Untitled

Over the years, we’ve had quite a number of conversations with folks who seem to think that since there are so many Christian denominations and also outside groups that claim to be Christian, this may be evidence that Christianity is not true. We disagree heartily with that reasoning. Disagreement is not evidence that proves or disproves Christianity, or any other belief, is true or not.

People may frame their question something along these lines:

How is it that each of the more significant divisions of Christianity considers all the other ones so wrong on some pretty major things? How do we reconcile Christianity being the one true religion when it is so fractured on some of the fundamentals and has sometimes rather spotty consensus on the finer points? How does one or another group ever get to a point of believing that they have it right?

When we speak of other “outside groups,” that is regarding our Christian consensus: we are speaking of such groups as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies, Shincheonji Church of Jesus and many other sects who, although they call themselves Christians, deny essential doctrines of the faith, and therefore cannot rightly claim to be Christian at all. How do we decide what are the “essential doctrines of the faith?” An analogy from the world of art called “provenance” may help to explain.

Provenance is a historical record of a work of art (as well as other areas of research) pointing back to its origination in order to ensure a potential purchaser that what he or she is considering purchasing is indeed the original work and not a forgery. As Wikipedia points out:

…establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation. The term dates to the 1780s in English. Provenance is conceptually comparable to the legal term chain of custody.

The church has a historical record, a provenance, if you will, of what she has believed and taught on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, stretching from the First Century to the present day. Not surprisingly, false teachers rose up even in the First Century, and their teachings challenged essential doctrines, and false teachers have continued to do so throughout the history of the church. Jesus Himself warned His followers of false teachers and false prophets in Matthew 7:15 and following, saying these would appear “in sheep’s clothing,” pretending to be true representatives sent by God. Paul warned the Ephesian elders of the same thing in Acts 20:28-30. In fact, most of the New Testament was written in response to false teachings and false teachers who appeared early on and would continue to appear over the centuries.

One early example is the Gnostic challenge to Christian teaching on the human side of Christ’s nature. Christians believed Jesus Christ was God in human flesh. Yet, Docetism and later Gnosticism rose up and denied that the Son took on human form.  Ebionites denied the pre-existence and deity of the Son. The Apostle John took on the heretical teachings of the Docetists and Ebionites in his gospel. The church spent a great deal of time down through the centuries refuting these and similar heresies. We know that Christians believed that Jesus Christ was and is God early on because, in addition to the biblical teaching, secular sources such as Pliny the Younger confirmed this when he wrote to the Emperor Trajan around 112 A.D. He was looking to the Emperor for guidance as to how to address the “Christian problem,” and noted that:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as a god

In the Fourth Century, a new heresy developed when false teachers arose who denied the deity of Christ. The church found itself defending the essential doctrine that Jesus Christ is God, while the earlier heresy of the Gnostics was on the wain and less of a problem, as all parties agreed that Jesus had incarnated in human form. We cover this in “The History of the Trinity” part 1  and part 2.

We could trace the provenance for each of the five essentials of the historic faith – the deity and humanity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the Trinity, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (some would add the inspiration of Scripture as a sixth). As false teachers arose and denied one or the other of these essentials, the church prevailed by showing that the doctrine under attack was an essential part of the “faith once delivered to the saints,” and that any teaching opposing such an essential teaching put the proponents outside the true Christian faith.

And still today, groups which arise and deny one or more of these essential doctrines are by definition outside the authentic historic Christian faith. Jehovah’s Witnesses forthrightly deny most of the five. Mormons (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) take a different tack, denying the essential doctrines by redefining them, resulting in an implicit denial.

Some would defend these non-Christian groups by asserting that if a group claims to be Christian, it should be included in Christendom and regarded as truly Christian, but that position, of course, is anti-biblical also. Jesus told us outright that the false teachers would come in sheep’s clothing, pretending they are “sheep,” which is exactly what these non-Christian groups do today. He further said that we must judge them by their fruits, i.e., their teachings, and their heretical claims about God. We must examine them and give them a T for True or an F for False! Simply because groups arise that claim to be Christian doesn’t mean we should accept their claims.

Let’s take the issue out of the category of “Christian versus non-Christian” for a moment and insert the category of “Nike versus non-Nike.” There are plenty of shady characters who produce Nike knockoffs and sell them as TRUE Nikes. They are essentially cheap shoes dressed up in “Nike clothing.” Does the fact that there are imitators out there mean there are no authentic Nike products? Of course not. Should the pretenders (counterfeiters/frauds) be recognized and accepted as “true Nikes,” or should they be exposed as frauds and counterfeits? Like a forgery of a piece of artwork or a counterfeit Nike product, fraudulent claims by false religious groups should be publicly exposed to alert the unwary. It is far worse to inadvertently purchase a “knockoff faith” than a “knockoff Nike” because there are serious eternal consequences. That’s why Jesus, Paul, Jude, and Peter issued such dire warnings against accepting the false as true. And that is why it is so important to warn people about “false gospels” and false Christianity.

What about the divisions within the historic faith? Ah, that one perplexes many, mostly because they think of the church as an organization rather than what it is: an organism or family. In an organization, one would most likely see imposed uniformity, where all must march in lockstep or be summarily dismissed. The Church, which is the Body of Christ, is more like a family than an organization. There are essentials that make a family a family, which all family members embrace. A family also identifies and excludes those who are not truly family members. And yet we all know that family is not a uniform proposition. We are tied together by birth, adoption, or marriage; yet family members are still free to disagree on non-essentials, and we do. One brother likes a feather bed, another thinks foam mattresses are the best, while another is rolling around making waves in a waterbed. They may not like the same music at the same volume. One sister makes liver for dinner, another won’t eat it, and another won’t even look at it! So, occasionally, arguments ensue. Family relationships can be messy.

The “church family” is messy too. Just because we are family and accept each other as family doesn’t mean we have lockstep uniformity of belief, behavior, or preference. There is a certain amount of squabbling among us, and some become estranged and won’t even talk to one another. But guess what? They are squabbling brothers and sisters; they are estranged brothers; they are sisters who will not speak to one another. The true family cord is not broken and cannot be broken. What God has joined together cannot be torn asunder.

The true Church is united in the essentials of the faith, what it is that makes one a Christian. We disagree on what are sometimes very important but secondary issues, as a family might. The biblical term, Adiaphora (yes, this issue came up in the early church). Got Questions provides a meaning:

Adiaphora, in biblical terms, would be the “disputable matters” mentioned in Romans 14:1 (the ESV calls them “opinions”). We are not to quarrel over them. Some things are right, because the Bible says they are right; other things are wrong, because the Bible says they are wrong. But some things the Bible neither condemns nor approves. We often refer to these issues as “gray areas” or matters of conscience. We could also call them adiaphora. For example, the Bible clearly promotes truth-telling and condemns lying. But what about writing fiction? As long as everyone knows it’s fiction, that’s adiaphora.

We can also think of the “non-essentials” of the faith as adiaphora. Teachings on the timing of the rapture, the number of angels, or the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 are non-essential to the faith; they are adiaphora. On the other hand, doctrines such as the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the bodily resurrection are essential and non-negotiable.

We agree that “in the beginning God created” but may not agree on when or how. We don’t agree on the timing or method of baptism. We wrangle over whether the sign gifts are for today or if they ceased in the First Century. The list is long but really comes down to orthopraxy – how we practice the faith – and not orthodoxy – what the faith is.

So, yes, we do even disagree with many of the guests we have on our Unknown Webcast on any number of issues. That doesn’t mean we need to “separate” – Joy and I disagree on many things, but we are still family. She might even suggest that I have every right to be wrong. We, along with our son and our daughter, and our brothers and sisters, do not agree on everything (imagine that!) and yet we are family and will remain so. That said, it is always important to subject our personal or church-held beliefs to the scrutiny of the scriptures.

The essentials of the faith demonstrate how to identify the family called the Church, which is the Body of Christ. The differences demonstrate how we in the Church are truly human and, as such, perhaps flawed in our thinking. But this condition we find ourselves in will not last forever; for one day, perhaps soon, “we will all be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2)Ω

(Originally printed in the Winter/Spring 2013 Issue of the MCOI Journal)

Some years ago a youth pastor from a nearby community called me. He was concerned about a large group of Vampires that gathered regularly in his town’s park. He thought there were perhaps 300 and some of the churches would show up with bullhorns to announce loudly that the Vampires needed to repent. It didn’t seem to be working. I have to confess, other than in films and books I had never heard of any actual vampires roaming the countryside and thought it might be interesting to check it out. We arranged a time to meet and a few of the MCOI volunteers and we headed out on a Friday evening to meet up with the youth pastor. When we arrived, we saw several hundred youth, all engaged in something which did not seem to be overly threatening so I suggested we swim into the crowd and find someone to talk to. We even took video equipment to record some of the conversations. About a half dozen agreed to sit down and talk and the first question was quickly answered. What they were doing was a role-playing game, Vampire: The Masquerade. Each participant had developed a character to play in the acting out of the game:

The game uses the cursed and immortal vampiric condition as a backdrop to explore themes of morality, depravity, the human condition (or appreciation of the human condition in its absence), salvation, and personal horror. The gloomy and exaggerated version of the real world that the vampires inhabit, called the "World of Darkness," forms an already bleak canvas against which the stories and struggles of characters are painted. The themes that the game seeks to address include retaining the character's sense of self, humanity, and sanity, as well as simply keeping from being crushed by the grim opposition of mortal and supernatural antagonists and, more poignantly, surviving the politics, treachery, and often violent ambitions of their own kind.

This is guided by a “Storyteller.” As we talked, I asked if there was a particular worldview being used or taught and the teenagers assured me that it was just a game and no worldview was involved. I turned to the Storyteller and asked him if he was incorporating his worldview. He was 46 and without hesitation acknowledged that he was. I asked his views and he admitted he was a Buddhist. The teens were shocked. We spent a few hours talking and the next Friday the youth pastor returned and met up with the same group. Three of them accepted the Lord that night. Just spending time in their world and having a conversation on their turf so speak made a big difference. I suggested to the Senior Pastor that the church put on a cookout or dinner in a neutral setting and invite the whole group to join them. Even to let the Vampires put on a role play demonstrating how they see they church and then engage in some conversation. The pastor declined. He thought the Christians would be too offended. Somehow using bull horns to blast non-believers is okay but possibly finding out what the non-believers think of Christians might be offensive. Hmmm….

Rosaria Champagne Butterfield in her article My Train Wreck Conversion relays a similar experience she had as a “leftist lesbian professor” with a pastor and his wife, who left the comfort of their church to walk in her world a bit. It started with a kind letter he sent:

With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen. Oh, I had seen my share of Bible verses on placards at Gay Pride marches. That Christians who mocked me on Gay Pride Day were happy that I and everyone I loved were going to hell was clear as blue sky. That is not what Ken did. He did not mock. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward: Surely this will be good for my research.

Something else happened. Ken and his wife, Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We did book exchanges. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. They did not act as if such conversations were polluting them. They did not treat me like a blank slate. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. Vulnerable. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken's God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.

“I knew it was safe to be friends” is a profound statement in light of the Seeker Sensitive/Purpose Driven Church Movements of the last 30-40 years as well as the attempts of so many churches over the last nearly 200 years to try to get non-believers into the church to hear the gospel. Meeting people, whether they are “Vampires,” a “leftist lesbian professor” or just a regular non-believer comes down pretty much to the same thing. They want to feel safe. That is the work of the missionary and was very much the attitude of the First Century Church. This really comes out in 1 Corinthians 9: 19-23 (NASB):

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

The First Century Church was in the minority. They recognized they were missionaries or as Paul put it “ambassadors” (1 Cor. 5:20) What we find in these 2 passages is Paul, and by his teaching, us, going to non-believers in their settings. Building relationships for the sake of building relationships, not for the goal of adding them to your church rolls. It means spending more time learning why they believe what they believe and caring about them as a person rather than in getting them through the doors of your church building. In some ways walking in the world of non-believers is scary to believers. But then, if you want to reach the lost, that is where they will be found. It can be an adventure as well. Our friends at Haven Ministries regularly go to New Age and Psychic Fairs. Bill Honsberger from Haven and I met at the Parliament on the World’s Religions in the 1990s where we have lots of opportunities to talk with Wiccans, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. Bill spent a great deal of time and tables in the exhibition hall because the folks manning the tables “can’t go anywhere.” We spent several hours with Donald Frew, one of the P.R. guys for The Covenant of the Goddess and I spent a few hours interviewing Lady Olivia Roberts, the founder of The Fellowship of Isis. Lady Olivia was surprised that Evangelicals would come on her turf and be able to carry on a civil discussion. Donald Frew’s reaction was very enlightening. After several hours he said that if becoming a Christian is what we were he would do it in a minute, but he asserted we were an anomaly. He said that in his experience Christians (Mike Warnke, The Satan Seller) were liars (see Selling Satan: The Evangelical Media and the Mike Warnke Scandal ) and hypocrites who misrepresent the beliefs of others.

Training Christians in church to be missionaries in culture can go a long way toward overcoming these sorts of obstacles. This also has other benefits. Culture is transformed as individuals are transformed. Doesn’t it strike you that under our current church models the church is being transformed by culture rather than the other way around? Just wondering.Ω

I (Don) was interviewed last week by Daniel Silliman, senior reporter for the Roy’s Report. The title of the interview is, “Bill Gothard's legacy: How his errant teaching enabled abuse.” Silliman had just finished reading the updated version of our book on Bill Gothard, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and His Cultish Teachings. Early on in the interview, the question of whether or not Bill Gothard is a Christian came up. I pointed out that we don’t know. He may be – we don’t feel we can judge that. Some will scratch their heads on this one. There is a fairly common idea that Christians are completely identifiable by their works or behaviors, and if someone sins or behaves in ways that seem to be in conflict with the traits and characteristics the Scriptures describe, we often assume they are not believers. We may easily turn to the role “fruit inspectors” if, for example, someone does not demonstrate fully the fruit of the Spirit, which the Apostle Paul recites in Galatians 5:22-23:

...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control”

Certainly, this is descriptive of how Christians ought to behave, but are these meant to be definitive markers that identify Christians from non-Christians? If so, what do we do with those in cults and non-Christian religions like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, etc., who often seem to display what is widely seen as quite these same godly characteristics in their behavior? What is missing in this discussion? We would suggest that we are missing context.

The letter to the Galatians was written by the apostle Paul to the believers in Galatia around 49 A.D. Prior to this missive, the issue of whether or not gentile believers must be circumcised and keep other Jewish practices was in dispute, so a council had been convened in Jerusalem to address this issue. This is recorded in Acts 15. When Paul penned his letter to the Galatians, there were Jewish followers of the Messiah, apparently in the “party of the circumcision,” who had arrived and turned the gentile believers away from their clear understanding of grace and had embraced the idea of works-based sanctification. The unwitting believers there fell under the spell of legalism. The Apostle Paul asks a rhetorical question which demonstrates that he was writing to believers who had become believers solely by faith, but who had been “bewitched” into thinking they would be sanctified by legalistic living, and not grace alone.

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?  Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Galatians 3:1-3)

An important question – for that day and ours. After demonstrating the difference between grace and works, Paul turns to the issue of how we as Christians ought to behave, which should not be used as indisputable external evidence of whether someone is a Christian or not. God has certain knowledge of the state of another person’s heart, but we do not. In Galatians 5, Paul contrasts believers who walk in the Spirit with believers who walk in the flesh. If we as Christians “walk in the Spirit,” we will not gratify the desires of the flesh. If, however, one walks in the flesh, we very well may do just that…(Galatians 5:16-18). In Galatians 5:19-21, Paul lays out the works of the flesh and contrasts that with walking in the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23.

To make sure the Galatians understood the point he was making, he contrasts the desires of the flesh in 5:19-21 with the fruits of the Spirit in 5:22-24. Believers who fall or are led into legalism are perhaps even more likely to give in to the desires of the flesh. Their focus is on themselves, and they believe they can live holy lives by strictly adhering to the standards of the legalism they live under. But it doesn’t work. And can lead to a life of judging others by what our physical eyes only think we see clearly. The Galatians were believers who were too often living wretched lives. (Galatians 5:15) But according to Paul, we are to crucify “the flesh with its passions and desires,” and he follows up with:

If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)

Christians may succumb to living in the flesh, but we should choose to live by the Spirit and kick our blind holiness pride right out the door:

Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (Galatians 5:26)

About 8 years after Paul wrote to the Galatians, he visited this battle in Romans 7:14-25, which he himself struggled with.

Is Bill Gothard a believer who, like the Judaizers, did not walk in the Spirit but instead walked in the flesh, seeking to be perfected by the flesh and leading others to do the same? We have to admit that it is a possibility, and it is more probable than many Christians would care to admit.  We have examples in Scripture of people who lived desperately sinful, unrepentant lives, as in 1 Corinthians 5, where the Apostle Paul calls the church to take action on the believer who was living abominably and engaged in sin that Paul points out, not even the pagans would tolerate (1 Corinthians 5:1):

When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)

“Destruction of the flesh…” for what purpose? Paul’s reasoning is interesting and illustrative: “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” And again, if we look back two chapters to 1 Corinthians 3, Paul talks about the testing for rewards, and states that those whose works are burned up may, in the end, have nothing but their salvation. We address this in our article, “Bad Heir Day.”

We know that the God Who provides salvation to those who call on His Name also brings about sanctification. We will be made holy, but it may not come as quickly as we would like:

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:6)

Honestly, that can only be very good news for all of us!  We don’t seek to downplay sinful and evil behavior that Bill Gothard or anyone else may perpetrate. Bill Gothard and others who are unaccountable leaders, and perhaps especially celebrity Christian leaders, have wrought a tremendous amount of spiritual, emotional, and in some cases physical abuse on many and should be held to account.  As a mission, our task was and continues to be to alert and attempt to help guard the flock from those who arise from within and cause damage to others:

from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:30)

And, it should be the task of the church at large, and every one of us, to bind up the wounded sheep, care, comfort, and pray for them, and to help them focus on the One who gave them eternal life and take their main focus off the one that wreaked so much damage to their lives. As for those who have hurt others in this way, it's not too late for them to take another look at themselves as well – and shine God’s light on their thinking. All of us are works in progress as long as we live. Let us all walk in the spirit and thus deny the works of the flesh.Ω

(Although this was originally printed in the Winter/Spring 2016 Issue of the MCOI Journal. With the dawning of the Deconstructing from Christianity movement in the mid 2010s, this article was a mere precursor to what we see today!)

