As a result, we had some big differences. But we didn't ignore one another, and neither did we agree with one another and neither did we hold our tongues when it came to expressing that. I was very blessed by having him and his wife around to challenge me - and I hope in some small way I was able to challenge them.

So I suggest that you try to make friends with those outside your comfort zone - while at the same time not being backward in your beliefs with them. I need to do this more - I think we all do.



© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 License.

Changing Hillsong

The Signposts blog has an interesting conversation going on:

We have all discussed the ‘what needs to change’ - but I am now left thinking.

1) Is real Change possible within Hillsong and other contemporary Churches?

2) What will be the real driver for change in the Contemporary Church (that includes Hillsong) - Critique or the Gospel?

3) Is reconcilliation without compromise really possible between the Contemporary Church and those overwhelmingly disenfranchised by it?

Good Charismatics

As many of you know I'm a big critic of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity. Yet in the midst of my criticism I know in my heart that many of these people are fellow believers, and will spend eternity in heaven with me. I think my criticisms are valid, but I love them all the same.

So it is wonderful when I discover Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians who are discerning and who are disgusted at some of the things going on in their churches. The Signposts blog is one place I have discovered, and now I have discovered another one, Fireinmybones, the blog of J. Lee Grady from Charisma Magazine. How about this for a quote:

One friend of mine in Texas recently inquired to see if a prominent preacher could speak at her conference. The minister’s assistant faxed back a list of requirements that had to be met in order to book a speaking engagement. The demands included:

* a five-figure honorarium
* a $10,000 gasoline deposit for the private plane
* a manicurist and hairstylist for the speaker
* a suite in a five-star hotel
* a luxury car from the airport to the hotel (2004 model or newer)
* room-temperature Perrier

This really makes me wonder how the apostle Paul, Timothy or Priscilla managed ministering to so many people in Ephesus, Corinth and Thessalonica. How did they survive without a manicurist if they broke a nail while laying hands on the sick?

I was relieved to know that this celebrity preacher’s requirements in 2007 did not include a set of armed bodyguards—because I just might want to jump uninvited into her Rolls-Royce and say a few words.

It gets worse, if you can believe it. At a charismatic conference in an East Coast city recently, a pastor stood on a stage in front of a large crowd and smugly announced that the guest speaker was “more than an apostle.” Then the host asked everyone to bow down to the person, claiming that this posture was necessary to release God’s power.

“This is the only way you can receive this kind of anointing!” the host declared, bowing in front of the speaker. Immediately, about 80 percent of the audience fell prostrate on the floor. The few who were uncomfortable with the weird spiritual control in the room either walked out or stood in silent protest.

...

What has become of the American church? What is this sickness spreading in the body of Christ? I don’t know whom to blame more for it: The narcissistic minister who craves the attention, or the spiritually naive crowds who place these arrogant people on their shaky pedestals. All I know is that God is grieved by all of this shameful carnality.

How far we have fallen from authentic New Testament faith. Paul, who carried the anointing of an apostle but often described himself as a bond slave, told the Thessalonians, “Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives” (1 Thess. 2:8).

New Testament Christianity is humble, selfless and authentic. And those who carry the truth don’t preach for selfish gain or to meet an emotional need for attention. May God help us root out the false apostles and false teachers who are making the American church sick with their man-centered, money-focused heresies.

Praise God that he is working His Spirit in the hearts of many Charismatic leaders like Grady. This is a man whose critiques should be listened to - even if he critiques me.

Thanks to SBCOutpost for this link.

Some good news about Ted Haggard

Ted Haggard is in the news again. He's leaving Colorado Springs, where his church is, and going to Phoenix, where he will probably attend the Phoenix First Assembly of God while studying a graduate degree in counseling.

What impresses me about this news is that Haggard is not going off and founding another church or making moves to "restore himself" in ministry. If my memory serves me correctly, the pastoral oversight board that asked Haggard to step down from his church (for sexual sins with a homosexual prostitute) also reiterated the fact that Haggard should never return to pastoral ministry.

Even before Haggard's fall, I was not impressed with the guy. I was actually the original creator of the Ted Haggard page on Wikipedia, mainly because I felt that he was a "wolf in sheep's clothing" within the evangelical church. Not only was a Pentecostal, he was also a dominionist and an open theist. As head of the National Association of Evangelicals and an adviser to president Bush, I saw him as a dangerous man.

So when he "fell", there was a private element of schadenfreude going through me.

But there was also cynicism. Would he be "restored" and return to pastoral ministry at his church after a period of repentance? Would he continue to be blindly followed by American Christians?

It seems that some of my cynicism was wrong. The way things are going, there is no chance that New Life Church will have Haggard back, and no chance that he will return to pastoral ministry. And that is good.

All this is based upon my understanding of what the New Testament says about elders and pastors. They should be "above reproach" and be sexually pure. Haggard, 50, has spent most of his adult life as a pastor but managed to continue pastoring even when he was engaged in private homosexual behaviour. Haggard did not come out and acknowledge his sin - it needed the male prostitute himself to publicly declare the fact (something which, by the way, many members of Haggard's church have thanked him for).

In short, Haggard can no longer be trusted to be a pastor (theological heresies notwithstanding). He lived a double life with major secret sin. I am hoping his humiliation and fall will act as an example for others - that sexual sin (amongst other major sins) by a pastor automatically disqualifies him from the ministry.

A Caveat: I'm not talking here about sexual sin committed before a person becomes a believer, but sexual sin that is engaged in before or during a believer's position as church pastor (or elder).

Let's thank God that Haggard seems to be taking the right steps, and pray that he will be strengthened in his faith during this time and spend the rest of his days in joy as he contemplates the undeserved graciousness of God.



From the Theosalient Department

© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Ted Haggard

One of America's most important and powerful Christian leaders, Ted Haggard, has been accused of seeing a male prostitute.

If true, this is a shocking situation. Haggard is the President of the National Association of Evangelicals and is probably one step down from James Dobson as America's best known evangelical leader.

It has been reported for many years that Haggard was an Open Theist. I was always uncomfortable with his leadership because of this - not to mention his relationship with George W. Bush.

In response to these allegations, Haggard has voluntarily stepped down from all his leadership positions until the matter has been sorted out. This should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt, since I would probably do the same thing if I was innocent of such charges.

We should pray that he relies upon the goodness of the sovereign Lord.

Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal Belief

This was my Magnum Opus at Wikipedia and is now in danger of deletion. To keep it from disappearing forever, I'm pasting it here:

Charismatic is an umbrella term used to describe those Christians who believe that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian Church, such as glossalalia, healing and miracles, are available to contemporary Christians and ought to be experienced and practised today.

The word charismatic is derived from the Greek word charis (meaning a grace or a gift) which is the term used in the Bible to describe a wide range of supernatural experiences (especially in 1 Corinthians 12-14). [1]

Often confused with Pentecostalism (which it was inspired by), Charismatic Christianity tends to differ in key aspects: many Charismatics reject the preeminence given by Pentecostalism to glossolalia, reject the legalism often associated with some sectors of Pentecostalism, and tend to stay in their existing denominations instead of forming new groups (although this is no longer as true as it once was, and most house churches freely use charismatic gifts).

Charismatic expressions are not exclusive to any single denomination, nor is Charismatic theology uniquely Protestant. There is a burgeoning Charismatic movement within the Catholic Church.

Pentecostalism is a specific movement within evangelical Christianity that began in the early 20th century. It is typified by enthusiastic religious gatherings and the firm belief that God can empower the Christian for victorious life and service via the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - proof of which is found in part in the external evidence of tongue speaking. Historic Pentecostalism has its roots in the Holiness Movement and the Revivalism of the Second Great Awakening in America during the early 19th century.

