Separating judgement from the Gospel

I’ve often heard it said that, as Christians (for those who read this blog that are), we shouldn’t try and “scare people into heaven” by making threats of hell when we present the message that Jesus is the savior.

I’m not quite sure what this means anymore, to be honest. While I don’t think it is in our place to judge a person (that is God’s place) or to make threats of hell, telling people that they will burn forever in a hell that resembles medieval poetry rather than Biblical truth (in other words, we don’t know enough about hell to know what it’s really like) I don’t know if we can separate the message of Jesus with the fact that God’s judgement is coming. (That’s not the same as telling someone they’re going to hell– it’s simply telling them God’s judgement is coming.)

In fact, in speaking to Gentiles, it seems the judgement is a paramount point in sermons we pick up from the book of Acts.

Take Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10) as the first example. When Peter eventually speaks to Cornelius and all those gathered at his house, look what he says:

vs 34 – “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

What does this mean? Does this mean people that don’t know Jesus but do what is right will enter into heaven? It can…

Peter then talks about how they were witnesses to Jesus’ ministry, what he did – a main point being the warfare He conducted against the devil – and then talks about Jesus’ death and then in vs 40:

“But God raised Him on the third day and made Him to appear… vs 42… and He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that He (Jesus) is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead.”

I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say that the resurrection validates Jesus as judge, which is interesting.

When Paul speaks to the Atheneans, he says something similar (Acts 17)

vs 30 “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead.“

Very interesting indeed.

I came to be a Christian because someone told me the judgement of God is coming.

You have a choice – choose life (abundant life) or choose death (abundant death). If you feel you don’t owe it to God to choose life that’s cool – it’s okay to choose death. I don’t think God judges you for choosing death, I think he does judge you for inflicting death on others (in otherwords, he will judge us all for the sins we have committed to others). If you decided you wanted death that’s what you get. If you decided you wanted life but just didn’t know how to get it, you will be judged accordingly.

If you think that doing good works might get you to have abundant life, here and now… well, it might. Romans 2: 6 seems to say so:

“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (injustice?), there will be wrath and fury.”

But how do you know when you’ve done enough? How can you be assured that your works are enough? Paul seems to follow this argument in Romans 2, asking people who teach against stealing if they steal, do they commit adultery (Rom 2:21, 22)?

You take a huge chance by relying on your own works, which will probably always be tainted with motives of some sort that are impure. Why take the chance, when you can have abundant life and know with certainty you will survive God’s judgement when it comes? How? By simply placing your faith in the Judge Himself, Jesus Christ, the one God raised from the dead and appointed as Judge. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved.

Is this scaring people into heaven? I don’t know – but last night I felt the truth of it. A judgement IS coming. Will you be able to stand in it? I don’t know. Do you know? How can you know for certainty? By believing Jesus.

This doesn’t mean I’m saying someone is going to hell, this simply means that they need to know there’s a judgement coming. I’m not making a call on the outcome of that judgement – simply to say that God WILL judge the living and the dead, and how will you stand? There’s only one way of knowing for certainty how you will stand… otherwise you take your chances and you’re on your own.

I actually became a Christian at 11 years old when someone told me the reality of God’s judgement. From that day on I never feared His judgement in the same way… and I’ve enjoyed abundant life in Him in so many other ways.

Is this scaring people into heaven, though? Or is it giving them three options?

1) Death
2) Take your own chances (works)
3) Life – in Jesus.

Which one will you choose?

Blockages to Healing = Are there really any?

For the last two or three years or so I’ve taken healing quite seriously, with a desperation to see much more healings take place within my church, my life, through my church, myself, and in and through the church in general.

I’m quite serious about it for the simple reason that Jesus commanded us (He didn’t suggest it to us, He commanded us) to heal the sick. In Matthew 10 Jesus sends out the 12 to heal the sick, and in Luke 10 he sends out 72 of His disciples to do the same. Obviously this means that the ability to heal the sick is not only subject to a select few, but any who proclaim the message of the Kingdom (there are plenty more Biblical passages where this can be shown).