Though I no longer consider myself a Christian, I’m still keeping a space for God in my heart. I didn’t lose my religion. Instead, I’m creating my own. I don’t believe that we humans can live and function happily without any belief or faith in something outside of the physical world we live in.

These words from Keay Nigel near the end of his piece, “After 13 Years, I’m Leaving Christianity” on the HuffPost Religion blog, reveal an individual who is a microcosm of what I saw and heard at the 2015 Parliament of the World’s Religions (October 15-19, 2015) in Salt Lake City, UT. The Parliament is a verita­ble smorgasbord of religious and/or philosophical ideas from which you can pick and choose when building your own personal belief system! There were nearly 10,000 people at the event, and a follow-up from the Parliament indicated there were 1,800 presenters.

Oprah Winfrey’s film series Belief was previewed at the Parliament, and not surprisingly, her views mirrored the ideas and spirit of the Parliament. “Progressive Christian” author and speaker Diana Butler Bass, wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post on Oprah’s new Belief’ series. In it, she shows how dramatically the “nature of faith is shifting.” Bass wrote:

The show reveals how religion itself is shifting, how we are living through a period of intense spiritual de­mocratization. In all the world’s religions, older forms of remote and hierarchical authority - not to mention the very idea of a distant and monarch-like God - are being challenged by ordinary people as they pray, wor­ship, walk pilgrimages and seek the divine in nature and neighbor­hoods.

I have to agree we are current­ly “living through a period of in­tense spiritual democratization.” Case in point is the story of Keay, who came to believe the Church was deceptive, made false promis­es, exploited its young members to increase its size, and whose leaders were nothing more than financial scam artists. Keay, being a homo­sexual, listened to a message at his church from a former homosexual and “went forward,” with the ex­pectation of being delivered:

But after a week or so, I slipped back to feeling those sinful urges. My same-sex attraction didn’t just go away in the name of God. There ain’t no miracle.

After being disillusioned and embittered by the lack of a miracle delivery from his besetting sin, he began to see problems with other things his church was teaching:

As I grew more and more distant, I started to real­ize that many of its teachings were not quite right too. For instance, my church would teach us that all other religions are works of Satan. Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism were described as unintelligent religions, their worship of Pagan figures, animals and deities as nonsensical and laughable.

The trickle of doubt turned into a flood of disbelief after a very public scandal devel­oped at his home church, City Harvest Church:

Fast forward to 2010, I started college. That year, my church got embroiled in a mega fraud investigation looking at $50 million being misused. At first I was still supportive as I had faith in the pastors of the church. But as I did my own research, I realized that I might have been wrong … For years and years of listening to the prosperity gospel in church, I had been brainwashed into giving thousands of dollars.

Keay walked away from the faith, not because Christianity is false, but because the church he attended offered false, shallow teaching, and its leaders allegedly were exposed as frauds. The “Prosperity gospel” is false, and it has caused many people to leave their churches when the promised, “returns on their money” never rolled in. In addition, there are very good and cogent reasons to reject Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism that, sadly, he was not taught. In addition, his church was shown to be a greed-based en­terprise. So, in search of something spiritually satisfying and bigger than himself, he is “creating his own” god and religion.

From Microcosm to Parliament

We live in an age when Western culture is rapidly abandoning its Judeo/Christian roots and returning to the various Pagan religions and pantheons of first-century gods and goddesses. The Parliament embodies this shift.

So why did I and about a dozen or so other Evangelicals attend? There are several reasons actually. As apologists, we need to know what it is The Parliament is trying to accomplish. Who are they, and what are they up to? The Parliament staff with whom I interacted via email, telephone, and some limited face-to-face contacts were quite pleasant and seemed sincere. Although wary of Evangelicals, they really appear to be interested in bringing about peaceful co-existence to the various people groups on the planet we all call home. In their document Declaration Toward A Global Ethic & A Call to Our Guiding Institutions,” the section titled “Our Approach” declares:

The Parliament of the World’s Religions seeks to promote interreligious har­mony, rather than unity. The problem with seeking unity among religions is the risk of loss of the unique and precious character of each individual religious and spiritual tradition; this understanding is key to our framework.

Interreligious harmony, on the other hand, is an attainable and highly desir­able goal. Such an approach respects and is enriched by the particularities of each tradition. Moreover, within each tradition are the resources (philosophi­cal, theological and spiritual teachings and perspectives) that enable each to enter into respectful, appreciative and cooperative relationships with persons and communities of other traditions.

Certainly, we all want cordial and “respectful … relationships with persons and communities of other faith traditions.” First of all, the Bible tells us that flesh and blood-human beings-are not the true enemy (Eph. 6:12), even though it may often seem that way. Our true enemies are powerful spiritual forces that often hold human be­ings captive to do their will (2 Timothy 2:26). Our neighbors, workmates, and other friends and acquaintances may be Hindu, Muslim, atheist, Mormon, Christian, Jehovah’s Witness, as well as more exotic, in our view, religious and non-religious worldviews and practices. We want to get along with these people, practicing the all-American ideal of “live and let live.” We want the freedom to hold to our beliefs and practices without fear of reprisal, so fairness dictates that we extend the same right to those with whom we come in contact. We also want the opportunity to share and discuss our beliefs with others and to seek to understand their viewpoint as well. In short, we want to practice true tolerance.

Tolerance, as properly defined and practiced, assumes we don’t agree with others, but we are willing to “tolerate” the discomfort that disagreement engenders. Past centuries have shown compulsory conversions are an evil endeavor and forced conversions are not true conversions, in any case. And as Christians, we know it is not our job to convert anyone, but rather we simply present the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) as we have the opportunity to do so. The Holy Spirit is the One Who convicts and converts (John 16:8).

True tolerance is necessary in almost all areas of life. We all have points of disagree­ment with others that extend far beyond the religious realm. Adults are expected to deal with differences of opinion in a mature way, without bringing harm to people with whom we disagree. If promoting this sort of mature tolerance was the agenda of the Parliament, we might think what the Parliament is attempting to do is a good thing. We hear of numer­ous wars and rumors of wars all over this planet, with many of them being due to religious differences. We know the kidnapping and killing of Christians by Muslims or killing of Muslims by Hindus, etc. makes the world a very dangerous and fearful place. Many in the world are sick of wars and tumult, and they cry out for peace and safety, which explains the popularity of the Parliament and its agenda in our world today.

One particular religious tradition is not at all sick of war and tumult, however, but rather gladly embraces it and hopes to force its will over the entire world at the point of the sword. Islam’s bloody stampede continues unabated throughout much of the world, and the resulting bloodshed and chaos only make the Parliament’s solutions to conflict look like a far better alternative. Unfortunately, the tolerance promoted by the Parliament is a very dif­ferent animal from the true tolerance we just outlined. The Parliament’s tolerance is really an enforced unity based upon suppression of absolute truth. More on this later …

A Tour Thru the Spiritual Marketplace

While wandering through the modern-day Areopagus, which the Parliament called the “Exhibition Hall,” I picked up a newsletter from Spiritual Directors International (SDI). It is a group that works at practicing the spiritual disciplines of “contemplative practice” and “deep listening.” As I began looking over the lead article “Be Still: Awaken Your Heart,” I decided to check out their website, where I read the “History of Spiritual Direction:”

Throughout human history, individuals have been inspired to accompany oth­ers seeking the Mystery that many name God. Spiritual direction has emerged in many contexts using language specific to particular cultural and spiritual tradi­tions throughout history. The story of spiritual direction, expressed in the video below through music, word, and embodiment, helps seekers and spiritual com­panions appreciate the ancient tradition and emergent wisdom in spiritual direc­tion. Understanding the deep roots of sacred listening encourages the wisdom of the past to guide the emerging wisdom of tomorrow.

This religious Mysticism has already invaded the Church in recent years under the name “Contemplative Prayer.” It is, as SDI points outs “emergent wisdom in spiritual di­rection,” and so there is really little wonder why Emergents such as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and others embrace it. There seems to be something in human beings that is attracted to the Mystical, Gnostic (secret knowledge), and experiential - and away from the life of the mind. Jesus gave as the greatest commandment:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. (Matthew 22:37)

The Greatest Commandment is all-encompassing and in­cludes our emotions and affections, as well as a mind that is en­gaged in thinking about and understanding the things of God and the world around us. The mind is very important; not only does it give us understanding, but it also acts as a check on our easily deceived emotions. Good intentions guided by the instability and capriciousness of emotional experience can lead us into decep­tion, spiritual, and even physical danger. Christians are in no way immune to deception; if they think they are, they are deceived!

Ye Olde Elephant Trick

Each of the religious groups who were presenting at the Parliament were doing so to persuade (Evangelize) other at­tendees to come over to their viewpoint or, at least, to accept their worldview claims as being on an equal footing with all other worldviews represented. The overall agenda of the Par­liament was to encourage the differing groups to incorporate all other truth claims into one’s own belief system. The Jains exhibit displayed the way to do this in the timeworn story of An Elephant and the Blind Men:

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a vil­lage. One day the villagers told them, “Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.”

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, “Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” All of them went where the elephant was. Every one of them touched the elephant.

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.

“Oh, no! It is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.

“No! It is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

“It is like a big hand fan,” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and ev­ery one of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was pass­ing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.” Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is be­cause each one of you touched a different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those fea­tures what you all said.”

“Oh!” everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree to. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, “Maybe you have your reasons.” This way we don’t get in arguments. In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant to­wards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking. This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions.

On the surface, this story sounds like it ought to be right be­cause it sounds so fair. Americans love fair! Why should anyone have to be wrong? Can’t everyone be right, so no one’s feelings are hurt? In reality though, the old Elephant story is bogus.

Let’s think about it: The storyteller is sighted, so he knows what the elephant truly is and that the blind men are all incorrect­ly describing the beast. Yet he does not tell them that, essentially leaving them in the dark! All of the blind men were absolutely wrong! An elephant is not a pillar, a rope, a thick branch of a tree, a big hand fan, or a huge wall or a solid pipe. The sighted, suppos­edly “wise man” left them in their ignorance! He deceived them in order to stop the arguing. However, who was he to decide that it was in everyone’s best interest to value short-term harmony over true understanding? Now, it may not matter too much in the big scheme of things if the blind men held on to their silly ideas about elephants. Nonetheless, it really matters for all eternity that people come to know the true nature of God! People need to know the truth about God!

Belief and Hate Speech

We have already pointed out the Parliament and its adher­ents take a very dim view of anyone claiming to know abso­lute truth. Today, there is an increasingly hypersensitive reac­tion to dogmatic truth claims-to the point of defining such claims as “hate speech.” If you assert that Jesus IS the One and Only Truth, you are a “hater” and have committed a “hate crime” in the view of many.

One of the booths I visited was promoting Circle Sanctu­ary. Circle Sanctuary is a Wiccan Church that claims to be the oldest 501c3 Wiccan church in the U.S. It was founded by Selena Fox, and its headquarters are in Wisconsin. The representative said they have a 200-acre preserve and the nation’s first “green cemetery” (ecological correctness was very big at the Parliament). I asked if they allowed visitors, and with great excitement, she told me visitors are not only allowed but also welcomed! She en­thused over the many festivals and events in which visitors might like to observe or participate. I mentioned that I am an Evangeli­cal Christian and wondered if I and, perhaps, some students or friends would be welcome to visit? She was visibly repulsed at the idea and informed me “hate speech” isn’t allowed. Why did she automatically connect Evangelicals with “hate speech?” It wasn’t a very nice thing for her to say-it almost felt … well … hateful! But being a very tolerant person, I decided to let the slur pass without comment. I asked her to define hate speech-is disagreement hateful? She did acknowledge that disagreement is not necessarily hateful but asserted that Christians are always trying to evangelize people and are not honest. But, isn’t evange­lism simply an attempt to persuade another person about some­thing-in this case, their view of God? How is that different from Circle Sanctuary or other Wiccan and Pagan groups who are try­ing to persuade non-Wiccans and Pagans to embrace their views?

As we approach Independence Day, this question about this American celebration and its meaning is very important to explore. It will be puzzling to some, perhaps to many, especially since our answer to “political or religious” is “yes.” Many today are illiterate in history and somewhat at the mercy of the “spin” in many of today's narratives. So, on a bit of a lark, we posted the question, “Was the Declaration of Independence a political document, a religious document, or both?” to ChatGPT and came up with a longer version of our answer:

The best answer is both, but with an important distinction. The Declaration of Independence is first and foremost a political document. It was written to accomplish a political purpose: to announce that the thirteen colonies were dissolving their political ties with Great Britain and to explain the reasons for that decision to the world.

However, it is also a document that rests on religious and philosophical assumptions. It is not a religious document in the sense that it establishes a church, teaches doctrine, or explains how to be reconciled to God. Instead, it appeals to a broadly theistic worldview that most of the Founders believed was necessary for grounding human rights and political legitimacy.

The document begins with a simple statement:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

In an age when many, if not most, believed that kings possessed a divine right to grant or deny the liberties of their subjects, the Declaration grounded those rights elsewhere—not in government, but in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." To make sure the reader understood what they meant, the next paragraph starts:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

It is “self-evident," obvious, “that all men,” not just men in the then 13 colonies but all men (and women) everywhere, “are created equal.” The rights were “endowed,” meaning “that certain rights and qualities were inherently and naturally possessed by all people simply by being human.” Humans were “endowed” with these rights “by the Creator.” This was the ideal they were striving for. Many were Christians; some were not. Of the 56 signers, most were members of established Christian denominations such as Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Quaker, Lutheran, Baptist, and others. One signer, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was a Roman Catholic. And, even while some signers held Deist or other non-traditional religious views, to our knowledge, none were atheists or agnostics, nor did any reject religion entirely. Importantly, then, whether Christian or not, they held to the guardrails of Judeo/Christian morals and ethics. Working to cobble the nation together under these ideals proved difficult as they worked to create the Constitution for the fledgling nation. It is an important document that is often called “The Great Compromise”:

There were various issues to be discussed and debated at the Convention, each with their proponents and detractors. The inevitable conflicts that occurred between delegates over the issues of representation, slavery, the role and power of the federal government, the extent of its regulation of commerce and the composition and power of the executive

The Constitution attempted to establish a workable government, and the Declaration articulated the ideals toward which that government should aspire. They may not have perfectly achieved the ideal laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and that is perhaps a discussion for another day, but today, our question is: Was the Declaration of Independence political or religious? The answer is “YES.”  Political AND Religious!

OK, but what of the word “happiness,” repeated twice in the second paragraph? It was NOT, as many seem to believe today, selfishly about “personal pleasure or material comfort”:

The “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, referred to the right to seek a flourishing, virtuous life, not personal pleasure or material comfort. When Jefferson wrote those words in 1776, “happiness” carried a meaning closer to the ancient Greek idea of eudaimonia: living well through good character and active participation in civic life.

Now, that understanding of “happiness” makes a huge difference, doesn’t it? Individual and rather shallow “happiness” cannot be rightfully pursued at the expense of the greater good of all. John Adams presents a great example of the view of many of the signers and their tie between their faith and politics. According to the Faith of Our Fathers website:

On April 18, 1775, a British soldier ordered him, John Hancock, and others to “disperse in the name of George the Sovereign King of England.  Adams responded to him:

“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!”

After the signing of the U.S. Constitution, in an October 13, 1789 address to the military, Adams said:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, he said

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity"

This is a most important distinction between merely self-centered desires and God-centered principles. A story that has circulated for many years summarizes the sacrifices made by many of the signers. While some details are difficult to verify individually, the overall point is correct:

- Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.

- Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

- Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

- They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they?

- Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

- Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

- Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts and died in rags.

- Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

- Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of: Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

- At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

- Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

- John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

This is a sobering and solemn reminder of the servanthood and great sacrifice these men made for the benefit of many others, most of whom were not yet born.

Some of us take these liberties very much for granted, but we shouldn’t. So, take a few minutes to silently thank these patriots as you enjoy your 4th of July holiday. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid.

While America has not and could never be the perfect beacon of freedom and righteousness we may wish it were, a growing assault by Marxism, Socialism, Critical Race Theory, and a completely unwarranted and virulent anti-Semitism is now becoming evident in our nation; it seems that a very different and much darker spirit is quite prevalent today. Are we as a people focused on making sure the rights and freedoms that the Declaration reminds us are ours are being reaffirmed and passed on to future generations? Sadly, the freedoms we enjoy today are largely taken for granted by too many of us – or even misused. But that’s the thing about freedom — it can be used for good or evil, but it is well worth the risk.

The Apostles Paul and Peter spent a fair amount of time writing about freedom. In Galatians, Paul makes two statements that are attention grabbers. In Galatians 5:1 he writes:

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

The “yoke of slavery” Paul refers to is the Law of Moses. Now don’t get us wrong – “The Law” itself is righteous and perfect, but human beings are far from that and have no chance at all being made perfect by it. The more one tries, the more one falls far short of it’s attainment. For that very reason, Jesus Christ – God incarnate, born a man – lived a life in perfect obedience to that law on our behalf!

Not a single human being can live in perfect obedience to it. He then sacrificed His perfect sinless life to pay the death penalty that was due us, so we could go free. As the good book says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) His life and death secured our freedom – freedom from the Law and the sure condemnation it brings upon us. He also provided for our freedom from the bondage of sin. How should that freedom work itself out in our day-to-day life?

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal. 5:13)

There are two directions this freedom can be taken. One is harmful because it focuses on the self and takes opportunities “for the flesh.” The other direction is one that is focused on others: “but through love serve one another.” It is so freeing because it doesn’t force us to keep records – on ourselves or others – we are truly FREE to love others without keeping a score of who owes who what. We just love – and let God take care of the rest.