More recently, the term Neocharismatic has been used to designate those groups with pentecostal-like experiences that have no traditional connection with either the Pentecostal or Charismatic movements. The Third Wave, a term coined by American theologian C. Peter Wagner, is regarded as part of the larger Neocharismatic movement, and it is typified by the growth of churches in the Vineyard Movement, among others. For the purposes of this article, this new movement will exist under the Charismatic terminology. More detailed information on these movements and what they believe can be found in their respective articles.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 The nature of criticism
* 2 Criticisms from Evangelical Christians
o 2.1 Blessings, money and prosperity
o 2.2 Exegesis
o 2.3 Influences of the Latter Rain Movement
o 2.4 Oneness Pentecostals
o 2.5 Scripture, authority and guidance
o 2.6 Speaking in Tongues
o 2.7 Theology of worship
* 3 Criticisms from Catholic and/or Orthodox Christians
* 4 Criticisms from other religions
* 5 Criticisms from society generally
o 5.1 Faith Healing
o 5.2 Prosperity and Faith
o 5.3 Religious ecstasy as a psychological phenomenon
o 5.4 Word of Faith theology
o 5.5 See also
* 6 Criticisms from within the Pentecostal / Charismatic movement
o 6.1 Authoritative leadership
o 6.2 Psychological Abuse
o 6.3 Theological scholarship
o 6.4 See also
* 7 External links

The nature of criticism

Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians and organisations have, either fairly or unfairly, been subjected to numerous criticisms by both those within the Christian faith, as well as by those in the wider world.

The debate between Charismatic and non-Charismatic Christians occurs at several levels. One fundamendal theological question is usually whether the charismata described in the New Testament and apparently widely used by Jesus, the Apostles and early church leaders were a special dispensation for New Testament times only, or whether the gifts were for the Christian church down the ages.

At one time (1958) Pentecostals made up two-thirds of the membership of the National Association of Evangelicals, and by some estimates they still comprise the largest segment of Evangelicalism. Nevertheless, today many Evangelicals are not sympathetic to the beliefs and practices of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. Evangelical critics hold that the movement has departed from the Bible and is teaching unbiblical ideas. The Cambridge Declaration, written in 1996 by Reformed Evangelicals, is an expression of resistance against modern trends within the evangelical movement, as well as some of the issues raised by Charismatic and Pentecostal belief.

Since the Roman Catholic Church has been influenced by Charismatic teaching since the late 1960s, there are also critics within the movement that argue that Catholic Charismatics have departed from the church's traditions and teaching, and have replaced the authority of the church with a subjective way of guidance.

Both Charismatic and Pentecostal churches aggressively evangelise "non-believers", and although intentional proselytizing from other evangelical groups is discouraged, the recruiting of members from other religions does occur. Adherents of these other religions may also find the movement's tenets to be offensive to their belief system in a way that is unique and not simply part of the general offensiveness they might find in all forms of Christian belief.

Society generally is beginning to experience the movement as well, and have critiqued it according to psychological and behavioral norms, finding in the movement expressions of human behaviour that they might find offensive.

The movement itself has also spawned its own critics. Many of the fiercest critics of Charismatics and Pentecostals are those who have either "given up" the Christian faith altogether, or have moderated their beliefs somewhat to bring balance to what they see as offensive.

Criticisms from Evangelical Christians

See also: Cambridge Declaration

A number of critics of Pentecostal / Charismatic beliefs have established themselves in Discernment Ministries to promote their theological viewpoints. The main areas of criticism are outlined below. Please note that the use of the term Evangelical here refers to those Christians who claim to be Born-again but do not hold to many Pentecostal or Charismatic beliefs, rather than the broader common definition. These Evangelicals are likely to come from a Reformed or Dispensationalist point of view.

Blessings, money and prosperity

See also: Word of faith, You Need More Money (Book)

A significant portion of the Charismatic movement and a number of Pentecostals believe that the Christian life is lived in a better way than a non-Christian one, and that, as a result of this better life, God will bless them and make them prosperous. Many Charismatics believe that their faith will lead to better health (physical, mental and emotional), more money and worldly possessions, and a much happier and joyous lifestyle. Although this belief in health, wealth and happiness is common throughout some of the Charismatic movement, there are different degrees and emphases throughout.
Many Charismatic and Pentecostal teachers believe that God will reward us in this life with riches and health.
Enlarge
Many Charismatic and Pentecostal teachers believe that God will reward us in this life with riches and health.

There is no doubt that many new converts give up common worldly vices, such as smoking and gambling, and, as a result of this change of spending habits, end up with more money in their bank accounts and a healthier body. There is also no doubt that conversions to any religion will often lead to a subjective sense of peace and happiness in those involved. Furthermore, a religious conversion almost always leads to the individual subjecting themselves to external rules and ways of thinking, which allows a different perespective on their lives and the ability to make relatively objective choices that will lead to greater levels of prosperity. What all this indicates is that there is some truth in the claim that the Christian faith can lead to greater health, wealth and happiness - at least from a behavioural point of view.

The difference between Evangelicals and Charismatics on this issue is that Evangelicals, while agreeing that some level of worldly prosperity may result, will contend that God is not really interested in worldly possessions. For many evangelicals, the Christian faith is not about worldly prosperity at all, but about heavenly riches especially those given freely through the death and resurrection of Christ. For Evangelicals, it does not therefore follow that the Christian faith will automatically lead to health, wealth and prosperity, and nor should a Christian expect it or ask for it.

Evangelicals have, however, argued that such an emphasis in the Charismatic movement has led people away from the heavenly riches that are promised in Christ. Rather than focus upon Christ and the Cross, Evangelicals argue that, when Charismatics focus upon worldly prosperity, they are both teaching serious theological error and failing to teach the true Gospel. Additionally, many Evangelicals believe that Christians have every Spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1:3), a position that precludes any demand or promise for further blessings from God. For the Evangelical, Christ is all the blessing a Christian needs. Many Pentecostals and Neocharismatics are in agreement with this aspect of the Evangelical argument.

A problem therefore arises when Charismatics claim that God is offering Christians more blessings than the gift of Christ. Since they are not given automatically to Christians, Charismatics hold to the idea that these blessings can be appropriated by obedience in the Scriptures, specifically, faithfully tithing 10 percent of one's income to his or her local church. However, Charismatic Christians believe that the mere act of the giving of tithes and offerings does not automatically return blessings. Giving must be done in faith and out of a heart of worship. The beliver must have the motivation of advancing the Gospel, not the accumulation of wealth. Many Evangelicals believe that this idea seriously undermines the biblical teaching on God's grace. Evangelicals would pose such questions as Why would God give a Christian salvation and eternal life as a free gift, but offer worldly blessings only to those who perform better than others? For the Evangelical, if God specially rewards greater faith in Christians by giving them worldly prosperity, then it is one step away from saying that all of God's blessings, including salvation, are based upon works. The Charismatic response would be that faith is not a work; rather, it is a trust in and reliance upon that which God has revealed in His Word regarding these matters.

Teaching on prosperity, while common throughout some of the Charismatic movement, differs in emphasis from church to church. As in the Evangelical Christian world, Charismatics themselves can be wary of false teaching and will often self-regulate against any obvious excesses. Evangelicals would argue, however, that such self-regulation is not enough.