There are many places in the Scripture where we see that healing is a sign that validates the message of the Kingdom because it proves that the Kingdom is here – Jesus has authority over sickness and disease, and He atoned for it through His death. You want me to show you? Sure, be healed in Jesus name. See, I told you He has all authority!

Furthermore, if I am to live my life as a disciple of Jesus (one who wants to become like Him) then I am to live like Him, am I not? Of course I am. Healing was a priority for Jesus, which is clearly shown in the Gospels, and therefore it should be a part of my ministry as well.

In the last few weeks I’ve been listening to Curry Blake, who heads over John G. Lake Ministries. John G. Lake was a man who lived in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and had a very effective healing ministry. You can find out more details about the guy at Wikipedia here.

Now Blake has had a very efficient healing ministry himself, and so I decided to listen to some of his teachings given for free on the internet that I found here. (Note: the rest of the teachings on this website look weird, so I’m not advocating any of those.)

I’m inclined to give stock to someone like Blake for the simple reasons that:

1) He has been doing this for years.
2) He has a great track record.
3) He builds away from himself – in other words, he equips others to do the work, he doesn’t build a ministry around himself.
4) He is not all about himself, unlike many televangelists (as an example).

Yesterday I also listened to some of Rob Rufus’ teachings around the subject, and was delighted to hear him say similar things to Blake. Rufus leads City Church International in Hong Kong and I have a friend who goes to his church, plus he has relationships with New Covenant Ministries International (NCMI, who my church relates to), knows people I know, and he has been around to my old church a few times. He also meets my four criteria above, and he has great teachings on grace.

Now that I’ve established the two sources, I can get to the core of my post. Both Blake and Rufus mentioned a number of things which have, traditionally, been believed by people of various church backgrounds to be blockages or hinderances to healing.

Both of them, with lots of experience in this department, flat out denied that there are ANY blockages to healing, besides only two, which are the traditions of men and unbelief (Rufus says this is not the same as faith, which I’ll explain later).

Some of the usual ‘blockages’ we often hear taught include: Sin in the sick person’s life; sin in the life of the one praying for the sick; generational curses; the person being healed does not have enough faith; the person praying is using the wrong words, style, etc.

Briefly, I’m going to list each ‘blockage’ I’ve heard numerous times preached and throw some of my own thoughts and the thoughts of these two men into the equation:

1) Sin hinders healing?

This is a very popular reason why healing doesn’t happen. However, it appears that it has no scriptural or logical ground.

Firstly, when God first brings someone into salvation they are in sin. Yet salvation is a bigger miracle than healing, isn’t it? Actually, yes, it is. So if sin somehow ‘blocks’ God from doing anything, how does He get anyone saved?

Once we were dead in sin but God, rich in mercy, by His grace and through faith, brought us into salvation DESPITE our sin. So sin does not stop God from doing what He intends to do, as in the case of salvation, and therefore how can it stop God from healing?

Secondly, those who believe in Jesus (Christians) are the righteousness of God anyway – seen as PURE, BLAMELESS, and SINLESS in His sight. That is the Gospel, isn’t it?

However, the fact that sin does not prohibit God from doing what He intends to do shows that unsaved people can get healed, too. And we see that happen regularly in the Bible. We often see people become disciples of Jesus AFTER they are healed, not before, and it shows, therefore, that healing is an evangelistic tool, a free gift that demonstrates the Kingdom and salvation. It is not something anyone deserves – it is free, like salvation.

I’ve said it somewhere before and it is a little saying of mine – Sin is not God’s Kryptonite! It is not true that God cannot be in the presence of sin! He is the mighty God! It is sin that runs from His presence, but He doesn’t run from its presence! He can be anywhere doing whatever He likes! He isn’t scared of sin! Sin has no power over Him at all.