Now, if we, the redeemed, are focused on “the other” rather than ourselves, we will take great care not to hurt or cheat anyone. We certainly won’t commit adultery, since that would be very hurtful and damaging to others. We certainly do not murder those that we love, and we don’t steal from those we love or secretly covet their goods, because that would not be loving. Parenthood is a great example of selfless love that most of us can identify with. Do parents generally seek to harm their children or steal from them to satisfy their own desires? NO! Of course not. With some very sad exceptions, parents love their children more than themselves. Their children's needs become paramount. If we do not have children, perhaps we can recall our parents' self-sacrifice for our benefit.

If the way of love is genuinely followed, it negates the need to be under the law to achieve sanctification. Love easily DOES what law cannot do.

Peter says of freedom:

Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil but use it as bondslaves of God. (1 Peter 2:16)

As true servants of God, we seek to love and serve others, and we use our freedom to achieve this. We are free not to worry about “what’s in it for me?” We follow the loving example of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave everything for those He loves. As it says in Matthew 20:28:

...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

We don’t really need to have great head-bursting debates with ourselves or others about rights and freedoms vs license. It’s not that hard to pin down. If we want to know if we are exercising true Christian freedom, there is a self-check we can perform, right in the privacy of our own homes and hearts. It involves, of course, the love factor. Now we all know that Christians are not perfect, but we should be able to honestly assess the predominant direction of the path we are on. If it’s all me, my, mine, that’s not really a good sign. If we are seeking to live our lives for the good of others, out of a motive of love, that’s Christian freedom. And not to despair – if our honest assessment finds us lacking in love, we can ask God to increase our love for Him and others. As we love and serve one another, we use our freedom for good. And that makes for a very happy ending…Ω

Love to all,

Recently, a comment on Facebook by “TheKing Childof” caught my attention with a post titled, “TheKing Childof - The 144,000 This 👇 is my understanding too.... | Facebook.” It began with a statement and a question:

I am one of the 144,000, I have been shown that repeatedly and been given a dream confirmation about it.

I'm curious who else has had it revealed to them that they are part of this group as well?

Not to discourage this individual, although someone should be kind enough to do so, we, as well as many reading this, are aware that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) has taught that the 144,000, found in the Book of Revelation, are a particular special group of Jehovah’s Witnesses ONLY, whom they refer to as the “Anointed Class.” They are the only ones to whom (In Watchtower teaching) the Bible was written and with whom Jehovah communicates to provide the spiritual teaching and guidance to the somewhat lesser “earthbound only” folks of that organization, who pass on said divine wisdom, mainly teaching “the even littler people” (known as the other sheep) purportedly clever ways to categorically deny, without hint of embarrassment, and cover up the mess for “well known to everybody” past teachings which are declared to have certainly never ever been taught, or that cannot be proved in any case, and such and such false prophecies that were possibly ever even hinted at – or maybe strongly hinted but never said outright – or said outright but can be jiggered well enough for denial, providing perhaps believable (to some people) coverups of the false prophecies and/or even merely the constant changes in essential doctrines – of the recent and/or perhaps distant past. These stalwart and most necessary fixers of WRONGO WTBTS history bravely pass on the purported remedies for past errors in doctrine which their very own highly exalted “144,000 class” elders taught the little people of former days under real angelic instruction. In any case, however, the 144,000 are the only humans who go to heaven; the rest live forever on Earth and clean up the mess left behind after Armageddon. Oh, and you need to know that the future of those lessor forever “Earth only” dwellers of the rank and file JWs is dependent not on how they act towards Jehovah but on how they treat this favored body (the 144,000), which to the “earthly class” makes sense:

Your attitude toward the wheatlike anointed “brothers” of Christ and the treatment you accord them will be the determining factor as to whether you go into “everlasting cutting off” or “everlasting life.” (Matt. 25:34-46) Prove yourself to be a loyal companion of the anointed “wheat” class, the “faithful and discreet slave,” whom Christ has appointed to provide “spiritual food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45)

We think it likely that perhaps some of the fully recognized 144,000 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses may have lost their seat at some point, so there might always be a few living of the 144,000 who could still hope to attain a seat in that worthy group somehow, but we digress.

At any rate, there is no indication that “TheKing Childof” is or has been one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and although the WBTBS are perhaps the most widely known group to apply Revelation chapter seven to their group, they are not the only ones to claim the title. Many may be surprised that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) applies Revelation 7 to certain individuals within its membership. According to their work, Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord explained that the sealing of the 144,000 in Revelation 7 is a key event in the final days:

And the sealing of the one hundred and forty-four thousand, out of all the tribes of Israel—twelve thousand out of every tribe—shall be done. (D&C 77:11)

Bryce Dunford is LDS and hosts the Talking Scripture podcast. On his website, he explains who this applies to, in LDS thinking:

We are to understand that those who are sealed are high priests, ordained unto the holy order of God, to administer the everlasting gospel; for they are they who are ordained out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, by the angels to whom is given power over the nations of the earth, to bring as many as will come to the church of the Firstborn.

He continues by quoting from Bruce R. McConkie’s Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Deseret Book, 2002, 3:492:

Bruce R. McConkie stated:

John here sees 144,000 of these kings and priests, 12,000 from each tribe, converted, baptized, endowed, married for eternity, and finally sealed up unto eternal life, having their calling and election made sure.

Now, lesser folks might just ignorantly suppose that these 144,000 Jewish persons are Jews and not LDS, but perhaps it might be best to stop thinking deeply about it and defer to people who are sure they know best. Just the same, we are sticking with the biblical text.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a group emerged from Eastern Orthodoxy, led by Kondraty Selivanov, and was known as the Skoptsy. Their end-times speculation was a draw, and they were growing. The numbers were estimated to be perhaps a million followers:

They were fervent proselytizers, reportedly coercing children and prisoners to join them in order for their ranks to reach the magic number of 144,000 — at which point Jesus Christ would return.

There was a bit of a price to pay, though, to be one of the 144,000 that were sealed:

In a ritual ceremony reportedly called “the seal,” men and women removed parts of their sexual organs to seal their faith in God and live in true imitation of Christ on the cross.

They called the process of sealing “fiery baptisms”:

These dismemberments were called “fiery baptisms,” perhaps because they were often performed with red-hot iron rods.

Another claimant to be the 144,000 of Revelation 7 is the late Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his group, the Unification Church. According to Moon’s Divine Principle, Christ needed to find 144,000 for a particular purpose:

In order for Christ at the Second Advent to complete the providence of restoration, he must find a certain number of people who can restore through indemnity the missions of all the past saints who, despite their best efforts to do God’s Will, fell prey to Satan when they failed in their responsibilities. He must find these people during his lifetime and lay the foundation of victory over Satan’s world. The total number of saints whom Christ at the Second Advent must find to accomplish this task is 144,000.

The line of claimants to be this group includes, perhaps unexpectedly, Islam. The number of the “Companions of Muhammad,” the Sahabah, was supposedly 144,000. Of course, there are others but they all seem to have a few things in common. They have little (OK, nothing) to do with the text of Scripture. “TheKing Childof” claims to have had confirmation of their membership in the 144,000 via dreams. The Jehovah’s Witnesses received their understanding from the leadership in Brooklyn who claimed the anointed class of 144,000 received it directly from Jehovah. The LDS, well, they too received it from God, and so it goes.

An important element in understanding Scripture is reading it in its historical-grammatical context.  The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states:

Article XVIII. WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

There are various genres of literature in the Bible. The law (the writings of Moses) includes history, narrative, and genealogy. The prophets are made up of history, narrative, and prophecy. There is wisdom literature and poetry. There are letters which make up most of the New Testament, and apocryphal (the book of Revelation). The Complete Guide to Biblical Genres can be helpful.

The writer's intent and the genre should guide understanding of what they are communicating. They were writing to and often about a particular people at a particular time. The same is true with the Book of Revelation. It does have symbolism and metaphor, but the writer and the reader have a framework that informs their understanding of what was written. The work is very Jewish and is often the case in the Apostle John’s works; much of it points back to the Old Testament. The Book of Revelation is sort of a Reader’s Digest version of the Old Testament. For example, the beast with seven heads and ten horns in Revelation 13:1 and Revelation 17:3–18 point the reader back to the book of Daniel. The fourth beast in Daniel 7 “had ten horns” (Dan. 7:7, 20) and a blasphemous little horn arising from among them. The readers at the time would have understood what the writer was conveying.

Reading Revelation 7 and 14 in their context tells us who the 144,000 are. In Revelation 7:3-4, John describes what he saw:

“Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.” And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel

That seems clear enough. They will be sealed (a sign of God’s ownership) on their foreheads; there were 144,000, and they were from the twelve tribes of “the sons of Israel.” They were Jews whose forefather had been instructed to wear tefillin, a small square box containing four separate scrolls in compartments worn on the forehead, to remind them of the Law and their Covenantal relationship to YHWH. The seal on the 144,000 is permanent and provides protection for those who belong to Him.

There is another group in Revelation chapter 7 that is not Jewish, the great crowd or the great multitude:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Revelation 7:9-10)

We have more information in Revelation 14. The Lamb (Jesus) is standing on Mount Zion (Revelation 14:1) with the 144,000, and they were all males and virgins.

It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. (Revelation 14:4)

Sexual immorality includes same-gender sexual relations in Leviticus 18 and 20, so the readers at that time would have understood John was talking about single males in the group of 144,000.

Now, while it may be amusing to look for interpretations and confirmations of those interpretations in dreams, messages allegedly from God to the group leaders, who then relay the content of the secret memos, or through other means. But if they do not align with the inspired inerrant word of God in their historical-grammatical context, they are not to be trusted. Paul addressed these practices to the Colossians. Don’t be deceived, friends. Run from deception…

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, (Colossians 2:18)Ω

Two Paths - Choose Wisely

There is often a conflation of mysticism with Christianity and with the Bible, so that many believe that Christianity is mystical, or that the Bible speaks of mystical events. Is this the case? And what is mysticism anyway?

The reason this question is important is due to the surge of Contemplative Spirituality in the church over the last two decades, especially the last several years. The essence of Contemplative Spirituality is mysticism. With that in mind, I will be treating the terms Contemplatives and mystics as meaning the same thing since Contemplative Spirituality is derived from mysticism.

Defining Mysticism

It helps to first define what mysticism is, or at least get a sense of it, since there are many definitions. First of all, mysticism is not the same as mystery or mysterious. A mystery is something one has not yet figured out, but it contains knowable facts, whether one ever learns what they are or not. Mysticism is not about knowledge or facts; it is primarily about inner experiences as well as sensory experiences arising from that, usually spiritual in nature (it should be noted that there are views that there is a non-spiritual or Secular Mysticism which, obviously, is naturalist or secular in nature, but the discussion in this article specifically addresses what is called Christian mysticism).

Mysticism has been defined as an unmediated contact with the Divine (or whatever the sacred source or being might be called). It is primarily experiential, and the methods taught to achieve this involve going inward and/or seeking contact with transcendent beings or powers.

As one source describes mysticism:

- “the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)   - a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power. - belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are directly accessible by subjective experience.

Note the words “subjective and “ineffable” in these definitions. These are keys to understanding the Contemplative mindset, which is that knowing God must be experiential to be authentic or “deep;” and that silence is superior to words.

Components of Mysticism

- It Is Subjective

The components of mysticism include experiences of subjective knowledge and ineffable knowledge. Subjective knowledge is knowing something merely through an inner experience, and ineffable knowledge is knowing something that cannot be communicated in words or by ordinary means.

The subjective knowledge gained through mysticism is not from information perceived by the senses, the intellect, through reasoning, or via normal introspection. Such knowledge is not teachable nor verifiable, so its assertions cannot be evaluated by objective truth. This seemingly protects mystical teachings from criticism, since the defense is that one must have the experiences to truly understand them.

- It Is Ineffable

Additionally, this mystical knowledge or experience is viewed as superior to knowledge based on facts, tested principles, reasoning, logic, and superior to anything that can be articulated. Words are deemed inadequate to express the experience or knowledge and are negatively linked to the mind or intellect and viewed as inferior to what mystics call the “heart” or “inner being.”

This stance rejects reasoning or logic as shallow or incapable of comprehending the Contemplative experience, likely because such reasoning and logic would expose the fallacies. So, in these cases, experience is appealed to by Christian Contemplatives, not Scripture.

However, the idea of ineffability is self-refuting since words must be used to convey the idea that something is ineffable. Mystics as well neglect that in the Bible, the word translated as “heart” means the whole self – mind, will, spirit, and emotions. Also seemingly overlooked is the fact that God’s revelation, the sixty-six books of the canon, are in words

- It Is Esoteric

Mysticism is by nature esoteric. That is, it is secretive and cannot be communicated through the mind or words, but must be sought inwardly, usually through certain practices. As this ostensibly Christian article, which supports such ideas, “Spirituality and Esotericism: Two Sacred Currents of the Soul,” states:

“Esotericism, by contrast, offers a more structured and selective path. It involves the study of mystical texts, sacred correspondences, ritual practice, and symbolic systems. The seeker often progresses through initiatory grades, each unveiling deeper layers of insight. Esotericism asks, ‘What is the hidden order behind the visible world? And how can I align with it?’”

The above quote describes the view about the “truths” allegedly hidden behind the visible world that this writer I held for many years while in the New Age. So, I am quite familiar with this thinking. What is perceived with the mind and senses is either false or insufficient. This includes knowledge about God from Scripture, which is deemed to be “putting God in a box.”

So, we see that mysticism is subjective, ineffable, and esoteric. All of these properties can be found in Contemplative Spirituality.

Where in the Church Do We See Mysticism?

Contemplative Spirituality enters churches via programs using terms such as Spiritual Formation, the Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Practices, Spiritual Direction, and the Rule of Life, and is bringing mysticism into the churches.

The terms listed in the paragraph above come from Roman Catholicism and, in some cases, from Eastern Orthodox monasticism. Their practices are not found in Scripture; however, advocates of Contemplative Spirituality will attempt to use the Bible to give credibility to these practices.

Spiritual Disciplines

These include several practices such as Contemplative Prayer, Lectio Divina, Lectio Visio, Imaginary Prayer, the Examen or Ignatian Spirituality, the rule of life, and the practices of silence and solitude.

Some of the terms are listed and explained briefly below; please see the embedded articles for more information. You will see in these practices one or more of the three components of mysticism discussed above: subjective, ineffable, and esoteric.

Contemplative Prayer

Contemplating Contemplative Prayer: Is It Really Prayer?: This is not prayer as modeled in Scripture but rather a technique that involves certain breathing practices and/or repetition of words that create a state of non-thinking. It is also called “meditation,” but it is not biblical meditation, which means to ponder and reflect on God’s word, using the mind. The advocates of this prayer teach that in this state, you can feel closer to God and perhaps hear God. Hearing God does not necessarily mean hearing an audible voice (for some, it does) but rather that God will speak in a “still small voice” in your inner being.

Lectio Divina and Other Practices

Lectio Divina: Sacred Reading or Sabotage? This is a term for “divine reading” that may have started with the Desert Fathers but was later taught in the 6th-century monastic movement by Benedict of Nursia. A passage is read over and over without considering the context or meaning. The reader is to notice a word or phrase that stands out and then meditate on that word or phrase. This is not reading the text for meaning but rather is seeking a private message through a pagan method, as though the Bible is an esoteric book with subjective meanings.

Imaginary Prayer: This involves using the imagination while reading the Bible or praying. There is nothing wrong with the right use of imagination but using it to visualize Jesus saying or doing something not in Scripture is a false vision. Visualization is the occult practice of visualizing something in order to make it true or make it happen. When we have God’s word supplying the information on what Jesus did and said, there is no need to imagine anything. This practice will only conjure up a fake Jesus who is not real and cannot help anyone.

Practices of Silence and Solitude: These practices are often given together. Nothing in Scripture teaches that one needs to purposefully be silent or alone in order to “feel” God, hear from God, or to know God, as asserted by the Contemplative teachers. I have looked up every passage cited by Contemplatives to support these practices, and they are all taken out of context, misinterpreted, or applied incorrectly. Aside from the links given, see more explanation of this in the article on Ruth Haley Barton’s books, Invitation to Silence and Solitude and Sacred Rhythms.

The practices of silence and solitude are not about what is often called “quiet time” when one is having time alone to read the Bible or pray. These practices involve cultivating a state of silence, sometimes using certain techniques to quiet the mind, which can induce self-hypnosis. It is taught that one must be still and silent in order to commune with God more intimately, to perhaps “hear” God, to know God more deeply, and/or to experience his love.

None of the practices discussed above is modeled or taught in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, they do not reflect the Bible’s teachings on prayer, and that one knows God through Christ and is transformed by the Holy Spirit.

Bible Passages Misused

Passages from Scripture used to promote these practices are misused. Some commonly used include Psalm 46:10, First Kings 19:12, and Habakkuk 2:20.

The “Be still and know that I am God” in the King James version of Psalm 46:10 is rendered “Cease striving” in the New American Standard. But whatever translation is used, the context makes it clear that it is not about being physically still nor silent, nor is it about prayer or meditation. It is God reminding people that He is God and that they need to look to Him. Reading the whole Psalm demonstrates that verse 10 cannot legitimately be used to support Contemplative practices.

Researching verse 12 of First Kings 19, about Elijah hearing a “still, small voice,” reveals that the translation of the Hebrew words in that verse is uncertain. The phrase has been rendered “a low whisper,” “soft voice,” “a gentle blowing,” “soft breath,” “sheer silence,” and “there was a sound. Thin. Quiet.” This happens after the noise of the wind, earthquake, and fire, showing a contrast in how God deals with Elijah compared with Moses’ experience on the mountain (it is the same location). Moreover, God then speaks to Elijah in words.

The point is the contrast between the loud noises Elijah first hears versus the soft sound. Also, this is narrative about one of God’s prophets and not taught to be expected outside of that situation. Nothing in the passage or elsewhere in Scripture teaches that one is to expect to hear a “still, small voice” from God, yet this teaching is ubiquitous in Contemplative teachings.

Studying the context of Habakkuk 2:20 (“The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him”) shows it is a harsh rebuke from God to his people for worshiping idols. God calls the idols “speechless,” “mute,” and “with no breath” in them. The lesson is clear: his people need to be silent before God like the idols because they have no defense in the worship of these false gods. This passage is part of a larger context foretelling God’s judgment of his people’s idolatry and disobedience through the Babylonian captivity. The irony that reveals the foolishness of worshiping false gods is sadly lost on Contemplatives who prefer to take the verse totally out of context and wrongly apply it to mystical states.