Several leading Pentecostal denominations, including the Church of God (Cleveland), openly renounce the hyper-prosperity message. To the credit of Pentecostals, many have been confronting this error for a number of years. Recent efforts of the Center for Pentecostal Leadership and Care, directed by Dr. James P. Bowers, have resulted in the publication of a document entitled, You Can Have What You Say: A Pastoral Response to the Prosperity Gospel. This volume evaluates the threat posed to the faith and practice of Pentecostal believers by the “prosperity gospel” and provides a practical analysis of its roots and appeal. The book (1) considers how prosperity theology is affecting local congregations, (2) examines the philosophical and theological roots of prosperity teaching against the backdrop of classical Pentecostal doctrine, (3) addresses how Pentecostal pastors can strategize a response within the context of the local church and (4) offers resources, exercises, and activities that will assist the pastor in implementing an effective and faithful approach to this concern.

Exegesis

Exegesis is the way in which Biblical passages are examined and interpreted. Although Charismatics and Evangelicals alike believe that the Bible can be understood and applied by all believers, Evangelicals are often critical of the way in which Charismatics (and Pentecostals) interpret and apply scripture.

This issue is a much larger one in modern society because it has to take into account modern ways and methods of interpreting written text. Evangelicals tend to take a Structuralist view of interpreting the Bible. This means that Biblical texts should be interpreted according to their literary type and takes into account the text's purpose, its audience and its historical and philosophical context. Moreover, an Evangelical will argue that a Biblical text can only be understood and applied in this manner, and that any departure from this will lead to a misinterpretation of Scripture. In this sense, Evangelicals believe that the Bible is like any other text in the manner in which you read it, but unlike any other text because its ultimate authorship is divine.
A Pentecostal preacher. The content of preaching is often determined by Biblical interpretation (exegesis)
Enlarge
A Pentecostal preacher. The content of preaching is often determined by Biblical interpretation (exegesis)

Charismatics, however, are less likely to follow a Structuralist approach to interpreting scripture. While they may not discard the Evangelical approach, many Charismatics believe that the Bible's divine authorship allows it to be interpreted in a more subjective and reader-centred manner. In many ways, it could be argued that Charismatics are more likely to take a Post-structuralist or even Post-modernist way of interpreting Scripture. Thus a Charismatic will be able to take a verse of Scripture out of its literary context and apply it in a subjective manner. Such an approach could be defended by arguing that God's power to guide cannot be limited by human conventions such as textual structure. Furthermore, since it is God who is guiding the individual through this interpretive process, it could be argued that it is a superior way of interpretation since it assumes that God is able to give the Christian immediate and clear guidance. The Evangelical approach to interpretation, however, could therefore be seen as a limiting of God and has an overly intellectual and transcendent view of God, rather than a personal and immanent view of God that typifies Charismatic interpretation.

Evangelicals argue, however, that many modern day Charismatic leaders have gone beyond this subjective interpretive model and are actually teaching things that are contrary to orthodox Christian belief. The fact that there is such a diverse range of beliefs within the Charismatic movement (beliefs which are often contrary) is proof, according to Evangelicals, that such an interpretive model is flawed. After all, the Evangelical would say, why is God not guiding his people in a consistent manner?

An example of the difference between a Charismatic and an Evangelical interpretation of Scripture can be seen in a quick examination of 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, which says My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power (NIV).

One way that this verse could be interpreted by Charismatics is that it backs up the belief that God is acting in our world to produce miracles. Therefore, it could be argued, church meetings should include times when God can work miracles. On the other hand, preaching conducted solely on the basis of the human understanding could be classed as the “wise and persuasive words” mentioned in this verse, and such preaching should not be the focus of the Christian meeting. This interpretation basically assumes that Paul's ministry in Corinth was both a preaching ministry and a ministry that involved supernatural manifestations. The implication for Charismatics is that since Paul did this, so should the modern-day church.

Another way this verse could be interpreted by Charismatics focuses on the phrase “so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power”. What this could prove is that the Christian should trust not in various arguments or in intellectual knowledge alone, but upon a more experiential knowledge of God. On the basis on this rationale, some Charismatics conclude that it should not matter, therefore, if someone disagrees with them or challenges them in their faith – they can trust in their personal experience. However, many Charismatics and Pentecostals alike hold that all subjective experience is subject to the authority of the objective Word of God.

The Evangelical interprets these verses in a very different way. The verse needs to be taken in context with the rest of what Paul says, especially chapter 1:22-23 which says Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. Critics of the Charismatic understanding of the supernatural would say that these verses contradict the idea that Paul's ministry was primarily one of performing miracles. 2:2 is also important to the Evangelical because it states that I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. Thus the demonstration of the Spirit's power found in 2:4 could in fact be the conversion experience of the Corinthian readers, and “God's power” in 2:5 is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals argue that this way of interpreting the text fits into a structuralist model because it takes the verses in its historical and grammatical context. Charismatics and even Pentecostals would counter-argue that such an interpretation reads more into the text than is clearly stated and ignores the historical context -- a context that was characterized by the dynamic of the Holy Spirit manifested through supernatural signs and wonders. Furthermore, if 1:22-23 is a condemnation of reliance upon signs and wonders, then it is equally a condemnation of an overly intellectualized approach to the Gospel.

It needs to be pointed out that claims of "faulty" exegesis are not a criticism that can be applied solely to Charismatics. It is entirely possible for Charismatic Christians and leaders to understand and apply a Biblical text in a manner which is acceptable to a Structuralist approach (and thus meet the interpretive framework that many Evangelicals hold to). It is also entirely possible (in fact, it is probably very common) that many Evangelicals themselves are guilty of "faulty" exegesis. Evangelicals will argue, however, that this phenomenon is far more likely to occur within a Charismatic church than in an Evangelical church. On the other hand, Charismatics and Pentecostals hold that Evangelicals do injustice to the Scriptures by forcing interpretations that reinforce what might be called preconceived cessationist conclusions -- ideas based more on experience than on the message of the text.

Influences of the Latter Rain Movement

Main article: Latter Rain Movement

The Latter Rain Movement was a religious movement that was prevalent in American Pentecostal churches in the 1940s and 1950s. Led by William M. Branham and others, it taught that the Five-fold ministry would be returned (including prophets and apostles), that special Christians would arise who would have supernatural powers (the Manifest Sons of God), and that specially ordained "overcomers" would rise to political power and take over secular institutions in the name of God (Kingdom Now theology). This movement denied some of the more Fundamentalist teachings such as the Rapture, and also held to Jesus-only doctrines popularized by Oneness Pentecostalism.

The US Assemblies of God declared the movement heretical but its teachings remained influential for some years. [2]

There appears to be evidence that suggests that, since 1975, Charismatics have engaged in fellowship with all Christians who have had the same religious experiences as they had - which included both the traditional Pentecostals and the Latter Rain movement. As a result, both the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement presently share a great deal in common theologically, and this has come from a resurgence in Latter-rain teaching in both movements.

Evangelicals and traditional Pentecostals would still argue that the teachings of the Latter Rain movement were heretical. There is evidence to suggest that, while the term "Latter Rain" is not associated with modern Charismatic and Pentecostal theology, the teaching certainly is.

Oneness Pentecostals

Main article Oneness Pentecostal

An offshoot of the Pentecostal movement, Oneness Pentecostals believe that there is one God with no essential divisions in His nature (such as a trinity) . He is not a plurality of persons, but He does have a plurality of manifestations, roles, titles, attributes, or relationships to man. Furthermore, these are not limited to three. Whereas Trinitarian Christianity teaches that God is existent in three Persons, Oneness doctrine states that there is only one member of the Godhead, namely Jesus. He is the incarnation of the fullness of God. In His deity, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The rejection of the trinity has also been called Sabellianism, or modalism, and is considered heresy by most evangelicals and those within the Charismatic and Pentecostal Movement.