Both Blake and Rufus have said that they have seen people healed, saved or unsaved, with sin or without, and healed others when they have known there to be sin in their own lives. These guys have seen it happen.

2) Generational curses

The idea of ‘generational curses’, briefly, says that if your father was an alcoholic, or involved in some form of sinful activity, the sin is passed down from the son to the father (usually the firstborn).

God says something to this effect in Exodus 34:6-7

“And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

However, there are a number of things to consider in this scripture. Firstly, this is part of the Old Covenant to Israel, not the New (and better, as per the book of Hebrews) Covenant in Jesus. One could say that the curse had to do with tribes, and we are no longer part of tribes (we are all a mix and mash of different tribes).

Furthermore, what about God saying that He forgives wickedness, rebellion and sin above? Why don’t we quote that more often? What does it mean to what He says about punishing the sin on the children?

Thirdly, if I sin because my father sinned, doesn’t that make my firstborn the ‘first generation’ all over again? When does this ever end?

However, perhaps the best verse to refute this (besides the whole New Testament) comes in the form of of Ezekiel 18:

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
” ‘The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

The scripture then goes on to explain in detail how the soul who sins shall suffer and die for the sin, but the son who practices righteousness shall not die because of his father’s sin. You can go read it all in Ezekiel 18.

Enter the New Covenant. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, yes, but that doesn’t mean that He doesn’t deal with people differently in history – evidenced by the New Covenant and the Old Covenant.

Besides, and more importantly, those who are saved are now ‘heirs with Christ’ and adopted into the household of God (Romans 8: 12-17). My generation goes only one person back, to Jesus, and I have been made a new creature and have nothing to do with the sins of my fathers or my fathers’ fathers. We have to believe what the Scriptures are saying or we don’t. The Scriptures are emphatic that Jesus became a curse for us when He died on the cross (Gal 3:13). Any generational curses were passed onto Jesus when He died, and they have nothing more to do with us whatsoever.

If we don’t believe this we are really trying to live under the Old Covenant rather than the New, which Paul often says in the New Testament is a ridiculous way to live. He says in Galatians that if you want to live under the Old Covenant, then you must obey the ‘whole law’. Time to observe the Sabbath, new moon festivals, and sacrifice animals to atone for your sin.

Now, the Bible is clear that He bore our griefs, afflictions, iniquities and sicknesses in Isaiah 53:5. And by his wounds we are healed. (The Hebrew words used mean all these things). Plus, Scripture gives its own commentary on this scripture, showing that it refers to sickness, in Matt 8:17. You can go and check it out there.

Even more so, where the heck do we find Jesus going back in anyone’s past and trying to find out how Satan got his foot in the door? Heck, we don’t see any of the apostles doing it either. Jesus never had the time to check everyone’s past out to see what the problem was – nor do we ever see Him heal an affliction by mentioning ANYTHING of the person’s past. You don’t find it ONE place in the Gospels or the New Testament – absolutely nowhere! So why are we doing it?

I like what Curry says – you go to India, you don’t have the time to check everyone’s past out and cast out generational curses. EVERYONE in India has had their fathers worship idols and be involved in all sorts of things. What are you going to do to demonstrate the Kingdom? Spend years tracking everyone’s past, or just chucking out the demons and sicknesses one time? The style of Jesus is always the latter.

Is generational curses really Biblical, under the New Covenant, or actually a mix between pop-psychology (going into the past etc.) and some Old Covenant principles? I’ll leave that question to you.

For these reasons, I conclude, along with Blake and Rufus, that generational curses cannot and will not prohibit healing, and heck, I say they have no hold on ANY believer whatsoever. They have as much hold as the believer will give them (which is why I think we do see SOME results with this stuff, but usually not decisive, clean, we-don’t-need-to-go-back-there-ever-again results). Those who have faith that this stuff will work may see results, because God will still honour faith in Him to do something.

3) Lack of faith

Ah, here’s probably the biggest one – a lack of faith.