Mysticism Undermines the Bible

Not only are Bible passages misused, but God’s word is often put down by Contemplatives. Ruth Haley Barton, one of the leading Contemplative authors and teachers, disparages regular Bible reading and study as an information-gathering mindset that is analytical and may make us critical and even judgmental. Barton is only one of many who do this.

Summit Ministries, which has several online articles encouraging these mystical practices, casts Lectio Divina as a way to “enter” and “encounter” the biblical text versus “studying” or “analyzing” it. This pits an experience against Bible reading and study and presents it as superior.

Wordless prayer is also encouraged by mystics (this means non-verbal) and is presented as superior to verbal prayers, even though no such example can be found in Scripture. Contemplatives teach that one is closer to God by being in a state of wordless non-thinking. This idea is found in Hindu and Buddhist beliefs, which see the mind as a barrier to spiritual progress.

Contemplative Teachers

Monks Thomas Keating (d. 2018) and Basil Pennington (d. 2005), who started the Centering Prayer movement around 1975, taught that if you think of God when you pray, you cannot really be with God because your thought of God gets in the way. This is a Hindu and Buddhist idea, both of which influenced Keating and Pennington. Keating, Pennington, and the third monk involved in this movement, William Meninger (d. 2021), influenced Contemplative teachers in the evangelical world.

Other Contemplatives who have influence the church are Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, Peter Scazzero, John Mark Comer, Tyler Staton, and the aforementioned Ruth Haley Barton. There are many more.

The Appeal and Why It’s Wrong

Contemplative Spirituality addresses a need in the church that has arisen primarily because many churches have rejected the authority of Scripture and introduced worldly ideas. In other words, the lack of sound biblical teaching has left a void, and Contemplative Spirituality is filling that void. It seems spiritual and biblical and offers experiences.

The mystics of this movement teach that reading and studying the Bible the ordinary way and praying normally, as demonstrated in Scripture, while good, are not enough to know God “deeply” and “intimately.” Those who have been in bad churches, have not studied Scripture or not studied it correctly, and those who may wrongly feel they are missing out on something, are drawn to the idea of having “deeper” experiences with God.

A false dichotomy between head (or mind) and heart is made by the mystics. Bible study is often presented as “dry” versus the “deeper” journey one can have through Contemplative practices. In actuality, the word translated as “heart” in the Bible that mystics often appeal to means the whole person – mind, will, and soul/spirit.

Studying Scripture uses the mind, but the whole self is impacted by God’s word since it is God-breathed. So, one’s will and spirit are affected. The Holy Spirit transforms Christians through God’s word and prayer, so the whole self is involved when one prays or reads the Bible.

Telling people that they need something beyond God’s word and prayer to really know God undermines the sufficiency of Christ and Scripture. God’s word, prayer, and being in Christ are sufficient for knowing God because these are the means God has given by which to know him. To say more is needed goes against that. This fact, along with the fact that Contemplative teachers consistently misuse Scripture, indicates that these teachings are not from God.

Biblical Response

Mysticism and its esoteric spirituality are by nature contrary to God and His revelation. God’s word is offered to all and is meant to be read in a normal fashion (not looking for codes or hidden messages) and reflects God’s character. God, as revealed in Scripture, does not hide behind enigmas, nor is he a cipher challenging us to unlock secret codes that lead to him.

Furthermore, God certainly knows man’s limitations, but, being God, he is more than able to communicate what he wants humans to know. Jesus continually quoted to and referred to the Old Testament scriptures, and stated in his priestly prayer, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17). God has given his written word so that we can know who he is and understand how to live the Christian life (2 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 4:23-24, 15:4; 2 Peter 1:20-21). 

Christians are told to “test all things” (1 Thess. 5:21) and are warned throughout the New Testament of false teachings. One must test teachings in the light of God’s word; God has commanded this (Is. 8:20; Gal. 1:8-9; 1 John 4:1, Acts 17:11, 2 John 1:7-10).

Each person must decide whether to follow the biblical path or the mystical one; they are not, and cannot be, the same path.Ω

This is the second article in a multipart series (see part 1 here) on Matt Smallbone, who is the pastor of Church Of The City (COTC) in downtown Nashville and cousin to Joel Smallbone of the band for KING & COUNTRY. This article will continue to discuss my concerns with Smallbone’s panentheism (God in all and all in God) and his embrace of spiritual formation. In my final article, I will discuss how these false ideas have contributed to the infiltration of Marxist ideas into the church.   

The Prayer Experiment Continued

In April of this year, Smallbone released his first book, The Prayer Experiment: How Praying Like Jesus Realigns Everything - Our Thoughts, Our Hearts, and Our Posture Toward God and the World, which he dedicates to many people, including the Catholic mystic Brother Lawrence, and the spiritual formation guru John Mark Comer. The Prayer Experiment is “written in a tone that blends the insights of Dallas Willard with the modern sensibility of John Mark Comer”, and the book encourages us to pray the Lord's Prayer every day for an entire year. It explores how a consistent rhythm of praying the Lord’s Prayer can transform a person's life by overcoming the feeling that prayer is just a dry, duty-based ritual. However, the kind of prayer life that Smallbone is promoting here sounds more gnostic at times than Biblical.

Spiritual Formation De-reforms the Reformation

As I discussed in part 1, within The Prayer Experiment, Smallbone promotes the panentheistic practice of spiritual formation. Spiritual Formation de-reforms the Reformation by rejecting Sola Scriptura and giving the same level of authority to subjective experiences when the Bible alone should be our only source of truth.

One of my biggest issues with spiritual formation, and thus with Smallbone’s promotion of it, is that it misinterprets what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:18. When Paul says that we should behold the glory of God, this is not done by sitting in some mystical experience, but by reading His Word. How can you get to know God and fully understand His glory if you don’t study His Word? If you don’t know all that He has done to glorify Himself?

If you look at the Catholic Church, from which contemplative spirituality comes, most Catholics don’t know scripture, but tend to rely on the homilies (a short sermon that is delivered as part of the Mass). The Catholic Church puts church tradition, the magisterium, and mysticism above an expository understanding of scripture. Even the Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft admits that over three-quarters of “educated” Catholic college students, who have gone through twelve years of catechism classes, don’t know the basics of how to get to heaven.

This explains why the Catholic Church is infested with Liberation Theology and other forms of Marxism. The Catholic Church, especially in third-world countries, conflates the social gospel with Christ’s gospel. The average Catholic in these countries does not understand scripture; therefore, they have no way to know that the ideas being taught are not of God, but of man. Interestingly, my friend, who says she is a Democratic Socialist and a Christian, was raised Catholic and loves Spiritual Formation.

I believe we are seeing more and more Evangelicals turn to socialism and antisemitism because we are Catholicizing our churches. I’m not saying all Catholics are Marxists or antisemites. I have a ton of Catholic friends and family who are staunch conservatives and huge supporters of Israel. But this is in spite of Catholic teachings, not because of them. The Catholic Church is the original source of Replacement Theology and Marxism within the Western Church. And when you put scripture on the back burner in favor of mysticism, all this will do is perpetuate a lack of discernment in the church.

If we want to behold God, then we need to get to know Him on a personal level. I think most Catholics don’t know Him at all because they don’t know His Word. I have to wonder if Catholic Mysticism, and Catholicism in general, should be regarded as the kind of false teaching Paul warns us about in Acts 20:28-31. The Holy Spirit is our ultimate teacher, not man, and certainly not some experience where we empty our mind waiting for God to speak to us (Mark 7:13, 12:30; Rom 12:2; Col 2:8). While we are no longer subject to the law, we are called to meditate upon it so that we can become sanctified (Psalm 1:2). Furthermore, 1 John 2:3-6 says,

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever follows His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says that he remains in Him ought, himself also, to walk just as He walked.

When I ask my Democratic Socialist friend about her position regarding abortion, LGBTQ+ issues, and Israel, she avoids the subject and does not answer my questions. However, she says she’s a fan of the Democratic Socialist and Islamist Zohran Mamdani, the current mayor of New York City, which is all I need to know. I am gravely concerned that Smallbone spends more time teaching about loving your neighbor without explaining that we can’t even know what love is without the Word of God.

A Downplay of Scripture

Based upon my friend’s values, I am concerned that Smallbone may not be teaching 1 John 2:3-6. As I discussed in part one of this series, Smallbone’s The Prayer Experiment is very weak on sin. And when you downplay the value of scripture as Smallbone’s hero, John Mark Comer, does in his book, Practicing the Way, you have no reference as to what love is. Comer states,

. . . if you had to summarize Christlike character in one word, there would be no competition: love.

Love is the acid test of spiritual formation.

The single most important question is, are we becoming more loving? Not, are we becoming more biblically educated? Or practicing more spiritual disciplines? Or more involved in church? Those are all good things, but not the most important thing. If you want to chart your progress on the spirituality journey, test the quality of your closest relationships.

Smallbone echoes Comer by saying,

. . . honestly, some of the crankiest Christians you’ll ever meet are people who’ve done plenty of singing and sermon-listening and maybe even some volunteering—but very little being held by Jesus. To remain is to rest in his nearness. It’s to remember that our Father in heaven is not far beyond the clouds but as close as the air that swirls around us.

This statement by Smallbone is just not true. I can personally testify to the fact that my struggles with anxiety and high-strung behavior did not go away until I learned how to study God’s Word inductively. I would try to believe that God was in control when my life felt like it was spinning out of control, but sometimes rest would actually make my anxiety worse. I didn’t understand why until I fully understood what Paul meant in his second letter to Timothy, which states,

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

We are filled with the Holy Spirit by yielding our will to His in obedience to scripture (Eph 5:18, Acts 5:32, Gal 5:16). But if we don’t know or understand scripture, we can never be fully sanctified, and without His guidance, we certainly can never understand why things happen as they do. Immersing yourself in Scripture is the most effective way to transform your heart, as God's Word cultivates the patience, kindness, and compassion needed to love others genuinely. Scripture engagement consistently shows that people who spend time in the Bible naturally demonstrate more loving behavior toward those around them.

How can you possibly understand the love of God if being Biblically minded is not at the forefront of your life? The Bible defines what true, unconditional love looks like. By reading about the life and teachings of Jesus, you learn how to put others' needs before your own and extend grace to those around you. Galatians 5:22-23 outlines the "fruit of the Spirit," which begins with love, joy, and peace. Spending time in the Word allows the Holy Spirit to cultivate these exact traits within your character. Scripture provides practical, daily instructions for handling conflict, forgiving, and being kind in every situation you face.

My next article will discuss my concerns with Smallbone’s third-wayism and post-millennial eschatology.Ω

Stephanie Potts is the author of, Social Justice and the Deification of Man: What to Know When Talking with the Christian Left. She and her husband, Jim live in Dayton, Ohio, and have been married for 24 years. She worked with the federal government for 15 years as an intelligence analyst and then entered full-time Christian service in 2015. She first joined Haven Ministries in Denver, Colorado, in 2015 and then transferred to Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc in 2021. She earned her Bachelor's degree in Political Science and International Relations from Florida State University and her Master's degree in Geographic Information Systems from Penn State University. She is currently pursuing her master's degree in Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary. She has special interests in indigenous religions – especially Native American spirituality – and in responding to Catholicism and the social justice movement. Stephanie’s personal website: rainbowapologetics.com

Heart of Light Fellowship Church – Ogembo, Kenya

Many of our readers are aware that a little over two years ago, we began teaching at a church in Kenya. The opportunity surprised us. It started with a message from a pastor with a simple request on our MCOI Facebook page: “Can you teach my people the Bible?” Like many ministries and churches, we receive multiple requests from individuals in various African nations, asking us to send money. We have no resources to verify whether the person asking us to fund their orphanage, make them an extension of our ministry, or make some other request is legitimate, and we are a fairly underfunded mission ourselves. This request was different. It was a request for time, attention, and teaching. As I interacted with the young pastor, Pastor Danson, I learned that his father had founded the church, and he had passed away. The church leadership fell to Pastor Danson, and he did not feel equipped. We began meeting online on Saturdays 2-3 times a month. That was about 2 years ago. As we progressed, we discovered they only had one Bible in a church of 70. With the help of our supporters, we provided Bibles in their language. Our time of teaching and mentoring was helpful, but they needed more in-depth, concentrated access to sound biblical training. We connected Pastor Danson and the church to a Bible Training website, which was started and is run by Dr. Bill Mounce. The Bible Training site has courses, taught by solid scholars like Darrell Bock, the late Dr. Ronald Nash, and others.  The non-certification courses are lay-friendly and free, largely because Dr. Mounce designed this to help churches just like this one in Kenya. The elders in Pastor Danson’s church are taking the courses, and a small group study is using the material. But in the process, many in the church are beginning to raise questions about things their church leadership likely assumed they already understood. After all, they believed in Jesus and that He is their savior. The pastor emailed us a list of their questions on Monday morning. Some of their questions are:

- Is Jesus God? Why should I believe that Jesus is God? - Did Jesus say He is God? - Who is the God son? - What did Jesus say about his position in relation to God? - Many people view the cross as a symbol of Christianity. Should we use it in worship? - Is belief in Jesus enough for salvation? - What actions can we take to overcome the separation mentioned in Isaiah 59:2?

These are seven out of the first nineteen. Many will look at this and wonder, “Why don’t they know? This is basic stuff.” And, so it is, but the church in Kenya is suffering the same malady that many churches in the West also suffer. It is the malady of “Assumption.” It is mistakenly assumed that those attending any particular church fully understand what it means to believe that Jesus is God. It is an easy assumption to make, when said doctrines are frequently touched on, that everyone hearing the words can, to some degree, explain these teachings to someone else. However, just hearing the name of an important doctrine, spoken from the pulpit or in a class, does not at all mean it is fully understood, or that the hearer could explain it to a third party.  Church leadership probably assumes the congregation knows and are likely able to articulate the concept to someone who needs to understand it. We discovered this decades ago when I (Don) was speaking at a church in Florida. Joy was sitting near the back, and a church elder and his wife were in the row in front of her. I was speaking on the Jehovah’s Witnesses' teaching that Jesus is a created being and not God. As I began to teach the biblical view, the elder looked at his wife and said, “Jesus never claimed to be God.” On another occasion, Joy was talking with a friend from our home church who had grown up there. She was interested in why we would reach out to JWs, and as Joy explained some of their beliefs, she asked, “How can they believe such silly stuff?” Rather than attempt to answer directly, Joy asked a question. “Do you believe Jesus is God?” She said she did, of course, and Joy asked, “Why do you believe it – and can you competently show that to others if the need arose?” Though a strong Christian believer, she found she couldn’t adequately respond.

About thirty years ago, I (Don) was asked to handle Dr. Norman Geisler’s book table at an event where he was speaking. The new book on his table was The Battle for the Resurrection, written in response to a professor's teaching of a non-physical resurrection at a very popular evangelical seminary. As I was at the table, quite a few of the pastors who came by looked at the book and asked, “How do we know the resurrection was physical?” My snarky reply was, “Have you read the Bible?” I don’t think it was so much that these men doubted He was raised; they just didn’t understand why that fact was so important. Jesus was raised physically –rather than in some sort of non-physical, non-tangible body. Christians, IF Jesus was not raised physically, He is still in that grave, and there is no hope for any of us. How do we, as a church, address these issues?

I (Joy) was raised from a baby in church, Sunday School, Vacation Bible school and ALL the rest. Of course, I knew of the Trinity and the deity of Christ and could certainly explain and/or defend it! Right? Not really, in an adequate fashion. When I met some JW women on a Women’s bowling league and wanted to share the gospel with them (I did know JWs were lost spiritually, and I truly cared for these women), I checked out their “Bible teachings” on the resurrection, Deity of Christ, salvation, and much more for myself, privately, compared with my own Christian beliefs. I realized that although I was very familiar with the terms, I really had only a passable layman’s knowledge of the Trinity, etc… I had never learned to defend my faith from the Bible, whereas JWs are specifically learning how to seemingly deny mine. They did not properly understand much at all of Christian doctrine, of course, but they were taught – week in and week out – in a special class dedicated to that purpose – to competently twist the scriptures to deny not only the Trinity, but all essential doctrines of Christian faith. I do not think I am alone in coming to this realization. I indeed had work to do.

So, how can Christians and Churches learn to more competently answer non-Christian assaults on our faith, so that we may perhaps explain the gospel, which hinges on believing in the right Jesus, death, burial, and resurrection, to these people whom God deeply loves, from cultic bondage? First, be a “Questionable Church.” By that, we simply mean to invite and encourage questions. Barna has noted that, statistically, many people who leave the church do so because their questions went unanswered.  Second, when we teach in churches, it is helpful to take every opportunity to stop and explain what something means, and why it is important in demonstrating a point, particularly a theological one. For example, did Jesus ever claim to be God? The answer is yes, but many think that Jesus never made the explicit statement that would be rendered in the English translation, “I am God.” Sometimes translators do the reader a disservice by adding a word that is not in the original text. They often do it for “sentence flow” from the original Greek to English, which can be helpful for readability, but sometimes doing so changes the meaning of the text. For example, most translations render Jesus' statement to the Jewish leaders in John 8:24:

I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.

In the original Greek text, the word “he” is not there as in “I am he.” Jesus is telling His audience something they have to believe about Him to be redeemed from their sins, and that something is I AM, YHWH. The words are ἐγώ (ego) for “I” and εἰμι (eimi) for “AM” and reads:

I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins.

The theme of Jesus being fully God and fully man begins with the Apostle John’s thesis in the first fourteen verses of John chapter one. He is writing to expose the false teachings of the Ebionites of his day, who denied the pre-existence and hence deity of the Son, and the Docetists, who denied the physicality of the incarnation of the Son. In his gospel, John tells the story of who Jesus was, is, and continues to be, and he carefully chose parts of Jesus' life and teachings that supported his initial thesis. Jesus is God, and He asserted He is God. He said, “I AM,” applying the covenant name of God to Himself.

We see this demonstrated again in John chapter 10 in a confrontation with the Jewish leaders who demanded to know who He was, and after giving a fairly lengthy response, He said in John 10:30:

I and the Father are one.