These churches are sometimes known as Pentacostal churches - the difference in spelling being an indicator.

Scripture, authority and guidance

See also: Sola scriptura

One of the issues that Evangelical Christians have with Charismatics and Pentecostals is the place of the Bible in terms of authority. Most Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians will agree that the Bible is divinely inspired and was written by men under the supervision of the Holy Spirit. This belief is also held by evangelicals and serves as one of the many points of agreement. However, many evangelicals see the Bible as not only divinely inspired, but also divinely sufficient - that the Bible is all the Christian needs to be guided by God and to live the Christian faith. The protestant reformers called this Sola scriptura. This point of view appears to be backed up by 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states that the scriptures are not only "God breathed" but "thoroughly equip" the believer for every good work - the idea here being that "thoroughly equip" is synonymous with sufficiency. Pentecostals and Charismatics, on the other hand, expect direct guidance from the Holy Spirit in the form of dreams, visions and various other subjective experiences. The fact that many biblical figures (such as Noah, Moses, King David, Jesus, Peter, Paul and so on) have been guided directly by God appears to back up their belief that God can and will use subjective experiences to guide his people.
Image:Bible old.jpg
Many Christians believe that the ultimate author of the Bible is God himself.

Evangelicals have criticised this approach to guidance because, firstly, just because direct guidance is described in the Bible does not mean it is prescribed for the Christian life and, secondly, because the individual relies upon subjective experiences for God to guide then there is a temptation to rely solely upon these for living the Christian life - a process which takes the believer away from the Bible as the means by which God speaks. Many evangelicals have been concerned with what they perceive as "misleading" or "false" teaching arising from the movement - with teachings such as Word of faith (prosperity), the Toronto blessing and Signs and Wonders as examples of this. Many evangelicals have labelled popular televangelists (such as Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey and Kenneth Copeland to name just three) as being, at best, seriously misguided and, at worst, satanically inspired. To be fair, many Pentecostals and Charismatics do not adhere to these teachings, which indicates the complexity of criticism in this area. For evangelicals, however, an over-reliance upon subjective experience as the means by which God guides will lead to lower levels of Biblical knowledge. This, they argue, will inevitably lead to the Christian being influenced by people and movements that teach and preach strange and misleading doctrines.

Although it may appear that there is a clear polarization between guidance by the Bible and guidance by experience, most evangelicals and pentecostals accept a combination of the two - with Evangelicals accepting some form of direct experience (so long as it does not contradict the Bible), and with Pentecostals accepting some level of Biblical authority (so long as it does not prevent God from guiding directly).

External links

* List of articles that defend Sola Scriptura
* Continuing Revelation: What's the big deal?

Speaking in Tongues

Some Pentecostals believe that Speaking in Tongues is a direct result of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and that believers who do not undergo this work of God are unable to experience the fullness of being Christian. By contrast, Charismatics accept that Tongue Speaking is a valid Christian experience, but, like other Pentecostals, do not always accept that the Baptism in the Spirit automatically leads to Tongue Speaking.

Evangelicals generally believe that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the point of conversion - in this sense all Christians have been baptised by the Holy Spirit, and there is no "dual-stage" in the Christian faith. They also question the validity of Tongue Speaking in two ways. The first is to argue that Tongues were for the first-century church only and that it, along with Prophecy, have "passed away" (1 Cor 13:8-10). The second is to identify Tongues as Xenoglossia (the supernatural speaking of another human language that is recorded in Acts 2:1-13) which is purportedly not what is manifested in Pentecostal or Charismatic Christians today.

However, the belief that prophecy and Tongues have "passed away" as some non-Charismatic Evangelicals state 1 Cor 13:8-10 says, is challenged by Charismatic Christians. They say that while Scripture is the infallible authority in our lives, man is not perfect, and therefore, man cannot know everything about God in his sinful state (I Cor. 13:8-10). This argument does not mean Charismatics believe the Holy Bible is not the sufficient, infallible Authority in the life of a Christian. They defend the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture fervantly. However, what is meant by this is that while on earth, man cannot know God in His Entirety. As a result of the infiniteness of God and the finiteness of mankind, this is not possible. The Charismatic Christian believes that when they are with God after sin is destroyed and all believers are raised up and their physical bodies are freed from the grip of sin and death, then "the perfect" will come and gifts of the Spirit will no longer be necessary. In short, Charismatics believe this passage is referring to the Christian, not Scripture. "The perfect" is interpreted as referring to the Christian's regenerated state in Heaven.

Theology of worship

Public expressions of Worship in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches can generally be described as energetic and intensely personal, often accompanied by a specific style of music that can include Gospel music in Black Pentecostal churches and the contemporary worship music of Hillsong Church.

Many Charismatic churches in the early 21st century have adopted a contemporary worship style that focuses heavily upon "uplifting" music and repetitive and simple lyrics. Charismatic churches that have embraced Transformationalism are likely to have a worship style that reflects this theological stance.
Pentecostal Worship is often spontaneous, emotional, uninhibited and honest.
Enlarge
Pentecostal Worship is often spontaneous, emotional, uninhibited and honest.

Evangelicals have levelled a number of criticisms of Charismatic worship.

One major criticism is that there is an over-emphasis upon the subjective experience of worship rather than upon any objective experience that finds its basis in the Bible. Evangelicals, particularly those from a Reformed background, argue that Worship should be regulated by what God has revealed in Scripture. Meanwhile, the Pentecostal or Charismatic believer would most likely point out that focussing on one's subjective experience of God's biblical nature is quite valid.

Additionally, many Reformed Evangelicals place a great emphasis upon the centrality of the Gospel and the Word of God throughout public worship. This means that the Bible is publicly read during worship, that the congregation is exposed to carefully researched Expository preaching on a regular basis, and that all songs and hymns are clearly biblical and Christ-focused. By doing this, Reformed Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit will be working in the lives of all people present - and that such a work of the Spirit cannot necessarily be recognised by a subjective feeling or any visible, measurable occurrence.

By contrast, Charismatic worship does not necessarily involve a public reading of scripture, nor would the preaching be based upon a systematic explanation of a Biblical text. Evangelicals have often criticised Charismatic preaching for misunderstanding the Bible, with many preachers allegedly guilty of inaccurate exegesis. Since Charismatics have a higher regard for personal experience, preachers can often use their own subjective experiences, or even what they consider to be direct guidance from God, as the basis of their teaching. Since many Evangelicals see Scripture as divinely sufficient, they find such Charismatic teaching problematic.

Charismatic song lyrics, although simple and honest, may not necessarily be Biblical in their content. Some evangelicals have even (either fairly or unfairly) labelled such songs as having "Jesus is my boyfriend" lyrics. Evangelicals argue that any Christian hymn or song should be explicitly Biblical in nature, and focus upon what God has done rather than on what we feel about God. For the Evangelical, "Declaring God's praise" involves singing and preaching about God's divine characteristics, such as his omnipotence, omnipresence, providence as well as his love for his people in sending Jesus Christ to die on the Cross as a sin substitute. Hymns and Songs that explain the person and work of Jesus Christ are also important to Evangelicals.

A simple (but not always accurate) assertion that Charismatics make about differences between themselves and Evangelicals is that they focus on worship while Evangelicals focus on teaching. While this assertion has some truth in it, it fails to recognise that, for the Evangelical, bible teaching forms an integral part of true worship. In his book Engaging with God,[3] Evangelical author David Peterson[4] asserts that true worship involves the church approaching God in worship on God's terms, and that God himself is engaging with his people during the ekklesia (gathering) as his Word is read and explained, and as the Gospel is proclaimed.