This is still a little difficult for me to accept, but we do see Jesus often heal in the Gospels when someone has no faith at all. We see him commend those that do, but we don’t ever see faith prohibit His work.

We do see a lack of mighty works done in Jesus’ hometown in Mark 6:5 and Matt 13:53-58. The Bible says a few things in this scripture:

a) That He did lay His hands on some sick and they were healed.
b) That the people admitted He could do mighty works (Matt 13:54) but took offense at him (vs 57).
c) The Bible says, in Matthew 13:58, that He could do no mighty works because of their ‘unbelief’ (ESV Bible). Rufus reckons that ‘unbelief’ is not the same as ‘lack of faith’ due to the fact that the unbelief was caused by their offense, not that they didn’t believe He could do anything. This was a stubborn unbelief, a refusal to come to Jesus, despite the knowing that He could heal them. He has a strong point here.

Jesus heals despite unbelief in Mark 9: 14-27. Despite the guy’s unbelief, He still came to Jesus for the healing, which may have been the real point.

4) Style

Perhaps one of the most liberating things to hear someone like Blake say, after all of his experience, is that style doesn’t really matter. While there are a few obvious principles, God will use any style. And this makes sense.

One of the principles would be that we don’t ever see Jesus or the apostles pray to God about the healing – they command the sickness, or rebuke the demon, but don’t ask God to do it for them.

However, we sometimes see Jesus or the apostles just touch people, without commanding the sickness or doing anything like that, and see them healed. Sometimes Jesus spits on someone’s eye, and sometimes he tells lepers that they will be healed on the way to the temple. We see Jesus use different styles, but some obvious principles are also there.

Blake mentions how Smith Wigglesworth, another famous healer of history, kicked a baby once and it got healed. Now, when Wigglesworth was a child, someone came to pray for him (I think it was his appendix that was sick) and that someone hit him in the infected area, and Wigglesworth got healed. So Wigglesworth placed a lot of confidence and faith in that kind of style from then on.

The point is that kicking babies does not bring healing to babies! And healing has very little to do with style or methodology. While there are some basic principles, we can (and probably should) have our own style of doing this.

About the only two things that do hinder healing.

Both Blake and Rufus say that only the traditions of men (of which we have listed four above) hinder healing – because we believe them rather than the word of God. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing this in Mark 7:13 – “thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.”

Secondly, unbelief is another problem – a persistent disbelief that God will do it.

I think that unbelief today, at least in my own life, is largely due to the traditions I have been taught – that God doesn’t always heal; that you need to earn your healing in some way; that I don’t have enough faith for it; that I don’t have the character yet to heal others; that I’m not ready yet to heal others; that I don’t have the ability to heal others (God has the power and the ability, and He lives in me, doesn’t he?); that generational curses will prohibit quick healing of others (or my own); that some sin somewhere in my life prohibits me from being healed or healing others; that I haven’t received the special ‘gift’ of healing (but I have the Holy Spirit, don’t I?); that I don’t have enough this, that, or I’m not good enough etc. etc. etc.

Yet Jesus seems simple about this – just do it. I think what I need to do is unlearn all this other stuff and learn what the Bible really says about this – and just do it.

Saying Goodbye to the God of the Ideal

In my own life I’m going through a new phase, a new era… I’m getting married. Next week Friday, to be exact, and in this process leading up to the marriage I’ve been reminded again that God is not the God if the ideal. In fact, God isn’t interested in the ideal– he seems interested in something else, entirely.

Both me and my wife-to-be have made certain prayers during this phase, most of them to do with our financial matters and such; and today I found myself quite disappointed, as I was hoping for a particular financial matter to be sorted out (in some form of miraculous way, as that was really my only option left) and at the eleventh hour… nothing… at 11:45… nothing. At 12? Still nothing. So the only way I was able to sort it out was to borrow money (from the bank, as in… a credit card) and then had to wrestle with God with a ton of questions.