John records the response of the Jewish leaders, which demonstrates that they understood exactly what He claimed, that He is God:

The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:31-33)

Jesus didn’t say something like, “Oh wait, you misunderstand. I never intended you to think I was claiming to be God.” Instead He doubled down and responded:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:34-38)

His response to them wasn’t a denial of their understanding of His claim, but rather that if those to whom the word of God came, (the unjust judges in Psalm 82:6 who will die like men) were told “I said, “You are gods,” how much more the One Who truly is God can identify as Himself as The “Son of God” (John 10:37) and performs the works that demonstrate He is God. (John 10:34-38) We again see that they completely understood He was claiming to be God and:

 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands. (John 10:39)

Arrest Him for what? What would have been their charge? Blasphemy! The Father and Son will be honored in the same way. (John 5:23)

When John closes his book, he tells the reader that all of this is meant to show them which Jesus to believe in for salvation. It is not the Jesus of the Ebionites, who they claimed didn’t exist prior to this birth and was then adopted by God to be the Son after His birth. It isn’t the Jesus of the Docetists, who denied His physical incarnation and therefore His physical death and physical resurrection. No, the Jesus John had been building his case for us to believe in for salvation is the Savior (Messiah), and Son of God, Who is fully God and fully human.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31)

Amen and amen…Ω

Image by Dennis Larsen from Pixabay

Nearly all Americans would admit there is deep divide in the nation as well as individual states. For example, a recent news story headline asks, "Could Illinois split in two? A deeper look at the movement to divide the state." Although the division expresses itself in politics there is something deeper going on. As this article notes:

For many Illinois voters, the debate is less a political one than it is a deeply existential and spiritual one, and with such inflamed passions, it’s no small wonder multiple groups are actively exploring the idea of severing ties with Cook County and areas surrounding Chicago and forming their own, brand new state.

Illinois is not alone in this. California and other states have citizens working on similar proposals. As the above quote points out this isn't simply political but "it is a deeply existential and spiritual one," which as it happens, informs out political decisions, how we vote and even how we might be encouraged to treat one another. During that last election, some politicians and many news outlets of the more, shall we say, liberal slant, suggested friends and in some cases family members should severe or “downgrade” relationships with their loved ones. Some media “talking heads” on the left are outright telling their viewers and/or followers that if they have family members or friends that voted for the wrong (in their eyes) candidates, they should NOT celebrate Thanksgiving with them!

This very angry attitude is not completely unheard of in American history. About 164 yrs ago, a similarly divided America (about the issues of slavery and States Rights) endured very serious civil discord in the 1800s. A 52-year-old Republican Senator from Illinois, of the newly founded Republican Party (founded March 20, 1854), was about to be elected President of the United States. To suggest there was tension in the land in that era would be a profound understatement. During the 1840s the public was advised:

“Never discuss religion or politics with those who hold opinions opposite to yours” has been cited in print since at least 1840.

By 1879 that advice became:

“Do not discuss politics or religion in general company.

The Civil War began as a war of words and progressed to being the bloodiest conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of more than 620,000 people. The question of the day for the Southern Democrats was, does one human being have the right to own another human being as property? Although neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party were pro-slavery, (Lincoln viewed it as a moral wrong), he attempted to be conciliatory toward the Southern Democrats and abide by the Law after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott Decision. Commenting on his June 26, 1857 speech in Springfield:

That year, Lincoln left the Whigs for the new Republican Party and quickly rose in influence, receiving consideration for a vice presidential nomination that year. In the following year, the Dred Scott decision dealt a blow to Republican hopes to contain slavery. In a speech in Springfield on June 26, 1857, Lincoln expressed Republican at the position taken by Douglas that lawabiding citizens should respect this decision of the Supreme Court

Lincoln was raised in the home of very religious Hard Shell Baptists. He had a very good grasp of the Scriptures and quoted from them often. His ethics and morality stemmed from those influences, and he walked a very difficult line between upholding the law and following his moral and ethical dictates and commitments. Once elected as the sixteenth President of the United States, he had to enter Washington stealthily, under tight security. Seven states had already seceded from the Union when he arrived on February 23, 1861. Talk of Civil War was already on the lips of many, and on the minds of countless others. The right to own human beings as property was very important financially to the side that had just lost the Presidential election of 1860, and Lincoln’s negative view of slavery was known to all by then, of course. In his inaugural address on Monday, March 4, 1861, Lincoln ended with this thought:

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Lincoln ended these thoughts with a biblical sentiment and an invitation to those on the other side. Many centuries before that, in writing to the church in Rome, a place where believers were under persecution, the Apostle Paul wrote:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Romans 12:14-18)

In this short quotation, Paul points back to the words of the Messiah in Matthew 5:44:

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

In Romans 12:17 Paul looks back to these words of Jesus in Matthew 5:39:

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

We are to be good, even godly citizens, according to Romans 13. We may not like particular laws, but as it happens, we live in a nation where citizens are the government and elect proxy representatives to represent our varied viewpoints. We may disagree with one another, but with full recognition that each of us has a right in America to hold the view he or she holds. We also have a possible opportunity to change unjust laws, if the numbers are there to do so. At the same time, Christians are enjoined by Paul to pray for those who would harm or persecute them.

Peter points out that our persecutors will be put to shame by the contrast in our behaviors:

But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:14-16)

Can we agree that many if not all of us have failed in some degree or other to uphold this standard?

Does this mean we should stand silent while contemporary culture in our own day again fights for the right to own humans as property with the ability to dispose of helpless human beings under the euphemism of “choice,” on their whim? Of course we’re speaking of abortion.

Slavery was an abomination, and we would suggest abortion is as well. The comparison of abortion and slavery seems to us as follows:

In America, abortion is deemed to be acceptable, consciously or unconsciously, based on four criteria:

- Their size. (They are small) We can hardly even see them in the early stages of pregnancy. Why should anyone that tiny have rights like the rest of us? - Level of development (Less developed than say, a 1 year, 5 year, or 50 year old) They have nothing that can even be considered an opinion, let alone an acceptable opinion. - Their environment (Where they live – inside someone’s womb) No one invited them in. - Degree of dependency. (People living in wombs are generally far more dependent than your ordinary 30-year-olds) This fact certainly makes them quite inconvenient at times.

Australian moral philosopher, Peter Singer, holds that a child should not be accorded human rights until 30 days out of the womb, during which time a parent may elect to infanticide them. After all, a 30-day old infant is still small, not developed enough, and too dependent to be considered fully human.

How long can we suppose that a 30-day limit will be acceptable? At least one philosopher suggests the limit should be five years. And, next, what should we do with inconvenient and dependent elderly people? At one time the motto was, “Every child should be a wanted child.” How long will it be before we hear, “Every grandma should be a wanted grandma?”

The early church lived under Roman rule. The Romans had quite a few practices that we would today consider absolute abominations. Just to name a few, they practiced slavery, tossed people to lions, persecuted religious minorities, and used young children as sexual objects. Yet, the apostle Paul does not demand that the early Christians hate the Romans. Not at all. The Christians were to love their persecutors and over time, the Christians did significantly transform the Roman empire, but not by force. They appealed to the Roman’s need for God, and for salvation.

Unlike us, the early Christians did not live in a Democratic-Republic where they had civil rights to vote their conscience which the government was bound to respect. Yet many of the Romans were won over to Christianity, which did change their culture significantly over time.

Our political ideals in America are ultimately shaped by our collective spiritual beliefs, and as a nation, we are engaged in a huge spiritual battle that is waged in political campaigns and elections. It is the battle over the Imago Dei, image of God. Are we image bearers of God or are we attempting to recreate God in an image and likeness we prefer, one that is easier to control, and we can reshape at our will? (See Romans 1:18-32) This was the issue that eventually brought on the Civil War. Those Africans who were taken captive by other tribes on the African continent and sold into slavery were not considered created in the image of God by those who captured them or those who ultimately owned them as “property.”

Sadly, our culture today, along with most of the world, does not generally see those around them as created in the image of God, and therefore the weak and helpless do not necessarily deserve respect or protection. Why should people without God even consider that their behavior, practices and desires are, as Lincoln put it, “a moral wrong.” Yet we know that as Christians, we are to love and care for the people who do not have God.

Can we say, as Abraham Lincoln did on Monday, March 4, 1861:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.

Make no mistake, there is a real enemy that we are fighting, and many people are held captive by him. The Apostle Paul talks about the enemy as he describes how those in the church should behave in 2 Timothy 2:24-26. It has application to our lives as ambassadors to those outside the church as well:

the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Obviously, this is not easy. It’s very easy just to “hate back” those who hate us. And yet, hating them is exactly what we must not do.

Back to the conundrum of severing or downgrading relationships with their loved ones and friends or boycotting Thanksgiving, Christmas or other holidays with the family is not at all about the Holiday. It has nothing to do with the meal that has been prepared. It is meant to let friends, relatives, and perhaps even one’s parents, know that their love for you is possibly headed for the chopping block. But the beauty of it is this – whether they love YOU or not, there is nothing on this Earth they can do to make YOU stop loving them! Love them anyway and pray for them every day.Ω

When most consider the phrase “Replacement Theology,” they think of the theological debate between those in the Reformed camp of Christian denominations and those in the Dispensational camp. Got Questions outlines this in their piece, “theology/supersessionism/fulfillment theology.” However, there is another “Replacement Theology” that rarely comes to mind or the pulpits of either the Reformed or Dispensational camps. That is likely because the clearest teaching on this lesser-known “Replacement Theology” comes from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, some pastors and scholars hold to some similar replacement views as the Watchtower Society does, and pass them on to their congregation, and/or Bible college or seminary students, who end up holding an extremely unbiblical view of the resurrection, not only the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but of Christians as a whole. For example, the founder of Calvary Chapel, the late Chuck Smith, held that God is preparing a body for believers in heaven, but he described that body as “spiritual” and non‑physical. His view was that the body is not raised but replaced with an entirely different body. It is indeed a “replacement theology” of a whole different kind. We must note that not all Calvary Chapel pastors hold this view, but it was Chuck Smith's belief.

Also, Professor Emeritus of New Testament exegesis and theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, Dr. Murray J. Harris, taught that Jesus was raised bodily, but it wasn’t the same body He had been buried in. In his 1990 book, From Grave to Glory, he argued that Jesus was raised bodily but not physically or corporally. We might think of this as as "RINO: Resurrection in Name Only." According to Harris the earthly physical body of Jesus was not integral to his resurrection body and, according to Harris, was invisible and non-corporeal in its normal state. But some may ask, what about His appearances to the disciples and the 500? Well, Jesus, Harris claimed, merely manufactured bodies for the eyes of the disciples for evidential reasons, to convince the disciples that He had been “raised.” In his view, the body Jesus said He would raise wasn’t really raised at all. Jesus, for some good reason we assume, chose to deceive the disciples by manufacturing bodies with manufactured scars. This is fundamentally the same as what the WTBTS teaches about Jesus' resurrection. Although Harris would not phrase it this way, the “resurrection” was a scam!

The biblical view of the Resurrection is simple and straightforward. In his Gospel, John wrote against two heresies that were invading the church at that time. The Ebionites, who denied the pre-existence of the Son, and the Docetists, who denied the physicality of the Son. We wrote about this issue in “Apostolic Responses to False Teachers in the Early Church.” In John 2, the Apostle chose a story about Jesus that demonstrates the body that went into the tomb after His spirit separated from it was the same body that He raised, with added properties (glorified), and reinhabited:

So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:18-22)

The Jewish leaders (when the text says “the Jews,” it is most often referring to the Jewish leaders, not the Jewish people in general) took his statement to refer to the literal Temple in Jerusalem. In John’s commentary, he corrects that idea by pointing out that the Lord was speaking of His physical body, which He would later raise. In later meetings after the resurrection, Jesus provided evidence that He was indeed back in His original body, which He had raised. No replacement theology to be found here.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) takes its replacement fallacy much further. While they claim to believe in Jesus, in their teaching, the Jesus born to Mary is merely a human replacement for Michael the Archangel. In the beginning, according to JW doctrine, Jehovah created Michael, who, under Jehovah’s direction, in turn created everything else. Later, Jehovah eliminated Michael and created a human replacement for Michael in the womb of Mary. That human replacement for Michael was Jesus Christ! Although nothing of Michael’s true essence survived this contrived “fairy tale” process, Jehovah implanted a copy of Michael’s memories into the newly minted Jesus.  This human replacement lived about 33 years, was crucified, died, and then sadly, also ceased to exist. Yes, for all time!

According to the Watchtower, the man Jesus is “dead forever dead,” with nothing of his essence – not his physical body, not the physical brain which held his memories, thoughts, etc. – ever living again. This teaching created a problem, though. With Jesus out of existence entirely, Who ascended into heaven in Acts 1 that the Apostles thought was Jesus, physically resurrected? Ah, to fix this “problem,” the Watchtower Society decided that Jehovah created yet another Archangel Michael to replace Jesus and implanted copies of the combined “memories” of Michael 1.0 and the now-defunct human Jesus into Michael 2.0. Poor Jesus walked the hot and dusty roads, endured beatings and gross humiliation, endured the cross, only to be replaced for eternity by an angel who did none of that and indeed, was blissfully out of existence that whole exhausting time! Michael did not heal the sick or raise the dead! His heart was not broken over his mother Mary’s great loss, because Mary was not his mother! But old Michael gets the glory for all eternity! It's OK, though, because Jesus doesn’t have any knowledge of it at all. He is dead forever dead!

For a more detailed explanation of this bait and switch, see our article, “In the Beginning was Michael.” The WTBTS itself often seems confused on the issue and shows this by referring to its very own Michael 2.0 as Jesus. They find they are forced to use the name Jesus for the new Michael 2.0 in their publications because long after Jesus was supposedly replaced by Michael 2.0, the Bible has the apostles and believers referring to Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, as if He still existed! The Watchtower does not bother to explain away this identity-crisis switcharoo because they cannot possibly explain it, and their own people are taught to question nothing they are taught. The Society has a very convenient “Avoid Independent Thinking” stance in order to avoid uncomfortable questions, and there can be severe consequences if any of the rank-and-file JWs DO question God’s Organization. (See our article, "Avoid Independent Thinking")

Some years ago, we sat at our kitchen table with a Jehovah’s Witness elder, their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, and pages of their Watchtower magazine and other publications. Our questions were simple. First, do we have a soul? This one was simple, for the WTBTS is very clear that humans do not have a soul, but we allegedly are a “soul” composed of a physical body and a “life force” – which is like electricity, which does not take on any characteristics, memories, or aspects of the person it animates. It powers us but has no feelings or personality attached. The third thing making up the Watchtower’s person is a “life pattern.” A “life pattern” is a collection of your thoughts, memories, musings, personality, and beliefs. But they are physical, contained in your physical brain and, to some degree, in your physical blood. This is one of the reasons they oppose blood transfusions. What if the donor blood comes from some nefarious evil doer, like a thief, murderer or forfend, a politician? You may inadvertently transfuse parts of their personality into your body and begin sinning like them. OK, back to our discussion with the JW Elder some years back…

The Elder affirmed each of the teachings in the WTBTS material, and then Joy posed a question to him. It was a simple question. If Jehovah could create a replacement for you after you pass away, couldn’t He create a replacement “you” right now? His response was, “He wouldn’t do that.” Perhaps He wouldn’t but that avoids the question. Since there is no connection between the elder sitting there and his replacement, there is nothing preventing Jehovah from creating a replacement for him, say, in our hallway, with an up-to-the-second copy of his life pattern right now. The original man (You, dear Elder) could die right now, but that should be just fine because your replacement could step right in and take your place!  This new replacement could go home to your original wife, who was sitting right there, play with their original kids, and live the life “he” had always lived with them. And if his wife or one of his kids should pass away, no worries at all! A nice replica of his wife or child would appear to take their place. The poor man was upset, and the wife said not a word. We did remind him that this was certainly not our belief at all, reminding him that this wasn’t our teaching but the teaching of the organization he was trying to defend.

Their replacement theology doctrine gets even worse as it plays out. What the average JW never takes into account is that he will eventually be replaced, and so will his wife and children. The couple’s “copies” will have copies of their “memories” of marrying and having children, which will be the replacement spouses! They will have children she never actually gave birth to, and those children will have memories of growing up and doing things they never did. All of these “memories” include phony memories of going door to door recruiting for the WTBTS. The original creatures, who, let’s face it, DID all the work they merely “remember” – did the daily grind of studying, going to Kingdom Hall meetings, and going door-to-door – cease to exist and receive absolutely nothing. Their “replacements” will receive the rewards instead.

When Jesus said to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise,” did He mean, “Truly, I say to you, today, your replacement will be with My replacement, Michael the Archangel, in paradise”? What possible relief will such a reality bring to either of the tortured and dying men who are about to FOREVER go out of existence? There is punishment for certain but NO REWARD OF ANY KIND.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, the Apostle Paul wrote:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

In reciting the simplicity of the gospel that must be believed to be saved, there was a replacement for those who believe. Christ took our place and died for our sins. Our sinfulness before the Holy God was replaced with Christ’s righteousness and holiness. His body was buried. He was raised on the third day. There is indeed a biblical replacement theology, not at all as described by the Watchtower Society. By believing the gospel, our separation from God is replaced by peace with God. Forever!Ω

Original Photo of church by Timothy Eberly on Unsplash

A friend of mine, who claims to be Christian and yet is a Democratic Socialist, attends the downtown Nashville location of Church Of The City (COTC). Matt Smallbone, of the legendary Smallbone Family, is the pastor of this church, so I was particularly interested in learning where my friend is getting her theology from. When I started my research into Matt Smallbone, I immediately became very concerned that he had fallen into some dangerous teachings, including spiritual formation (i.e., Catholic Mysticism) and Third Wayism. Below is the first of a multipart series on my concerns regarding Smallbone and how I feel his teachings are leading my friend away from Biblical Christianity.

Who is Matt Smallbone?