But while Evangelicals will criticise Charismatic worship as being too subjective and shallow, Charismatics will criticise evangelical worship as being too impersonal, unemotional and intellectual.

Criticisms from Catholic and/or Orthodox Christians

The Catholic and Orthodox churches would agree with the basic belief that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian Church, such as glossalalia, healing and miracles, are available to contemporary Christians and ought to be experienced and practiced today. Many stories of the saints include examples of these things occurring throughout the history of Christianity. It is often believed that God can and does work such miracles both through the normal exercise of the sacraments of the Church, and at times in unexpected ways. However, they also believe that such miracles would not and should not generally be disruptive to the prayers of the assembled church, believing instead that all things should be done "decently and in order."

Criticisms from other religions

Criticisms from society generally

Faith Healing

The following articles are useful in examining the possible reasons why Faith Healing in Charismatic churches continues to be popular.

* Faith Healing
* Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy)
* Post hoc ergo propter hoc
* Regressive fallacy

Prosperity and Faith

Many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches champion the idea that God will materially bless those who love and serve him. In order to prove this assertion, many examples and testimonies exist within these churches that appear to validate this belief.

Since Charismatic and Pentecostal churches exist within growing market economies, the belief that God will bless you if you "go out" in faith simply produces an environment of entreprenurial risk-taking. If this environment develops enough, the church community will eventually produce successful businessmen and -women (not to mention a number of business failures). The presence of these people within the church therefore only validates the assumption. Thus the belief that God blesses certain people materially could actually be a logical fallacy.

Religious ecstasy as a psychological phenomenon

See also: Ecstasy (state)

The stereotypical worship service that is prevalent amongst many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches involves repetitious phrases uttered during emotionally uplifting music, the raising of hands and the closing of eyes, an open and willing attitude to the "presence of God", a dependence and focus upon the preacher or worship leader who himself/herself is acting and speaking in an emotionally charged way. This sort of experience is common amongst many non-Christian religious adherents and has been described as Religious ecstasy.

Therefore, it could be argumed that Charismatic and Pentecostal churches that exhibit these features are only reproducing a psychological phenomena that is common to humanity regardless of their religion, rather than engaging in an entirely unique Christian activity where a supernatural force is present in the gathering. That this phenomena can be exhibited in a group of people engaging in a common religious activity actually makes this explanation more likely.

Charismatic and Pentecostal manifestations such as Speaking in Tongues, being Slain in the Spirit, the laughing and crying caused by the Toronto blessing and the placebo effect of Faith healing can all be explained by the prevalence of Religious ecstasy in these gatherings.

Word of Faith theology

An examination of Word-Faith theology seems to match the experience of those who advocate Neuro-linguistic programming as a form of behaviour modification. Thus Charismatics and Pentecostals who "succeed in life" due to this brand of theology may only be replicating the efforts of secular proponents like Anthony Robbins.


See also

* Autosuggestion

* Suggestibility
* Visualization

Criticisms from within the Pentecostal / Charismatic movement

Authoritative leadership

Some people tend to follow the leaders within these movements from a motivation of either loyalty or a belief the leaders are anointed (chosen by God to be a spiritual leader). This could create problems as many will often believe what the leaders say and tend not think critically through these issues. Objective biblical and theological research may quite often be discouraged. The leaders may often wield enormous power within their churches and often try to harness this power for good; Many former Charismatics would argue, however, that this power has no Biblical basis.

At an even deeper level, the issue becomes goes back to authority and guidance. Charismatic and Pentecostal leaders will often claim the bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and life. Many former Charismatics would argue, however, that when these leaders believe the Holy Spirit is speaking directly to them, this often becomes the final authority. It really comes down to which view of God's guidance has greater emphasis - personal experience or the Bible.

Psychological Abuse

See also: Psychological abuse

Many former Charismatics and Pentecostals have complained that they have experienced undue psyschological pressure and abuse from their former churches. Church members who openly complain about the church or the leadership, or dispute decisions, have been subjected to this abuse because they pose a threat to the church's leadership and stability.

Some organizations argue that this abuse is endemic to the movement, and is a result of a combined number of issues. These include rapid numerical growth; uneducated pastors; an anti-intellectual attitude; the need for order and strong leadership; the belief that God is dealing with the church in a special way; a lack of accountability; and the need to suppress dissention.

It needs to be pointed out, however, that many people are attracted to the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement by the genuine love and care exhibited by individuals in these churches. It is erroneous to assume, therefore, that all churches in the movement are naturally abusive. It is also erroneous to assume that psychlogical abuse is unique to these churches, and that other churches, including evangelical ones, are immune from it.

While this love and care may be genuine, it does not necessarily mean that the church is not abusive in some way. Many Charismatic and Pentecostal churches exhibit the phenomenon of Communal reinforcement whereby community belief in someone or something is so strong that even empirical evidence to the contrary is discounted. A dissenter may therefore be ostracized by the church community despite having a reasonable and objective point of view. Alternatively, the dissenter may choose to keep their reservations to themselves, thus creating a spiral of silence.

While there have been cases akin to Brainwashing within these churches, such extreme activity is actually quite rare. Nevertheless, The Children of God developed out of the Jesus Movement in the 1960s, which was closely linked to the Charismatic movement, and The People's Temple was heavily influenced by the Pentecostal Movement in the 1950s. [5]

Theological scholarship

Some former Charismatics are of the opinion that recognised Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians are very difficult to find and that the movement is highly dependent upon scholars from Evangelical or Reformed backgrounds to formulate any rudimentary beliefs. In the early years of the Pentecostal movement, this assessment may have been true, for in the formative years of the movement Pentecostals were given more to the practice of their faith and engagement in their mission than to theological reflection. However, in recent years Pentecostals have become much more adept in reflecting upon and articulating their theology. More information related to Pentecostal, Charismatic and Neocharismatic theologians is covered under Renewal Theologians.

See also

* Consensus reality
* Group-serving bias
* Groupthink
* Herd behavior
* Informational cascade
* Love bombing
* Mind control

External links

* An Evangelical laments over how he feels Pentecostal and Charismatic beliefs are now dividing the body of Christ
* Ex Pentecostal forums - a forum for those leaving Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations (formerly ex-pentecostals.org)
* "I was a Flaky Preacher" - how a pastor gave up on the Charismatic movement but retained his faith and ministry.
* A Charismatic Apologetics Directory - scholarly articles defending Charismatic doctrine

This text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Who is George Bush trying to please?

The president's announcement that he is nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has not been received well by both the left and the right.

After I wrote the first article, I shamelessly promoted it in the comments section at Eschaton - one of the best known "Liberal blogs" on the internet. As a result, my blog has received more hits than ever in its short history. So hello and welcome to all those from Eschaton who have visited (and be sure to check my FAQ).

The "Vibe" from Eschaton's comments thread was, I suppose, predictable. Much of what I wrote was expressed by all and sundry. Nevertheless, I realised that my own cultural shortcomings may have come into play (I am, after all, sitting at my desk in Australia) when some commented about her Jewishness. "How do they know she's Jewish?" thinks I, "Ah, of course, Miers sounds like a Jewish surname (and probably is)".

But whatever her background was, it appears to be very clear that Miers is an Evangelical Christian and has been for some time. If you check the Wikipedia article on the subject, you'll discover that, before moving to Washington, Miers attended Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for ten years. It is an independent, evangelical church that appears to exist quite happily within the Conservative Christian mainstream.

This means that she would naturally follow pro-life thinking, especially when you consider Roe vs Wade. The rumours that linked her to Exodus International, an "ex-gay" Christian group, are unfounded. It was simply confusion because she used to be on the board at Exodus Ministries - a Christian charity that tries to help former convicts. Having said this, however, I am certain that if she is an Evangelical Christian (like me) then she would probably have some definite views on homosexuality as well.