“God, don’t you say that debt is a bad thing? Why have you allowed me to get into debt?”

“God, don’t you say you will supply my needs? Well, this was a need, and you haven’t seemed to have come through…”

“God, don’t the psalms say that if we trust in You we will never be disappointed?”

Yes, probably in the next week I’ll be able to pay off the credit card, so God hasn’t truly let me down – He has supplied me enough business so that I can meet the need eventually. But why didn’t He sort it out so that I didn’t have to get into debt in the first place? Would it not have been ideal if I got paid the money I’m owed from various people today, as I was promised, so that I could pay for the thing we needed to have done? Why didn’t He do something? Why didn’t He produce the miracle I’ve heard other people talk about – you know, the cheque under the door, the surprise deposit, the something? Do I need to make excuses for Him – write this off with some excuse about me not praying hard enough? Or not planned wisely enough? Or not done something that somehow I was supposed to know to do even though I didn’t?

Then I’m reminded, again and again, that somewhere in my mind I still struggle to get rid of the lie that had been pumped into me from our culture, both inside and outside the church: life is supposed to be ideal. Life is meant to be what you need NOW. Life is Woolworths. You know, it’s nutritious (so they say) and it’s quick – just pop it in the Microwave. All you need in only a few minutes…

It's the happy Jesus... yes, I couldn't afford to buy it from iStockPhoto... didn't you read the entry?

Faith is largely a journey of disappointments that end in surprises of joy. But it is not the journey of the ideal… yet, has not the modern church insisted that it should be? Haven’t we all heard the formula before? You know, the do x and y happens formula?

The live righteously and God will come through… miss it, and He won’t formula?

So, if God is not coming through, you’ve missed it buddy. You didn’t believe hard enough… you didn’t pray hard enough… you didn’t say the right thing to your mom this morning… you messed up, and so God didn’t come through. Had you not messed up, then He would have come through.

In disappointment there’s two people we can blame – either ourselves, or God. But neither of them are actually the problem… perhaps what we’ve been taught is the problem. Perhaps our culture is the problem.

We believe in the god of the ideal. Well, that’s not the true Living God. If it was, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die for us… He would have probably just appeared and forgotten the whole thing.

Why a bloody crucifixion?

Why a mystery?

Why not fit into a box, God?

Why not do the ideal? What’s wrong with you?

What is God doing? Would the ideal not be to come down and sort out all the injustices of the world, right now? Why

Obama's got the Colgate smile... if Obama's got it, shouldn't Jesus?

put it in the hands of Christians to do (with Him, but nevertheless make it our responsibility)? Why is He not interested in the ideal? Why doesn’t He just do what makes sense?

On the journey of faith, we must let go of the God of the Ideal and latch onto the God who gets His hands dirty, who spits into the eyes of the blind, who writes in the sand. The God that doesn’t have a Colgate smile, but rather a dirty cloak and messed up hair. Maybe His breath even stinks. The God that died naked on a cross – dirty, ugly, smelly, disgusting… yet a sweet and beautiful fragrance. A picture of glory, of true joy! This is the tension of faith, the life on the edge, the beautiful view at the end of the cliff – where we’re on the knife-edge of danger and peril.

Let’s let go of the God of the Ideal, who we can formulise, theologise, scientifogise. It’s time to embrace the mystery… to embrace the dirt… to let our breath stink…

to die naked on a cross…

And perhaps not even know why…

But still know that He is good.

The Foundation For Ministry and Leading

This is a post about “maturity” and part of a synchroblog. For a list of those involved with the synchroblog, check at the end of the post.

In the light of the recent Todd Bentley event (for those of you who don’t know, Todd Bentley has apparently separated with his wife, stepped down from the Florida revival thingie, and was apparently ‘emotionally involved’ with another woman of his staff) I thought that maturity was an apt topic to write about.

Some of you might not know who Todd Bentley is, which is fine. You can google him or see him at YouTube. Todd Bentley is a guy who does healing, and – although some would say that not all of his healings have been validated – it seems to me that there is a great deal of genuine healing going around his ministry.