Matt Smallbone is the lead pastor at COTC Nashville and was the former bass player for Michael W. Smith. He is also the cousin of Joel Smallbone of the band for KING & COUNTRY. Both men are part of a larger family of Australian musicians who now live in the Nashville area. The Smallbone family moved from Sydney, Australia, to Nashville in 1991 after a financial crisis, and their story of faith and resilience is chronicled in the movie "Unsung Hero".

Smallbone attended Western Theological Seminary (WTS) in Holland, Michigan. WTS is a moderate-to-progressive evangelical institution rooted in the Reformed Church in America. It is known for its focus on community, social justice, racial reconciliation, and its commitment to ordaining women in ministry, even as leaders over the church. In their Statement on Racial and Ethnic Diversity, a few points need clarification. Is WTS teaching open borders, multiculturalism, and the very divisive Critical Race Theory ideology of “white privilege” here?

. . . we commit to embodying our identity as a Reformed, evangelical, ecumenical community in ways that are alert to how our predominantly white heritage has shaped us, and we commit to seeking to eliminate ways that this heritage has distorted our presentation of the gospel and our community life.

We affirm that in the Old Testament, Jesus’ ministry, and in the New Testament church as it is empowered by the Spirit after his ascension, God crosses boundaries and welcomes those whom the majority culture regards as ‘strangers,’ such that distinctions remain, but walls of hostility and division are broken down. God, therefore, challenges thrones of unjust privilege such that all might have a chance to flourish.

We also reject notions of one-ness in Christ that tend towards the assimilation of diverse cultures within the dominant culture.

Unfortunately, WTS also places a strong emphasis on spiritual formation, with required "Abbey" courses for Master of Divinity students, as described in the Formation at WTS Page.

Smallbone’s Mysticism

On the COTC website (this link is to an archived capture and the original has since been taken down), Smallbone shared that he is an Enneagram 7; thereby, indicating that he embraces the occultic and panentheistic tool of the Enneagram. Sadly, he also promotes Spiritual Formation, which is also based in panentheism (God in all and all in God). He even quotes the 17th-century Catholic contemplative mystic and monk, Brother Lawrence, who was known for receiving reminders from God to practice his contemplation and subsequently danced around violently like a madman. It is unclear whether Smallbone understands the problems with panenthism and Spiritual Formation or the Enneagram’s occult roots. Furthermore, COTC has female pastors on staff, including, at one time, Kristi McLelland of Williamson College. According to Marcia Montennegro, McLelland also uses the panentheistic tool of the Enneagram, and she supports Contemplative Spirituality.

 The Prayer Experiment

 In April of this year, Smallbone released his first book, The Prayer Experiment: How Praying Like Jesus Realigns Everything - Our Thoughts, Our Hearts, and Our Posture Toward God and the World, which he dedicates to many people, including the Catholic mystic Brother Lawrence, and the spiritual formation guru John Mark Comer. The Prayer Experiment is “written in a tone that blends the insights of Dallas Willard with the modern sensibility of John Mark Comer”, and the book encourages us to pray the Lord's Prayer every day for an entire year. It explores how a consistent rhythm of praying the Lord’s Prayer can transform a person's life by overcoming the feeling that prayer is just a dry, duty-based ritual. However, the kind of prayer life that Smallbone is promoting here sounds more gnostic at times than Biblical.

In this book, Smallbone quotes the panentheistic, contemplative Dallas Willard, as well as other spiritual formation gurus like John Mark Comer and Max Lucado, who, in his 2011 book Cure for the Common Life, discusses the “divine spark” in each person. Spiritual formation has a strong whiff of Gnosticism because it teaches that human beings contain a piece of God (the highest good or a divine spark) within themselves, which has fallen from the immaterial world into the bodies of humans. Thus, the true way to worship is with your spirit, not your mind (the material world).

Alisa Childers, Melissa Dougherty, and Natasha Crain have already done a deep dive into Comer’s 2024 book, Practicing the Way: Be with Jesus. Become like him. Do as he did, thereby promoting the merging of Catholic mysticism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and charismatic ideologies into our lives. Lighthouse Trails, as well as Marcia Montenegro, have all spoken out against Comer’s false New Age gospel. It is very concerning that someone of Smallbone’s notoriety is legitimizing Comer’s work.

A Weak Harmitology (Doctrine of Sin)

Unfortunately, like most books on Spiritual Formation, The Prayer Experiment is very weak on sin. While, as believers in Christ, we are no longer subject to the law, this does not mean we should take sin lightly; it is still cosmic sedition. The following statements suggest that Smallbone has a completely different definition of sin than what the Bible teaches. Smallbone’s statements below suggest that sin is not about rule-breaking but is simply the act of not letting God make us happy. However, scripture says we get hardened by sin. It is the act of going against God and His ways (Rom 3:23). Ongoing sin is a sequence of choices we make, each of which replaces God's authority in our lives with our own. We cannot have two masters, thus those choices put a wall between our Creator (Matt 6:24) and us. Sin separates us from God (Isa 59:2 and Col 1:21-23).

Now, talking about sin isn’t exactly fashionable in our cultural moment. But maybe this definition that is widely attributed to Ignatius of Loyola will help: “Sin is unwillingness to trust that what God wants for me is only my deepest happiness.” Exactly. The most damaging thing sin does isn’t that it breaks a rule; it’s that it keeps us from joy, peace, and wholeness. God doesn’t hate sin because it breaks a commandment. He hates sin because it breaks us. Sin pulls us out of alignment with how the world was designed to work.

Because honestly, some of the crankiest Christians you’ll ever meet are people who’ve done plenty of singing and sermon-listening and maybe even some volunteering—but very little being held by Jesus.

And then there are the Pharisee types, those of us who acknowledge the spiritual realm but whose response is to double down on personal discipline: reading the Bible, making moral choices, keeping our lives “clean.”

Panentheism-Lite?

Dallas Willard . . . “the ‘heavens’ are always there with you no matter what, and the ‘first heaven,’ in biblical terms, is precisely the atmosphere or air that surrounds your body.” In other words, when Jesus teaches us to pray to “our Father in heaven,” he isn’t pointing to a distant galaxy. He’s pointing to the God who is as close as the air on your skin. This is why one of my favorite preachers argues that you could just as accurately translate “Our Father in heaven” as “Our Father in the air.”

Breathe in God’s presence.

The problem with Smallbone’s statements here is that God is not air, nor the effect of air around us. He is not a force, but a person. “Breath in God’s presence” sounds more like something a yoga teacher would say than anything that resembles the teachings of Christ. God breathes life into us. We do not breathe Him into ourselves. Air is part of the created world. God is not part of creation, and he does not physically live in creation; He transcends it.

Smallbone seems to be teaching panentheism-lite or possibly even pantheism-lite in this passage, albeit probably unknowingly. However, the name of Willard’s book, where Smallbone gets this quote, is The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. While John 15:4 says that we are in Christ, this should not be taken to mean that creation shares the same essence as Christ, or that God lives in Creation (1 Kgs 8:27, 2 Chr 2:6, Isa 66:1, Acts 17:24), or that we could ever become God (Gen 3). It is unclear whether Smallbone is promoting panentheism, but it is concerning that he doesn’t make this distinction within his book.

Willard and Smallbone seem to misunderstand what the word ouranos (οὐρανός) means. Ouranos (οὐρανός) is the Greek word for "sky" or "heaven," and in the New Testament and Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), it refers to both the physical sky above Earth and the spiritual dwelling place of God. While it suggests an elevated, transcendent realm where God's presence is manifested, it does not typically imply a literal, physical residence inside the clouds. Ouranos is also used metaphorically as the "throne of God," distinguishing it from the "footstool" of Earth, as noted in Matthew 5:34 and Isaiah 66:1. Furthermore, the Septuagint uses ouranos frequently to mean the source of rain and, often, as a metaphor for the height of God's ways above human ways. It does not mean that God dwells in the air.

In upcoming articles, I will continue to discuss my concerns with Smallbone’s embrace of spiritual formation in The Prayer Experiment. I will also discuss his Third Wayism and how this may have influenced my friend to embrace Democratic Socialism.Ω

Stephanie Potts is the author of, Social Justice and the Deification of Man: What to Know When Talking with the Christian Left. She and her husband, Jim live in Dayton, Ohio, and have been married for 24 years. She worked with the federal government for 15 years as an intelligence analyst and then entered full-time Christian service in 2015. She first joined Haven Ministries in Denver, Colorado, in 2015 and then transferred to Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc in 2021. She earned her Bachelor's degree in Political Science and International Relations from Florida State University and her Master's degree in Geographic Information Systems from Penn State University. She is currently pursuing her master's degree in Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary. She has special interests in indigenous religions – especially Native American spirituality – and in responding to Catholicism and the social justice movement. Stephanie’s personal website: rainbowapologetics.com

L-R: Benny Hinn, Brian McLaren, Kenneth Copeland, Ruth Haley Barton, Richard Rohr

In 1971, the Temptations recorded a rather long (more than 12-minutes) rendition of Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong’s song, “Smiling Faces Sometimes,” for Motown. The same year, Norman Whitfield produced a version of the song edited down to about 3:20, performed The Undisputed Truth. That version reached #3 on the Billboard Hot 100. The premise of the song is simple: you cannot trust someone just because they are smiling:

Smiling faces sometimes

Pretend to be your friend

Smiling faces show no traces Of the evil that lurks within (Can you dig it?)

Verse two adds some additional sad info:

Let me tell ya

The truth is in the eyes 'Cause the eyes don't lie, amen Remember, a smile is just a frown Turned upside down, my friend So hear me when I'm sayin'

It isn’t a Christian song per se, and yet, it well reflects similar biblical warnings. For example, it is a theme in Proverbs 26:

The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels;

    they go down into the inner parts of the body. Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel     are fervent lips with an evil heart. Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips     and harbors deceit in his heart; when he speaks graciously, believe him not,     for there are seven abominations in his heart; (Proverbs 26:22–26 )

Jesus issued a similar dire warning in Matthew 7:15-23, beginning with the words:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

Pretty scary stuff.  In His description, Jesus informs people that false prophets often have the outward appearance of being caring servants of God, giving prophecies in His name, performing miracles, and even casting out demons in His name, but they should not be trusted, as they were merely giving twisted lip service to alleged truth, with a smile, but a darkened heart. In the end, He will say to them:

‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:23b)

Many Christians tend to be trusting, especially when someone comes to us highly recommended by fellow Christian people we believe are trustworthy, “talking Jesus.” Most likely, these friends think they are giving us good information, but have been “taken in” themselves by another well-meaning person. The late Gwen Shamblin, for example, was invited into churches under the pretense of presenting a Christian weight-loss program. She was energetic, smiling, and encouraging, offering people the Christian key to “Christian weight loss.”

Time out! Right now, we are going to give you – free of charge – the secret to Christian and non-Christian weight loss, for that matter, revealed to us long ago by our friend, Penny’s Dad, Cliff.

If it tastes oh so good, spit it out…if it’s marginal to “OK,” eat all you want!  Now you cannot say we never gave ya nothin’…

Shamblin was featured on television shows and in Christian and secular magazines and had a best-selling weight-loss book with Thomas Nelson, a Christian publisher. But, as it turns out, no one thought to check her Bible teaching that allegedly backed up her claims. The churches mostly just trusted her; as they sometimes do,  and no one worried too much because it was “just a harmless weight-loss program for women.”

Turns out it wasn’t truly so harmless as it might have seemed, though. We first heard of her in August of 2000 when we received a call asking about her online doctrinal statement. Wait a minute; a Christian Diet Guru’s “doctrinal statement???” After reviewing it, I (Don) called and was able to speak directly with Gwen. Can’t say she was “hush hush…” in a few minutes’ time, she unashamedly denied the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Her program was at that time in 30,000 churches across more than 60 denominations and was trusted – because she seemed at first glance to be a legitimate and genuine Christian and had a “smiling face and bubbly personality.” (It’s a well-known fact that all or at least the vast majority of genuine Christians are smiley and bubbly) We may opine that she didn’t have such a ready smile when she hung up the phone, but we don’t know that for sure.

We posted a press release, and Christianity Today picked it up and called her to verify what we had pointed out. She affirmed it was true, and she went on to say that “Women don’t care about doctrine; they just want to lose weight.” C.T. published her comments, and the exodus of Christian women from her program began immediately! As it turns out, women did care more about doctrine than weight loss. Who would have known?  Her following dropped to just around five hundred over the following weeks. But we should ask ourselves, How had she gotten into so many churches in the first place? According to her “Remnant Fellowship Introductory Video, 2000,” for 20 years, her plan was to sneak into the “back door” of the churches. With a smile, of course. And a bubble or two. And so she did! We shall take this opportunity to lovingly recommend that no more “back doors” should be allowed in the churches! Only fire escape hatches – perhaps guarded 24-7!

This sneak attack on centuries-held essential doctrine is certainly not a one-time event, nor is it limited to “women’s ministry,” not needing doctrinal vetting. We can’t leave the back door open to any of the ministries of our churches. Around the same time, a little-known Franciscan friar named Richard Rohr rose to prominence in the Emerging Church movement. Rohr is a Panentheist who teaches that human beings have never been separated from God by sin; we have instead created a false self that has deceived us into merely believing we are separated from God. According to Rohr, there is no difference between being a Christian, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, etc., because God is in and through everything. We are all in God, allegedly, and He is in us. Everything is one, and everything is divine. Well, aint that sweet?! He didn’t sneak in any true church’s “back door,” but must’ve gotten in through the sewers!

Rohr helped emerging leaders progress out of Christianity, and it wasn’t long before we began seeing Rohr’s ideas surfacing in Brian McLaren’s books, where he wrote that he wouldn’t try to lead a Buddhist to Christianity but rather help him or her be the best Buddhist he or she can be. What a lovely and sweetly inclusive lie! According to Rohr, we Christians should stop trying to figure out who is in (saved) and who is out (unsaved). We can only guess that Jesus must’ve only truly died for people He (and evidently they) mistakenly thought were sinners in need of a savior.

Rohr had embraced the occult “tool” of the Enneagram as the way for people to get back to the realization that you are and have always been with God. He taught it to several people, including Suzanne Stabile and Ian Cron. Their book, The Road Back to You, was published by Intervarsity Press (IVP), a supposedly Christian publisher, in 2016. It quickly spread through churches as the go-to tool for “self-understanding” and spiritual growth. Pastors were using it as a nine-week sermon series, “discipleship,” and marriage counseling material. Within three years, books promoting the Enneagram were being published not only by IVP but by Thomas Nelson, Zondervan, and other “reliable” publishers. There was money in them thar hills! Truly sad. We, Marcia Montenegro and others, contacted all of these publishers and sent evidence of the Enneagram's origins, worldview, and teachings, and they all ignored it. The deception was and remains deeply rooted, and it is now being taught in Christian colleges and universities. In all seriousness, it’s a terrible shame, and the true church must start paying attention to what their parishioners are being taught by scoundrels, however, these may attain access!

The examples we could give are endless, and many are not really new. Eastern mysticism, Contemplative Prayer promoted by Ruth Haley Barton. John Marks Comer and others. Then there is Word Faith (Keneth Copeland and Benny Hinn), New Apostolic Reformation (Bethel Redding), New Thought, and other false religious views has established roots in churches as biblical literacy continues to wane.

Even as we write this, we are reminded that the Apostle Paul described what we are witnessing in our day:

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:1-7)

“Having the appearance of godliness but denying its power...” Churches and individual Christians must wake up to these dangers, or many more Churches and Christians will be led astray. Deception can be avoided by being trained in the

Word of God and exercising discernment. Christians, please take the time to learn what your Bible teaches, not what some scoundrel can make sound so good and all-inclusive. Why would Jesus have died for us all if everyone was already in the heaven-bound boat, but just didn’t know it? Paul directed the Ephesian elders to guard themselves and the flock – and prevent false teachers and their heretical ideas from creeping in, and also from leading and/or convincing individuals who might rise up within the church – having read a really, really good and inclusive book! – and drag many away! (Acts 20:28-31)

In other words, do not allow yourselves to be deceived by smiling faces and deceptive words, because all too often, they lie and don’t tell the truth!Ω

Photo by Dillon Shook on Unsplash

Editor’s Note: Over the past twenty-four months or so, one of the questions we receive most often is how Western culture changed so rapidly. Our response is ... it didn’t. All of what we are witnessing has been in the works for a very long time. We and others have been writing and speaking on this for decades. In the process of reformatting our past Journal articles into web-ready blogs, I came across just such an article, written a dozen years ago and printed in the Summer/Fall 2014 issue of the Midwest Christian Outreach Journal. Oh, it isn't short.

If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (John 15:18-19, ESV)

As a youth, I grew up in a family that was not Christian. My father was an Atheist but not really a philosophical Atheist. I doubt if he really thought through his beliefs, but he was a consistent Atheist - perhaps one of the most consistent Atheists I have known. He simply asserted God did not exist, and thus, he lived life as he chose. My mother, although having gone to church as a child, did not bring her former experience into the home. There wasn’t much in the way of spiritual discussions, but she did read and believe the writings of Edgar Cayce, who was known as “The Sleeping Prophet.” (He was a psychic who advocated reincarnation and other Eastern metaphysical beliefs/practices.) She would go to mediums to have her future read, and one of her best friends, after my parents divorced, was a practicing witch. In spite of all this, we grew up in an essentially Judeo/Christian culture. Whether one was a Christian or not, the Judeo/Christian moral values and ethos generally permeated the Western world, particularly the United States. Christianity had a comfortable place in our world. Sure, there was rebellion, but then we really cannot look to any time in history where there wasn’t rebellion against something. Supposedly, Plato claimed that Socrates said:

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners and contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Someone might have believed in reincarnation, and although Christians viewed that as false, it was rare that the person was vilified for their belief. The Civil Rights Movement exploded on the scene in the 1960s, and it, too, was based on a Judeo/Christian worldview. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other Civil Rights leaders preached essentially Bible-based sermons to advocate the idea of treating all people – regardless of color – with respect. Pornography was available, but it was regarded as wrong, and even though Playboy Magazine could be purchased from under the counter, it was carried out of the store in a brown paper wrapper. Sexuality was not flaunted. Individuals could choose to go against the prevailing morals and ethics, but there was a certain inner sense of shame they felt in doing so.