So of course, those liberally minded are not impressed. What is amusing, however, is the reaction of the conservatives.

I am not a member of Free Republic, nor am I likely to ever be considering my preference for Social market economics. Nevertheless I have checked some of the comments going on about the current nomination, and it appears that Conservative Republicans are not that impressed either. They had their own people in mind for the job to replace Sandra Day-O'Connor, and they have not exactly been happy with the way Bush appeared less than presidential during the debacle in New Orleans.

These rumblings in the Right Wing Blogosphere™ have shown that Bush's choice appears even more strange. Just who is he trying to please? (that is, if he actually has a plan behind this)

The only group that would be happy would be Christian Conservatives. They would rejoice that someone like Miers would be nominated for the following reasons:

1. She holds to a conservative form of Christian faith which would guide her in her decision-making.
2. She has been a close supporter of George W. Bush for over ten years, which would make her more trustworthy than other potential conservative judges (who just might turn around and become "activists")
3. She is a woman, thus making her nomination appear progressive and giving them the opportunity to deride progressive critics for being hypocritical.
   

I am therefore predicting a major post from my best friend Al Mohler about this soon. I don't know what Focus on the Family are going to do but I'm sure James Dobson is going to come out soon and declare that God will use this nomination and we need to fight to make sure it gets there and so forth and so on and yadda yadda yadda. (note: he has and appears happy)

So George is trying to make Evangelical Christians happy. Well, I'm an evangelical who's not, but I don't matter anyway because I live in Austria (or is that Australia?). It's a fair bet that this decision will be vindicated by the fanatical support that he can get from Churches who have, over the years, abandoned true Evangelical theology for errors like Kingdom Now Theology, the Latter Rain Movement and Christian Reconstructionism, all of which promote the unbiblical idea that Christians should fight for a "heaven-on-earth" and that those who oppose them are tools of satan. Not exactly the sort of support you'd get from regular Republicans, but something that could potentially gain around 10-15% of the population.

I'll finish off here by making another prediction - this time about Evangelicals and Republicans. I think this nomination will really get some moderate and conservative Republicans riled. There are many within the GOP who have willingly courted the Christian vote, but with the situation getting as bad as it is now, there will be serious breaks of rank within the GOP over this one. I would think that, even if Bush doesn't retract Miers' nomination, support for her appointment will become exceptionally difficult. And without a Hammer to keep discipline, the GOP is set for a very public internal brawl.


From the Department of Wha's Happnin?

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

That Newcastle Church - another report

Early this month I posted a critique of a church I visited in Newcastle in April 2004. I forgot to mention that I had actually written two reports - one each for the two sundays I visited. The report I posted was actually the second report, while the following is the first one. It's a bit more positive and should give a better understanding of the conflicting feelings I have towards contemporary Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.

Initial impressions

I turned up to the service late, fearing there to be way too much singing for me to bear before I actually heard any teaching. Initially I felt that this was a wise move, although in hindsight it would have been better to read the lyrics of the songs they sang and heard any praying.

The building is quite new and is in the process of being renovated to add an upper story at the back of the building - although I only noticed this when looking. The building is superbly soundproofed and probably needs to be because of its location in a residential area - I'm certain their neighbours would complain of any undue noise. As it was, I only heard a very dull sound of drums when I arrived in the carpark.

The congregation numbered about 200 to 250 - large for Newcastle but about the same size as I experienced at St Paul's Carlingford during the 1990s. Given this experience I was a bit surprised that the congregation appeared so "small". During the praise time people were raising hands and doing the whole Charismatic thing, but it was not done en masse and many stood with their hands by their sides or in their pockets. Some were even sitting down during singing.

The congregation was young - by this I mean between 18-25 years old. There may have been younger people but I didn't see them. There was a spattering of older people in the congregation and there was nothing too "youthy" about the service to put these people off. It was informal - to a point - but it was not aimed too hard at young adults, which was good.

The Preacher - DJ

Within 5 minutes of me entering the music stopped and DJ got up to preach. I wasn't too pleased with DJ putting on a "spiritual voice" as the music wound down and the congregation were swaying with their eyes closed - I think this practice is manipulative and not what God wants in his church. To be fair, though, it was not kept going for too long.

DJ is an American aged somewhere in his forties. Despite this it appears he has the respect of the mainly young congregation. He pronounces Isaiah wrongly, but all Americans do this. He was neither too American nor too "try-hard" in being an Aussie. What we saw is what we got, and that was good.

The first thing which occured was a seemingly spontaneous activity. In front of the stage there is a baptismal area, which was called "the pond". DJ asked the congregation if they'd give $5.00 for a member of the congregation - SQ - to jump in the pond fully clothed, with the proceeds going to "Camp Revolution", an upcoming youth camp that many of the congregation were going to. Hands were raised and 62 people offered $5.00 for SQ to jump in the pond which she naturally did. It appears that this event was pre-arranged since DJ mentioned that she had talked about it with him earlier. SQ was also a Church leader since DJ mentioned that she had to lock up the church when everyone had gone, which was problematic since she now had very damp clothes. I wasn't too sure if this was just some cheap extra-revenue raising event or just a bit of fun. I could see such an event happening during church service for younger people and being appropriate. I'll have to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Speaking of money, because I turned up to the service late I wasn't there for any collection - if any happened at all. Money and giving were not touched on at all during the evening as far as I can see - except the SQ wetting experience.

A quick note about the stage. All the musicians occupied the stage (Female drummer, two guitarists, bass player, keyboardist and a male vocalist who couldn't be heard at all - one of the guitarists was the "worship leader"). When DJ came to preach he took a music stand and then began to preach from the floor level rather than the stage. I don't know why this was the case. Maybe it was a communication technique designed to symbolize the preacher being equal to the congregation. Maybe it was designed to symbolize the preaching of God's word as being subservient to and less important than the music worship. Maybe DJ has a sore neck and hates looking down for long periods. It seemed strange - I'd like to know the reason.

Before he began teaching, DJ spoke about how important it is that Easter not become a "Tradition" in the church. This was something people in the congregation seemed to like. He then went on to say that Jesus being God and that he rose from the grave were not "Traditions" either. Obviously he was referring to man-made traditions as opposed to the historical Christian faith that is sometimes expressed in the word "tradition".

DJ started off by talking about the series on Colossians he had been preaching through. It was nice to know that he was preaching through Bible passages, but I would like to have heard his content in order for me to be really happy about this. Before his Sermon began, he opened up the floor for anyone who had questions about the Christian faith that had arisen as a result of the Colossians series.

It was stroke of pure luck and the infinite sovereignty of God that DJ spent most of his time clarifying the Bible's teaching on the Trinity. During this question and answer time he was assertive and informative, but not manipulative nor controlling. He has obviously done some theological training because this came through in his answers to the questions.

The first question concerned whether or not the Trinity was a biblical teaching. He summarized the Bible's teaching well and quoted verses that supported this. They were not verses picked from the air or taken out of context. This comforted me because DJ had obviously seen these verses as important for Christian Doctrine.