However, the winds of change had been blowing gently behind the scenes and were bringing with them a revolution, but few noticed. That is the thing about real revolutions, the most effective ones, at least. They happen so quietly that you don’t see them until they are done, and then, it’s too late.

Were There Warnings?

The short answer is “yes.” However, because Christianity was so comfortable, and its morals and ethics were such an integral part of cultural thinking, the warnings went ignored or unnoticed. We and others have written on many of these issues in the past, but a recap might be in order.

A living, vibrant Christianity had retreated from cultural engagement in the 1930’s and 40’s. At the same time, those who adhered to Darwinist and Communist/Marxist/Socialist worldviews (going under the name “Progressives”) filled the significant vacuum bequeathed to the halls of academia. Christians created and maintained a sort of “Christian ghetto” in an attempt to protect their offspring from exposure to ideas (either against or not compatible with Christianity) that would challenge their faith. Progressivism nearly won in the 1930s and 40s in the social and financial areas of the nation. However, two critical things happened, which seemed to stem the tide for a while.

First, Social Darwinist Adolph Hitler lost the war, and the world saw the result of social Darwinism and the eugenics it espoused. This slowed the impact of the beliefs and teachings of Margaret Sanger (foremost birth control/abortion/eugenics advocate) and other Progressives in their work of pruning the “human garden” to aid evolution for the further advancement of whom they viewed as the most highly evolved … the white race.

Second: There was the rise of the Conservative Intellectual Movement of 1945, which was mostly led by Roman Catholic thinkers and businesspeople who made a strong case for Capitalism. Progressivism was the main point of view taught at the big universities by this time, which was the impetus for the book God and Man at Yale written by (then) young, conservative thinker William F. Buckley, Jr. His basic point was that it is fine to teach pro-communism/Progressivism and against Capitalism, but Yale and, by extension, the other universities should be honest with their Capitalist donors. As you might guess, the book stirred up quite a hornet’s nest of controversy.

During the 1950s, psychiatry/psychology really began to come into its own with the advent of Abraham Maslow’s humanistic psychology. Maslow’s theories included the hierarchy of needs, self-actualization, and peak experiences as a way to become fully human. Intellectual elites and cultural thought-shapers began changing the way man thought about himself and others. Psychiatrists and psychologists became the new priests of the new religion. Both of these were road markers or warnings about what was coming, but few recognized it.

Each of these four areas (church abandoning culture, the rise of Socialism, economics, psychiatry/psychology) transformed Western civilization and, when combined, brought about a cultural U-turn back to where society was when the church was born in the first century. The common denominator of each area was that it challenged the Judeo/Christian worldview and its claim to be the base of reality.

The false worldview of Darwinism eliminated the need for a Creator. In this view, we and, in fact, all of creation are little more than accidents in time and space. Once the cosmos accidentally and for no apparent reason sparked, the universe simply mutated and changed until everything we see came to be all by itself- divided over time and sheerly by chance. Throughout the 1960s, the move was made to teach Darwinism alongside Creationism in school. Within a few years of winning that right in court, Creationism was soon eliminated from public education. Teaching the truth of God as Creator was no longer deemed necessary, and therefore, God’s morals and ethics could easily be swept aside.

With the Christians near abandonment of the major universities, the worldviews of Karl Marx, Lenin, and others would shape the thinking of the future educators, politicians, public servants, and, yes, leaders in the church. In addition to the liberalism that had been growing within the church, Liberation Theology (Marxism wrapped in Christian terminology) was birthed and growing in the 1950s and 60s. Without the active involvement of Christians in areas of cultural thought, those who were shaping the world went on without biblical influence, having what we might call a “Christian hangover.” The influence of Judeo/Christian morality continued for a while longer-more by habit than anything else; but the hangover would dissipate, and the Christian worldview would be abandoned. Until that happened, Christianity would continue to feel comfortable and safe.

Christian Capitalism had been the driving force of the U.S. economy nearly from the beginning. Communism had been tried within the settlement of Jamestown (from 1607 to 1611) and was a miserable failure. In his excellent book, Urban Apologetics, in the chapter on “Christ and Social Justice,” pastor and author Christopher W. Brooks wrote:

In Sirico’s opinion, Christian capitalism has proven to be the most effective means for helping ensure financial freedom for all. He states, “Capitalism offers wide ownership of property, fair and equal rules for all, strict adherence to the rule of ownership, opportunities for charity, and the wide use of resources.”

To some, this may sound naively optimistic, but Father Sirico spells out and explains his philosophy of the virtues of a market-based economic approach in his book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. The underpinnings of his view on what makes an economy just and good is a right cosmology. Our cosmology is our belief on how the world has been created and the practical principles that should impact the way we live as a result of those beliefs. For Father Sirico, cosmology begins with the fact that an all-powerful and all-good God who has created the universe has also made man with intrinsic dignity and in His image. Therefore, a moral economy is built upon two pillars: first, cultivating humanity’s dependence upon God as creator and sustainer; second, a moral economy, which preserves a person’s intrinsic dignity by ensuring equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes.

Like Darwinism and its impact on science, there is much more to this issue. However, our shift away from a Christian free market and toward Communist/Socialist economics eliminated the need for Judeo/Christian economic morals and ethics and, by extension, any reliance on God. In this economic environment, the State (Federal Government) decrees what is fair and right, redistributes wealth as it sees fit, and removes any personal responsibility toward one another. Those who resist are punished. Morals and ethics are no longer derived from the God Who exists outside and separate from creation, but instead, they are decreed and enforced through a mobocracy as administered by the mob in power at any given time.

Psychologist Abraham Maslow impacted a young pastor by the name of Robert Schuller, who founded a church at a drive-in theater in Southern California that later became the Crystal Cathedral. Up until then, humans were viewed as flawed – basically not good – and laws, morals, and ethics protected society from bad individuals. Psychology, on the other hand, persuaded its adherents that everyone is a victim. Whatever angst you felt, issue you faced, or sin to which you were prone was no longer to be viewed as your own fault, but rather, it was the fallout of someone else’s actions. Schuller grabbed onto Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and built a church based on satisfying your “felt needs.” Armed with “positive self-esteem” (you really are good) and “the power of positive thinking,” you could accomplish anything. As Schuller wrote:

Sin is any act or thought that robs myself of another human being of his or her self-esteem.

Jesus never call a person a sinner.

Feelings became the arbiter of what is true. As the high priests of psychology invaded culture and psychology became the grid through which the Bible would be interpreted, the church began changing direction and its understanding of human nature. The new view being embraced in culture was that humans are basically good; therefore, laws, morals, and ethics needed to change to protect the good individual from evil society. The four seemingly separate threads (as previously outlined) running through the church and culture were tributaries that emptied into the river of cultural change in the mid-1970s and afterward.

The Tributaries Converge

By the mid-1970s, some new movers and shakers in the church concluded that evangelism was supposed to be done in the church by professionals. Training, equipping, and challenging believers to share their faith in the marketplace virtually vanished, and a sort of Christian multi-level marketing plan was created as the “Church Growth Movement” was born. The ministry of the church

Oskar Schindler: This car. Goeth would have bought this car. Why did I keep the car? Ten people right there. Ten people. Ten more people. This pin. Two people. This is gold. Two more people. He would have given me two for it, at least one. One more person. A person, Stern. For this. I could have gotten one more person … and I didn’t! And I … I didn’t!

The transformation of a self-centered opportunist to an other-centered rescuer sacrificing everything to save the lives of more than 1,100 human beings well reflects the Judeo-Christian morals and ethics of the period in which this true story occurred.

In contrast, the new individualism is based on denying personal responsibility. Healthcare paid for by someone else is deemed a “right.” A guaranteed high wage is a “right” whether one is qualified, industrious, or not. Beliefs are idolized as personal and subjective, and no one has a “right” to claim another individual’s or group’s beliefs are false. Churches and religious organizations may be allowed to provide for the poor or hurting as long as they exclude any biblical teaching or moral guidance from the Scriptures.

Subsequently, sexual sin is now outdated. Homosexuality must not only be affirmed as normal, but also must be celebrated; and marriage can be redefined to include same gender unions! This slippery slope will be further expanded to include those beliefs that advocate other deviant sexual proclivities. Even now, university academics are making the case that pedophilia is normal. An Australian court is considering legalizing incest. Being a financially successful businessperson is now judged to be a great moral evil. Objecting to the federally approved and perpetrated religions of Darwinism and/or Climate Change are the unpardonable sins. Christian clubs on college and university campuses may have to accept members (and even have leaders) into their group who are diametrically opposed to the groups’ beliefs and charter. All religious views, groups, and most anything which is opposed to Christianity is protected, while the move to eliminate Christianity from being seen or heard in the public square is underway. All claims must be tolerated except, of course, biblical Christianity.

There has been quite a bit of angst that the current President and his administration are fundamentally changing America, and it does seem that way. In reality, they have merely pulled back the curtain to expose all of the fundamental changes that these four tributaries have already brought about as they flowed into the river of culture. It was little observed as it took place. The warning signs were missed, and the revolution is over. First-century Paganism and beliefs have resurfaced and reclaimed culture. The Church Growth Movement gave birth to the Emergent Church, which, in many cases (Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Jim Wallis, et al.), has embraced cultural Paganism in the name of being “missional.” The belief is a dangerous self-deception. Dr. Randy White, in his article “Why I am Leaving the Church Growth Movement,” writes:

Even if I believed that these “missions projects” were as successful as the church websites claim (“we had an awesome God-thing happen at our last gathering”), I don’t think it has any lasting impact. As I see it, the Christian is not so much to engage his society, but to come out from it. The church today is filled with those who are both in the world and of the world, and who are organized to change the world into a kinder, gentler place to be. The success rate of the megachurch missional-church movement has been an utter failure. Society is more liberal and godless than ever before, with no end to its decline in sight. The mega missional church will gather in their multi-campus celebrations this weekend and slobber over themselves for their victories, even while these same churches have been totally impotent to bring about societal change.

Why is this the case? They maintain an illusion of being biblically centered:

Thirdly, I reject the missional-community church growth movement because it is deceptive. Participants in these churches feel like they are stalwart conservatives in a Bible-believing, Gospel-proclaiming, Hell-reducing, Kingdom-expanding church. They consistently proclaim, “My preacher really preaches the Bible.” True, their preacher does hold up a Bible and talk about how true and authoritative it is. He even quotes from the Bible fairly consistently (“I know the plans I have for you … I will never leave you nor forsake you … I am come that you might have life more abundantly … (and, of course) bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse”). What these church members do not know is that they have adopted the leftist agenda (socialism) or neo-con agenda (reconstructing a Christian society), which is as empty as it has always been.

Many Christians, Joy and me included, mourn the passing of Judeo-Christian morals and values from culture, but is that because it was truly more God-honoring, or was it just more comfortable to Christians? We are not sure, but suspect it is the latter. When someone like Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy affirms his belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, the media and government officials rise up as one voice to utterly and publicly condemn him. He has no right to such a belief and must be punished. Brendan Eich, founder and former CEO of Mozilla Firefox, was forced to resign after it became public knowledge he had donated $1,000 of his personal finances in 2008 to support Proposition 8 in California. We do not know if Eich is a Christian or not, but the situation demonstrates that supporting what is commonly viewed as Judeo-Christian morality will not be tolerated. We have reached the end of comfortable Christianity. So, where do we go from here?

A Silver Lining?

The phrase, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity,” has been attributed to Augustine, Philipp Melanchthon, German Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (1627), and Marco Antonio De Dominis. So, although there doesn’t seem to be unity on the origin of the thought, there seems to be unity on the sentiment the phrase conveys. There are absolute essentials in the faith – those beliefs and teachings that must be universally believed by all Christians of the various churches and denominations, in order to actually be Christian.  Then, there are admittedly important but non-essentials in the biblical faith, things that various Christian churches and denominations may disagree on, but which do not place individuals or groups outside of the Christian faith. You might notice that Churches and Christians do disagree on certain issues, and not all such disagreement puts one or the other outside of the faith!

For those who wonder what exactly the essentials are, the late Dr. Norman Geisler would often say, “the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.” We would suggest that these beliefs can be narrowed down to five or six in the essentials category.

- the nature of God, - the nature of Man, - the nature of Sin, - the nature of the Resurrection, - the nature of Salvation, - the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture

Eternal life is the direct outcome of salvation. Biblically, we are separated from God by sin and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” according to Romans 3:23. But we can be united with Him by believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and calling on Him as God. In Ephesians 2:1-7, the Apostle Paul wrote:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

“Dead” means separated, not non-existent or annihilated. Thankfully, our salvation comes not by living perfect lives, or doing enough “good works,” but as a result of believing in the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf – and brings peace with God and eternal life with Him. No human being can earn God’s grace by any means. That’s why it is called “the Gift of God.”

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Romans 6:23

But what of the doctrine of Hell? Is Hell an “essential” of the faith? In Brian Recker’s book, Hell Bent: How the Fear of Hell Holds Christians Back from a Spirituality of Love, he indicates that he had been raised believing Hell is the essential of the faith:

I thought a lot about that as I recently read Hell Bent: How the Fear of Hell Holds Christians Back from a Spirituality of Love by Brian Recker. As he tells the story of his “faith deconstruction,” we learn that he grew up in a very legalistic church, and he went on to be the type of pastor he grew up under, which, as it happens, was the church his own father pastored. Many of us have had that experience growing up. In that particular church setting, Christianity's main essential message is Hell. In fact, the title of chapter 1 of his book is, “The Most Sobering Reality. How Hell Takes Center Stage in Christianity.”

Now certainly, separation from God and the eternal punishment of unbelievers are taught in Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments. During His earthly ministry, Jesus spoke of those who would be in torment and those who would be with God. For example, in Matthew 25:46 He says:

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

According to Jesus, both punishment and life have the same duration, eternal. The Lord describes the fate of the unrighteous and righteous, but does not include it as part of the gospel that transfers someone from being unrighteous to being righteous. As we point out in “Eternal Conscious Torment or Temporary Eternal Life?,” and as Pastor Craig Ireland acknowledges in his excellent article, “The Eternal Flame (Updated),” there are solid believers who hold differing views on this subject.

Is it an essential, or is it an important non-essential? It is important, but although it may have taken “center stage” in his particular church experience and personal ministry, the doctrine of hell is not “Center Stage in Christianity.” It is God and His gift of salvation that is center stage in Christianity. Yet sadly, in Brian’s deconstruction, God is moved from the center of the story and replaced with a new Idol, the idol of love, particularly self-love. The reason is not at all difficult to understand. In seemingly trying to find a more biblical understanding, Recker did not turn to a historical-grammatical biblical context but instead embraced the Panentheist Richard Rohr, (whom he quotes 27 times), Universalist Rob Bell, and other liberals and progressives who deny not just hell but the other essentials of the faith as well. In our book, Richard Rohr and the Enneagram Secret, we have documented Rohr's denial that human beings are sinners separated from God. In his teaching, no salvation is necessary but only the realization that we have always been with God. In this view, Jesus didn’t atone for sin, but His death was simply to demonstrate unity with man. Recker, like Rohr, argues that salvation is not necessary and has embraced universalism. Recker  writes:

In this view of the cross, to be “saved” means to stand in solidarity with the same people as Jesus. We put a stop to scapegoating by joining Jesus among the marginalized. In that place, we experience the power of the resurrection.

He continues on:

On the cross, Jesus went through hell—not in the sense that he was punished in our place so that God isn’t forced to punish us, but in the sense that Jesus did not sow the seeds of hell, but he reaped hell anyway. He reaped the violence that other people sowed. That’s how he died for our sin. His life of love reveals where our hateful actions lead, and when we see this, and when we are moved by it, we have the opportunity to be transformed by this vision of love and called to a better way. We can be saved.

Allegedly, everyone will be with God! In the end, love wins (with a hat tip to Rob Bell).

In his deconstructed “Christianity,” Recker reads the Bible out of its historical-grammatical context and depends heavily on liberal theologians and those who hold to non-Christian worldviews. His lack of Biblical context is seen in claims like:

When I was an evangelical, I was constantly frustrated with how badly behaved the Bible was for a book that was supposed to be written by God. We believed it all fit together, but if we were honest, we were often forcing it to fit. For example, Paul says: “For by grace you have been saved through faith…not a result of works” (Ephesians 2:8–9, ESV). But James says: “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, ESV). Anyone can see that this is an obvious contradiction—unless of course they have a preconceived dogmatic belief that the Bible cannot contradict itself.

Many critical scholars who do not wear dogmatic blinders actually believe that James is directly critiquing Paul’s theology. They are in conversation with each other, and we get to listen in on their disagreement!

While it may be true that Recker and others think these James/Paul statements are contradictory, this is often due to their unsound exegetical reading. The Bible must be understood in its context. In this case, Recker adds insult to injury by reversing the order of when the two documents were written. James is the earliest of the New Testament writings, dating to about 45 A.D. (We believe it was closer to 40 A.D.) It was written between Acts 8 and 11 to Jewish believers, as he points out in James 1:1:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion

James was a very early book. Paul wrote Ephesians while in prison in Rome about 60 AD, or fifteen to twenty years after James was penned, so it certainly cannot be true that James is contradicting Paul. We need also consider that the wording shows James is talking about justification before man, not God:

Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:18b)

In Romans, written about 57 A.D. from Corinth, Paul spoke to this issue in chapter four when he wrote:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-3)

If Abraham could boast but not before God, who could he boast before? Other human beings! In 2 Corinthians 10, Paul points out that this is a fool's errand:

But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding. (2 Corinthians 10:12b)

James speaks of those early believers “showing” their faith to other people by their works or without their works. What Paul wrote in Romans three years earlier is reiterated in the Ephesians passage that Recker alludes to:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

In context, we see James and Paul are not in conflict or contradiction. They are writing about different things. James is writing about justification before one another – and Paul is talking about justification before God.

We find Recker often uses Scripture out of context to make a point that is not even in the text. For example, he writes:

This is an exercise in discernment and in listening to yourself, but if it helps you to think of it in biblical terms, think of it like this: Jesus teaches, “By their fruit you will recognize them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:16, 18). What fruit has belief in hell born in your life? I want to give you a tool for interrogating a belief—for judging its fruit.