There was one answer that concerned me. Someone asked about whether the Trinity had some form of hierarchy, and if so did that mean that there was some inequality in the Godhead? DJ answered this by saying that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity and no inequality in the Trinity. This pricked up my ears because this issue had been raised in the latest Briefing where Robert Doyle asserted quite strongly that the economic Trinity was a reflection of the true Trinity - that of the Son being eternally submissive to the Father and the Spirit being eternally submissive to the Father and the Son, and yet this not impinging upon their equality within the Godhead, and not just the case when it comes to salvation. The idea that Christ is now sitting at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1.3) seems to indicate a permanent hierarchy as being a Biblical situation. DJ's expression of Trinitarian belief does not reflect this eternal nature of the Trinity, saying that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity. This is not to say that DJ is guilty of Arianism (which denied that Jesus was God because he was subject to the rule of the Father and therefore not equal with God) but it does suggest the possibility of Modalism - whereby the one God is represented in three different ways. This can be intimated as such when he answered a question about God the Father rejecting God the Son on the cross. He essentially stated that God could not look upon himself, then went on to say how confusing the doctrine of the Trinity was to our puny minds.

If DJ does, indeed, hold to Biblically-based Trinitarian views, then this was not fully expressed in the Q & A session. He did not talk about the distinction between the three persons of the Godhead because he spent most of his time disussing their unity and equality. It may be that DJ is a closet Modalist, but nothing he said tonight can point to this in any definite way. Until that time, I will have to give him the benefit of the doubt, although doubt still remains.

DJ answered two questions about Hell. What came through was his conviction that all those who have Jesus as their saviour are saved while those who do not have Jesus as saviour are headed to Hell. During this question time he was also asked a question about "Soul Sleep" in which he gave a thoroughly Biblical response (we go to be with Christ and experience time - not those words exactly but he explained as such) . He spoke of the general Resurrection in a way that stated that we would not receive our Resurrection bodies even when Jesus returned, but only when Satan was finally defeated. This was strong evidence of a premillennial eschatology.

He also answered a question about how we can know we are growing as Christians. I was too busy trying to grapple with his comments on the Trinity to take too much notice, but I did hear him say that it is sometimes others that notice our growth rather than ourselves. As I began to put aside questions of the Trinity I was comforted by his statements that he himself found it a difficult process and that he and Jesus had a lot of work to do. This was a comforting thing to say because it meant that he not only identified with his audience in terms of sinfulness, but he also strongly implied that the Christian life was one in which sin was always being fought against, which means that any teaching about sinless perfectionism as a result of the work of the Spirit was not present in his belief.

DJ also pointed out that Christians in heaven have some sort of difference in reward based upon their lives here on earth. This is an unpopular teaching but I think has a great deal of Biblical backing, and so I was pleased to hear it. The congregation seemed to accept it without any problems.

The result of these questions, in my mind, indicated that DJ has a higher-than-average knowledge of the scriptures and, Trinitarian and eschatalogical views notwithstanding, has a well thought out theology that can possibly be described as semi-evangelical. He is certainly no Scripture ignorant preacher who takes verses out of context.

He then launched into a sermon based on Galatians 2.20 - I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. (ESV. Not the translation he used)

He used this verse because he was concerned that we need to apply the teaching of Colossians (whatever it was) to our lives. He spoke of how important it was that we live godly lives, and that people see Jesus in us. This is important because when we live lives contrary to our faith then people are presented with a false Jesus. He then went on to discuss his high-school life in the USA where he was a teenager during the late 60s and early 70s. His parents seem to be very conservative Christians, and pretty much forced him to have a conservative hairstyle to those long haired hippies. But he was determined to go his own way and he would change his clothes and hair when he went to school. But his behaviour was such that members of his own church who he went to school with asked him not to tell people that he went to their church - so disturbed were they at his behaviour.

At this point I was in agreement with a lot of what DJ said. Now comes the concerning part. He spoke of the USA as a nation that was born out of revolution - that people died and all sorts of horrible things happened, but that was the basis of the country's existence. He then applied that to the Christian life - that the only way to change is to have continual life-changing revolutions in our lives. This means a daily revolution. He then spoke of the youth camp coming up - Camp Revolution - and then used this as an example of how important it is to prepare for this as God will revolutionize people's lives.

The idea of a second baptism in the Holy Spirit was, I think, not in view here. (In fact, for a church that has a great deal of Pentecostal influences, the Holy Spirit was not mentioned much at all!). It does, however, seem to point to a faith that can only grow and change by some form of continual re-commitment, some sort of subjective life-changing experience that has to happen often if the Christian is to grow. And this is not something that happens to just some people, it is a revolution that should be experienced by all people who call themselves Christians.

Now while I believe that God uses tense situations in a person's life to revitalize their faith, the idea that this should be expected, encouraged and experienced regularly by Christians is something that is foreign to me. I believe that God can also work slowly, and that a person's Christian life can change over a long period of time, and that "revolutions" don't necessarily need to happen often in order for people to become more Christ-like. I cannot, at this present moment, think of any Biblical support for this idea. It was a very strong emphasis in the sermon, and yet it is not present in the passage from Galatians that he preached from.

The only theory I can think of is that DJ has mistaken conversion for sanctification - that the process of conversion (often made with subjective feelings and a sense of revolution) should actually continue in the life of the Christian. That somehow the "feeling" of joy and the desire to serve God that is fresh in the experience of the new convert can only be maintained if we all continue having these fresh experiences. In this sense, we are not baptised with the Holy Spirit twice, but over and over again each time we have our own personal revolution. (Note: DJ said nothing of the Baptism of the Spirit - what I have just said is my own take on what was being taught).

DJ then went on to emphasize the idea that our godliness depends upon our choice to do it. "I choose to put off the bad things of my life. And I choose to put on the good things. The only way that Jesus can work in me is if I choose to let him" (Note: not an accurate quote). This sort of teaching strongly implies that DJ, and the church as a whole, is Arminian. While Arminian theology is not a massively huge problem by itself, this specific teaching does pose the great risk that our trust is in ourselves and our work rather than in Christ and in what Christ has done. It was at this point that I realised what was missing in the sermon - any mention of Christ and Christ's work on the cross.

DJ did not at any point explain the message of the gospel - the message of Christ crucified and risen again. He did not explain what Jesus did on the cross when he died. He did not talk about the substitutionary atonement. He did not speak about the Resurrection in the context of the forgiveness that we have gained through God's grace. To be fair, he did speak of those who trusted Jesus as their saviour having the hope of heaven while those who do not as heading to hell. He did speak quickly about how Christ takes away our sins and means God will judge us to be innocent when we face him (both this and the former statement were present in the initial question time). The final song did mention that Jesus died on the cross "for our shame". But, to be totally honest, the message of the Cross was not explicit in the sermon. Instead the focus was upon being godly, based upon what we had to do, upon the revolutionary experiences we had to undergo in order to live a life that pleased God.

I am of the firm belief that the message of the Bible is about God acting to save his people through his Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore any sermon that is based upon a verse or passage of the Bible should have this as its prime importance. I'm not saying that we ignore what the Bible specifically says in one verse and simply impose the message of the cross everytime we preach - but I am saying that any faithful Biblical expositor should bring out the direct message of the text being explained, and how that teaching fits in with the message of the gospel as a whole. If this is not done - if the text is explained without the gospel - then something is seriously wrong in the message being preached, and, to be brutally honest, the preacher himself.

By not preaching the gospel from the verse, DJ not only prevented God's power of salvation to work properly through the verse, but added to it the burden of works - of focusing upon what we have to do in order to be godly, rather than upon what God has done for us in Christ. This sort of teaching is not especially Arminian, but is common among Pentecostalism - that we somehow need a bit more of God every day in order to live the godly life. Reformed Evangelicals know that we don't need more of God - he is omnipresent so we have as much of him as He wants us to have. We don't have to focus upon our works, we focus upon the work of Christ as the basis by which our good works emanate from. We don't focus upon our own subjective experience of revolutionary faith, we focus upon the objective work of God in bring Christ to earth as the propitiation for our sins. We don't focus upon what God can't do unless we let him, we focus upon what God does despite our sin.

It is this part of DJ's teaching that has serious flaws and makes me believe that all is not well at BCC. The preaching of the gospel is so important to the life of the church and tonight that gospel was not preached. I believe that when the gospel is ignored or changed in a church, then Satan is at work. It is this area that gives me most concern.

Strongly implied in what DJ said throughout the night was the idea that when we truly hold onto our faith - when we keep going through these revolutions - then God will bless us. However, the context of this form of blessing is to be found in our lives now, and there appears to be strong evidence that such blessings will result in happiness. When DJ preached, he spoke of how "We are shining examples of what our lives are like" and that "If you want to live a full and happy life, we need to look at ourselves". The implication of this teaching is that godliness leads to happiness and some form of self-actualization whereby we lead the lives that God meant us to lead through our continual love and obedience. This, and the fact that the BCC website contains links to a number of Christian organisations that promote health, wealth and prosperity, is evidence that, not only has the church begun to ignore the importance of the gospel, they have also added to it in the form of prosperity.

So if I summarise the teaching together, it is this. We are responsible for our godliness. We have to let Jesus work in our lives, and we have to go through some form of continual revolution for this to happen. The result of this godly living is happiness and, strongly implied, self-actualization and prosperity. To be fair, DJ did not explicitly say this - he did not say that God wants you to be happy, healthy and rich - but this idea could be extrapolated through the basic parts of his teaching. Also present was the idea of changing the world - that we can change the world if this sort of thing goes on.

When DJ finished his sermon he prayed. During this prayer he called upon anyone present who needed to make some form of commitment to put their hands up. I can't remember his exact words, but I am absolutely certain that he was speaking here about Christians who needed to do it rather than anyone who was an unbeliever who wanted to become a Christian. All I can remember is that he mentioned something about Christians coming forward. Now why should they come forward? "To gain a full and abundant life" said DJ. So here was a guy asking Christians to come forward so that they can be prayed over and counselled in order to gain a full and adundant life. Now I do have problems with this as well. It seems to imply that there are two sorts of Christians - the awful, yucky ones and those who want to live a full and abundant life. And how should this happen? By coming down the front and being prayed for. In the past, altar calls were made so that unbelievers could respond, but now it appears that altar calls are necessary for Christians to participate in as well. By the way, DJ did not generalise his call - he didn't say "If you're not a Christian and want to become one; or if you're a believer who needs prayer and someone to talk to; then come down now as we sing our final song". No. The call was for Christians, and the call was for them to come and be prayed over so that they may gain a full and abundant life. Now as far as I can remember, the Bible does not speak of such things - we have every spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1.3). All Christians have the Holy Spirit, and all Christians have been blessed by God. We don't need anything else. Anything else is an addition to the gospel. Anything else that is promised is not what God is promising. Someone who says that God is promising such things is misrepresenting God.

The musicians then got up and played. Two people were prayed over. I was half expecting slayings since someone - wet SQ in a towel - stood behind one of them. Fortunately she was there only because one of those people who came forward was a young woman and after DJ stopped praying over her (he just prayed and did nothing else) SQ took her away to talk to her. No one was behind the guy - I guess DJ would speak to him after. What this implies is that women who need guidance and help and prayer and ministered to by women in the congregation, while men minister to men. This seems a very good idea, and the church should be commended if this is their policy.

The musicians ended the final song abruptly, the worship leader saying "have a good weekend" to everyone. They even finished before DJ had finished praying over the guy who had come up. I would have expected a more-drawn out musical ending with all sorts of emotional stuff going on. The fact that it ended abruptly was actually good from my point of view because it indicated that it was a church that was not fully focused upon excellence in musical worship. Either that or they had a bad night.

A comment about DJ's preaching style. I have heard Brian Houston from Hillsong both live and on TV. Houston tends to shout a lot and make all sorts of nonsensical pronouncements - which really grinds on me. DJ, however, was not that sort of preacher. He did not come across as "God's anointed leader" and that all who fail to follow him do so at their peril. He has an easy and friendly speaking style. He is not manipulative (save for that moment before his sermon began) and he comes across as honest and genuine. His willingness to answer questions for 15 minutes indicates his desire to teach via dialogue and explanation of the faith rather than things like indoctrination. He was assertive, but he was not imposing his power or will in any explicit way.

One more comment about songs. The church sang Christian songs that I had not heard before - but I am not surprised by that. All the songs seem to have the "Jesus is my boyfriend" feel to them, talking about how much we love "you", how much "you" mean to us, how loving "you" is the most important thing in our lives, about how "you" love us so much. No actual mention of Jesus or God as being "you", although the idea that "you came to die for our shame" couldn't really mean anything else.

Conclusion

After my initial examination of the November 2003 healing sermon found on their website (which was terrible and theologically dodgy), I found a church that was not as bad as I had feared, but has taken on board unbiblical teachings too easily for me to be comfortable with. I have no problem in believing that the majority of the congregation are fellow Christians and will share heaven with me. I also have no problem in believing that DJ will be in heaven with me. Additionally, I also have no problem in believing that God works at BCC, and that he works through DJ's preaching.

But as I said to someone bluntly recently, "God also worked through the Holocaust". The fact that God chooses to work in a church does not necessarily mean that God fully endorses that church. All churches are imperfect and full of hidden sins, but I do believe that there has to be a point where we say "No, this is not acceptable". BCC is an example of this.

Based upon the sermon I heard tonight from DJ, and the sermon available from their website, I still cannot, in good conscience, recommend the church as one in which Christians should go to. The reason is threefold: The lack of clear gospel in both sermons and song lyrics; the unbiblical teaching that focuses upon the need for continual recommitments and subjective "revolutions" in the Christian life in order to grow as a Christian; and the unbiblical teaching that all those who lead godly lives will receive, in this life, prosperity, happiness and self-actualization.

Fortunately, the church does not, I believe, have a preacher who is unwilling to use his mind. DJ's explanation of the Trinity to the congregation was generally good and showed his Biblical knowledge. In this area, at least, the church is reasonably orthodox. The focus upon addressing passages of the Bible in sermons is a far better situation than preaching topical or thematic sermons, although after tonight's effort I question whether DJ actually does preach from the text as it stands. Nevertheless the Bible is read and given some form of explanation. Some explanations will undoubtedly be thoroughly Biblical, so we can expect that God will work when this is done.

I believe that BCC is at a crossroads. It will either get better or it will get worse - it has the potential to do both. Unfortunately I believe it is leaning for too much towards a "worse" position than a "better" position - as I understand it the church was reasonably orthodox 5-10 years ago. If I was to put this church into a "box", I would classify it as "Semi-Pentecostal". The lack of emphasis upon the Holy Spirit, the absence of tongue-speaking and slayings in the spirit, the importance of preaching and understanding theology, all point to a church that appears to have embraced a relatively conservative form of Pentecostalism. The lack of gospel emphasis and the presence of incorrect teaching, however, precludes the church from being described as evangelical.

It is my prayer that God teaches those in the BCC leadership to understand His truth. I pray that any teachings that misrepresent God will be taken away. I pray that the subtle workings of Satan in the church will be destroyed, and that the church turns away from false teaching and embraces the true word of God. It will take a miracle for this to happen, but God has done this sort of thing before.


From the Theosalient Department



© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/
or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.
Additional copyright information from the author:
* You may remove the "Department name" from the text when copying.
* You may Americanise any minor spelling (eg Humour, Humor).

Scripture Quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, published by HarperCollins Publishers © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good news Publishers. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.