The “fruit” spoken about in Matthew 7:15-23 is false prophecies and false teachings about God. It begins thus:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-thius16a)

Jesus is reminding His hearers and/or future readers of the biblical definitions for false prophets given in Deuteronomy 13 and 18. If an alleged prophet made just one prophecy that turned out not to be true, they were thereby to be identified as a false prophet – period. Additionally, even if they made true prophecies but led the people to worship false gods, they were thus to be identified as false prophets and false teachers. Jesus goes on to say about them on judgment day:

On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 15:22-23)

Just because one claims to be speaking for Christ, and showing many allegedly good works to be seen by others as true followers of Jesus, they must be judged by what they’re believing and teaching about Jesus. They might “look good,” but were  they truly representing THE GOD or other “gods” that were false? The fruits in question are what the false prophets were teaching about God.

Like those who have been raised in Gothardism, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses and/or many other very legalistic groups, Brian Recker has been harmed by legalism and out-of-context use of the Scriptures. But sadly know he is following false teachers and has thrown away the true faith – thrown out the baby with the bath water. Very often, when we meet with former Gothard followers, we have to start by pointing out that just because God and Gothard both begin with “Go” and end in “d” does not prove they are the same thing.

We also ask many who have deconstructed from their faith to describe to us the God they are rejecting. Often, we might agree that we, too, would reject that God as well, which surprises them. God is a holy and righteous God and cannot just wink at sin, but requires that the penalty for sin be paid. Hell is real, but people need not at all end up there because His perfectly righteous Son paid the price on the cross that we cannot pay and offers us His own righteousness in return. He is the righteous justifier of those who believe:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

Believe in and call on the one true Jesus, who loved you and gave Himself for you that you may have peace with God and receive everlasting life.Ω

My church recently read The Biblio Diet, by Jordan Rubin and Dr. Josh Axe, for our church book club. While I fully support living a healthy lifestyle, my radar goes up anytime I see someone trying to use scripture to support their research into healthy ways of living. This is because nine times out of ten, they are promoting a health-and-wealth gospel, the doctrines of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), or New Thought. And sadly, like so many other “Christian” health books out there, The Biblio Diet does just that.

This book is riddled with the false idea that we can command our bodies to be rid of diseases like cancer and that our negative thinking contributes to our lack of weight loss success. While the health tips in The Biblio Diet may be helpful, there is so much in this book that is not Biblical that I have to warn Christians to read it at their own risk.

Finally, we will discuss some other disturbing statements made by Josh Axe in his book Think This, Not That: 12 Mindshifts to Breakthrough Limiting Beliefs and Become Who You Were Born to Be. I will then let you determine whether it is right for you and your family to study these books (1 Corinthians 8:4-13).

What is the NAR and New Thought? 

NAR

The New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, is an unbiblical religious group that prioritizes mysticism over doctrine, experience over Scripture, and contemporary "apostles" over the Bible's plain text. The position and authority of spiritual leaders and miracle workers, the acceptance of "new" revelations from God, an excessive focus on spiritual warfare, and the quest for social and political dominance are all particularly noteworthy aspects of the New Apostolic Reformation.

However, the biblical qualifications for apostleship include characteristics that cannot be met today. For instance, authentic apostles were required to have personally witnessed the resurrected Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:7–8), to have been directly appointed by Jesus (Galatians 1:1; Acts 1:2; Luke 6:13), and to have demonstrated their authority through confirmed miraculous signs (Matthew 10:1; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Acts 5:12).

Additionally, the concept of receiving new revelations from God—especially those that are ambiguous and open to shifting interpretations—conflicts with the biblical process for distinguishing true prophets from false prophets. True prophets must be 100% accurate; anything less, even one, or giving teachings that lead to the worship of false gods makes them a false prophet.

New Thought

Phineas Quimby was a 19th-century American folk healer, mentalist and mesmerist, whose ideas served as the foundation for the New Thought movement. Quimby was a devotee of Franz Mesmer, a physician and hypnotist.  Quimby thought that physical ailments might be cured by the "Truth" because mental problems were the source of physical illnesses. He believed that the body would be cured of its illnesses and issues if the mind were cleared of false beliefs.

Some of Quimby's theories can be found in the theology of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science and one of his patients. She discussed the notion that mental health issues are the root cause of physical illness.

Summary of NAR and New Thought Statements Made by Rubin and Axe.

The following are statements made by Rubin and Axe that illustrate their propensity for NAR and New Thought thinking. Misusing the Bible as the basis for claiming we have the authority to command nature to conform to our will is nothing but Christianized witchcraft. 

NAR 

- Identify negative thoughts. Think about what you are thinking about. When you catch yourself thinking that you’ll always be tired, sick, or overweight, stop! Replace that lie with the biblical truth that God “heals all your diseases” (see Psalm 103:2–3). Make a list of scripture that points to the healing and wholeness you desire and meditate on it daily, praying out loud. Speak life over yourself. Remember that your tongue holds the power of life and death (see Proverbs 18:21). - Cancer, you are healed in Jesus’s name. I command you to be normal in size and to function. - Therefore, I will not allow sin, sickness, or death to lord over me. I will not allow the devil any inroad to attempt to steal, kill, and destroy me. - He wishes above all things that my soul prosper and that I would be in good health. - He says in His Word that He has given me power to tread on serpents and trample on our enemy.

We cannot become healthy by claiming to be so, nor can we construct our own reality by "positive thinking." Proverbs 18:21 does not suggest that we can manifest life or death with positive or negative speech. The context of this chapter is about taming the tongue to prevent further sin and destruction. In actuality, the fall of creation is what causes bodily diseases. Death and decay entered the earth as a result of Adam's sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12). Since we are created beings and are part of creation, our natural bodies are equally impacted by the havoc that sin brought into nature.

The most egregious statements by Rubin and Axe come when they teach that we can command cancer to leave our bodies. While I admit to leaning toward cessationism, I also know that scripture tells us not to quench the Spirit or despise prophetic utterances (1 Thess 5:19-20); therefore, it’s possible that some people today do have the gift of spiritual healing. However, we need to finish reading that passage in 1 Thessalonians because it also states to test everything (1 Thess 5:21). This is where I get very concerned with Rubin and Axe’s claims because they are rely on an unfalsifiable narrative. There is no way to determine if Rubin and Axe’s claimed research is correct, because there has not been any scientific study of it done.

I also get concerned when they say our success at improving our health is very much dependent upon our mindset. Specifically, the book states,

We needed to arm ourselves with a biblical mindset and a faith that moves mountains. When we walk in defeat, we set ourselves up for failure. But when we adopt a mindset rooted in faith, anything becomes possible.

So I made a choice. I was going to endure with hope. It was hard to believe in healing, but that morning I knew that if I didn’t start to shift my mindset, I would end up feeding the worst-case scenario.

Optimists tend to handle stress better, lead healthier lifestyles, and take proactive steps, especially in difficult times. Optimism isn’t dictated by circumstances; it’s rooted in a mindset that thrives despite challenges.

This is the same lie told to us by those in the health and wealth gospel movement, and it can easily be used to manipulate and control someone. More care needs to be shown by Rubin and Axe to prevent their book from being used by others to abuse or gaslight people.

New Thought

Our goals are beautifully summed up in this quote from Hildegard of Bingen, a German Benedictine abbess from the 1100s: “God created humankind so that humankind might cultivate the earthly and thereby create the heavenly.” Refining how we farm, eat, and live isn’t just mundane or personal work; it is the work of heaven.

Hildegard of Bingen was a Catholic mystic and Panentheist, and thus believed God lives in creation and that all of creation lives in God (i.e. man and God share the same essence.) This is the same lie Satan told Eve in the Garden all the way back in Genesis 3.

Rubin and Axe also promote the use of vision boards (pp. 222-224) to prepare your mind for success. Vision boards are from the New Age, and Axe apparently uses them in the New Age way. Axe thinks God wants us to succeed and be happy in the world; thus, if you create a vision board and believe it, it will happen. You can manifest happiness. This is the occult “Law of Attraction”, made popular by Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret, a book championed by Oprah Winfrey. Rubin and Axe state,

Visualization is biblical. In Genesis 15, God promised Abraham, who had no children, that he one day would have countless children. God told him, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be” (Genesis 15:5). Abraham believed God, and this vision eventually came to pass.

No. Visualization is not Biblical. Genesis 15 is a vision God gave Abraham. It was not a vision Abraham made for himself.

Think This, Not That.

In his 2024 book Think This, Not That: 12 Mindshifts to Breakthrough Limiting Beliefs and Become Who You Were Born to Be, Axe promotes the philosophy of Abraham Maslow, whose work gave “shape and purpose” to the burgeoning Human Potential Movement. According to Melissa Dougherty,

New Thought’s teachings on the “true authentic self” align with Ralph Waldo Emerson’s transcendental ideas. Emerson anticipates Abraham Maslow, the 20th-century psychologist and father of the Human Potential Movement (i.e. man’s return to his divine nature). In New Thought, being made in the image of God is equivalent to being God.

Transcendental beliefs were widespread throughout America in the early nineteenth century. We see them in full fruition today. Thanks to transcendentalism, people were encouraged to trust their feelings and emotions because that’s where God dwells.

In Gnosticism and New Thought, the truest part of who you are is spirit. Your body, therefore, your mind, holds you back from the supposed truth your spirit has, which is in your heart. This is why so many gnostic and New Thought teachings focus on controlling and overcoming the mind.

If you want to see the product of the Human Potential Movement, take a trip out to the Burning Man Festival in the Black Rock Desert of Nevada each summer. I guarantee you that it will only take one visit to see how demonic this ideology is and how pervasive mysticism and panentheism has become within not just society, but the church.

Conclusion

The Biblio Diet suggests we can become healthy by claiming to be so, and that we can construct our own reality by "positive thinking." Rubin and Axe are false teachers who claim we can manifest life or death with positive or negative speech. They quote people who believe in the divinity of man, and their statements that we can cure cancer if we change our mindset are not only theologically wrong, but they are also dangerous. They run the risk of creating a very abusive environment within the church. People may feel that their illness is a result of some sort of negative energy (i.e. negative thinking) they are putting out into the universe, and thus, their illness is their fault. This is nothing but Christianized witchcraft and can cause someone to want to take their own life. I cannot stress enough that if you read this book, you are reading it at your own risk.Ω

Stephanie Potts is the author of, Social Justice and the Deification of Man: What to Know When Talking with the Christian Left. She and her husband, Jim live in Dayton, Ohio, and have been married for 24 years. She worked with the federal government for 15 years as an intelligence analyst and then entered full-time Christian service in 2015. She first joined Haven Ministries in Denver, Colorado, in 2015 and then transferred to Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc in 2021. She earned her Bachelor's degree in Political Science and International Relations from Florida State University and her Master's degree in Geographic Information Systems from Penn State University. She is currently pursuing her master's degree in Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary. She has special interests in indigenous religions – especially Native American spirituality – and in responding to Catholicism and the social justice movement. Stephanie’s personal website: rainbowapologetics.com

Photo by S&B Vonlanthen on Unsplash

Often when Christian’s talk with those of a different belief system or worldview, they have the idea that by simply presenting the facts and evidence for the Christian worldview, the person will “see” the truth, and embrace it. If only it were so! It is of course very important to be ready and able to present the facts and evidence that underpin Christianity, but there are other important obstacles to consider in presenting the gospel to people.

Often it is the different definitions or understanding of terms we use that may hinder communication. That sounds odd, but if we say to a Mormon, for example, that Jesus is God, they will agree with us - but their understanding of Jesus’ godhood is very different from ours. The believe that Jesus (and indeed all of us) was born on another planet. He came to earth to receive a physical body and earned the position as god through faith plus works. And since he was once a man just like us, in Mormon dogma, we can become gods like him!

A Hindu would likewise agree that Jesus is God, but in their view, there are many gods, so adding Jesus to the mix is not a big problem. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim Jesus is a god, but of course not THE God. So, Christians and non-Christians can and often do talk completely past each other, believing entirely different things but using the same terminology. A Christian may be fooled into thinking the person they are talking to is a Christian because they use the correct words and phrases and “sound just like we do,” though their belief system is completely at cross purposes with the true gospel. We must make sure we clarify terms, ours, and theirs, when engaging them.

Another major obstacle to communication is the person’s strong emotional attachment to the group they are in. Many religious groups and organizations portray themselves as the ultimate “mother” to their devotees.

Since true Christians are not taught to devote themselves to their church in this highly emotional way, they often cannot understand the brick wall they generally run into when presenting the serious error in the group’s teachings. The “Mom doctrine” places a powerful hold on the mind of the person. How can they even listen to criticism of their dear “Mom?” This very often prevents followers from even hearing anything that may cause them to question their beliefs or leaders. Physically they are not deaf, but in a spiritual sense, they are. They simply cannot seem to comprehend what you are saying to them, no matter how persuasively you present your case.

While speaking at the 2018 Witnesses Now for Jesus Convention Midwest I pointed out that we often think we are debating ideas, but we are seen by a cultist as attacking “Mom!” I looked out into the audience and asked a friend, another missionary to cults, if his mother was still living and he replied that she was. I further inquired as to whether he trusted his mother and he affirmed that he did. I then proposed the idea to him that though he thinks his mom is a wonderful person, his mother is a drug kingpin in her area. This elicited a smile and he assured everyone that is not true. I went a bit further and posited that mob boss Mom was responsible for killing hundreds of people that “got in her way,” which brought out laughter. I then informed him that his baseball and apple pie “Mom” with her rosy cheeks and red-checkered apron is not really his mom at all but an imposter who had stolen him away from his real mother. More laughter. Finally, I asked him if he would believe me if I could produce and show him hard evidence that my accusations were true? Would he be willing to look at it? He said he might look, but he would never believe it. Of course, he wouldn’t. “Mom” is sacrosanct, with or without the red-checkered apron with which she may have dried our childhood tears. She for most of us represents the deepest emotional attachment of our lives.

Cult groups shamelessly use this truth to their advantage. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society writes:

“When we consider the tender care of our heavenly Father as manifested through his loving, motherly organization, how can our hearts but be refreshed and warmed with overflowing appreciation? When we taste the rich and sumptuous food he provides and observe the careful attention to detail with which our mother has served it, how can we speak anything but praise for worthy parents? And when we truly see the great motherly organization of God …”

Notice that they not only present the cult organization as “mom,” but put “her” — the group’s leaders and their teachings — on a par with God himself, who is the “father.”

The Watchtower is certainly not the only group which does this. Other cult groups and false religions offer themselves as “Mom” as well. Cult members may be more than willing to argue scripture or spiritual concepts with someone, and many are taught to do just that, but certainly they do not want to hear negative information about their organization, which has portrayed itself as their loving Mother. If you have good evidence to show that his group is an utter fraud, lying to him and others, he might say he will look at your evidence, but his mind will likely already be closed tightly against it. That’s why doing the work of evangelism or apologetics is not quite as simple as giving people the facts and watching a “light” descend on the person they are witnessing to.

There is a strong emotional attachment to the group and its leaders. Again, most devotees of “Mother organizations” often will refuse to even look! In our experience, it is those who have some inkling that all is not kosher with “Mom” that will refuse most adamantly, call you a name and walk away in a huff. Yet, even appreciating how attached they are to their particular group, when talking to people in “Mom” groups, it will sometimes be essential to expose their “Mom” organization’s deceit and even outright lies if the person is to be released from bondage and reached with the gospel. Their eyes are essentially closed to the bible they probably claim to revere, because the group’s interpretation of the Bible sits squarely on top of the scripture. A JW may argue about John 1:1 all day, but unless you shake their faith in the organization, they will assume that “Mom’s” teachings and biblical interpretations (of John 1:1 and all other scriptures) are correct and put those teachings above any scriptural proofs one might cite.

So, in light of the emotional attachment that people have for their religious organizations, how can they be persuaded? The Apostle Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 really speaks to this issue. We are to present any hard truths and the gospel of salvation with humility, knowing that we ourselves were as lost and as blind as they are now.

The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)

God is the one who ultimately draws and persuades them. Our part is to be as gentle in our presentation of any hard facts as we are able, while keeping in mind that gentleness does not mean silence concerning necessary hard truths.

The other huge “Mother” figure in false religion these days is of course, “Mother” Earth. The full realization of the great power of invoking “Mom” gripped me (Don) profoundly when I was at the 2015 Parliament of the World’s Religions in Salt Lake City, UT. The Parliament is a “Global Interfaith Movement” whose mission in their own words is as follows:

The Parliament of the World's Religions was created to cultivate harmony among the world's religious and spiritual communities and foster their engagement with the world and its guiding institutions in order to achieve a just, peaceful and sustainable world.

The Parliament’s central theme that year was the earth is mother. This idea was brought out in nearly every main session and the majority of breakout sessions and events. Wiccans, Pagans, and American Indian religions played a major role in reconnecting the attendees with the “feminine divine.” Most of the Wiccans and Pagans I was able to engage had grown up in evangelical churches but claimed they didn’t feel as though their churches provided real answers to the bigger questions of life. The Wiccan and Pagan sessions vigorously made the case that the original understanding of deity was matriarchal through the goddess. The earth is our “mother” who protected, provided, and cared for us, but we rebelled and replaced the original worship of the goddess with cruel patriarchy. We have horribly abused “mom,” who is now sick, and we must all work together to help her heal and return her to her rightful place in our worship and devotion. For the crowd of nearly 10,000, imbibing on the siren’s song about “Mom” becomes downright intoxicating!

The message raises humans up to a lofty height, giving them the power and the choice to either harm or heal their deity. It is a visual living example of Romans chapter 1, wherein Paul portrays the sad descent of mankind into futility and darkness, because they suppressed the truth that they all knew to be true.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Romans 1:21-25 NIV

Because of this emotional attachment that has been inculcated in them, they interpret disagreement with their worldview and refusal to adopt the “remedies” they demand for their “sick mother” as being willing to go on callously abusing her, risking her destruction. The “Mom doctrine” of the Parliament is indeed an ancient belief, predating the other “Moms” of false religion, and it is growing ever more popular as Christianity seems to be losing the influence it once had on the world of men. Paganism is the mother of all “Mom doctrines,” and Christians would do well to understand it and teach our people, and especially our youth, how to withstand its siren songΩ