Where the problem comes in is that Bentley seems to have lacked some of the intrinsic character needs that are (so often) lacking in the healing ministry. My post isn’t to show, so much, that this is Bentley’s fault but more to say that those around Bentley (including some well known guys such as Rick Joyner) seemed to have been in such a rush for revival that they were happy with Bentley doing his thing despite their own knowledge of some character issues that needed to be ironed out.

Generally, the church (I mean the people, not some institution) seems to be in such a rush to do ministry that we lose the basics of character, rather employing an attitude of needing results NOW before laying the necessary foundations that take TIME. I’m in no doubt that Bentley does possess the gift of healing (even if it is not as prolific as all the marketing around him made it out to be) and in a rush to get everyone healed we now sit in a situation where the ministry that did take place looses momentum and, more sadly, has now once again lost a lot of credence. Many people are now more skeptical over healing, when they were previously in a place where they might have just accepted God’s healing as something that He really does. I’m one of them, having lost a great deal of faith in God’s will to heal because so many of the healing cases are coming up as moot.

Jesus didn’t seem to be in such a rush, having only started his ministry at 30 and at a party told his mom that his time had ‘not yet come’. He still performs the miracle, but it doesn’t seem that he would have done it had he not been asked by his mom (who he obviously loved).

If a man possesses a great healing (or any) anointing that could touch thousands of lives, but lacks maturity in Christ and has some character problems, should we still launch him out into ministry because of the fact that the gospel will be told and many will be touched? It seems to me that, more and more, the answer is no. ESPECIALLY if the guy/gal’s ministry is going to be so public (but, in Todd Bentley’s case, we could also argue that the relentless MARKETING that went behind the ministry is completely unhelpful and has no real place in the church or in ministry). It seems that Jesus was in no rush to begin his ministry – he waited when God had sent Him, despite Him knowing something of what God intended for Him to do. He asked His disciples to do the same – telling them to WAIT in Jerusalem until power fell from on high.

Maturity is paramount in ministry, and true ministry requires it. Otherwise, sooner or later, the ministry can fall because it is not built on a strong foundation but is built on sand. The foundation is relationship with Christ, and this is a foundation that takes years to build. It seems, to me, that God is interested in quality first, and isn’t in a rush to refine us like gold until we are exactly right to do our ministry in its fullness. Don’t get me wrong, there are some things we should be doing from day 1 of our walk with Christ (like, friendship evangelism for instance) but we require maturity before we start leading churches, and it seems to me that most of the church is impatient and want to lead a church before they have any form of real, lasting, solid, refined maturity and relationship (and, relationship(s) with others!).

Those who have contributed to this synchroblog are :

Phil Wyman asks Is Maturity Really What I Want?
Lainie Petersen at Headspace with “Watching Daddy Die“
Kathy Escobar at The Carnival in My Head with “what’s inside the bunny?”
John Smulo at JohnSmulo.com
Erin Word at Decompressing Faith with “Long-Wearing Nail Polish and Other Stories”
Beth Patterson at The Virtual Teahouse with “the future is ours to see: crumbling like a mountain“
Bryan Riley at Charis Shalom is Still Complaining
Alan Knox at The Assembling of the Church with “Maturity and Education“
KW Leslie at The Evening of Kent
Bethany Stedman at Coffee Klatch with Moving Towards True Being: The Long Process of Maturity
Adam Gonnerman at Igneous Quill with “Old Enough to Follow Christ?“
Joe Miller at More Than Cake with “Intentional Relationships for Maturity“
Jonathan Brink at JonathanBrink.com with “I Won’t Sin“
Susan Barnes at A Booklook with “Growing Up”
Tracy Simmons at The Best Parts with “Knowing Him Who is From the Beginning“
Joseph Speranzella at A Tic in the Mind’s Eye with “Spiritual Maturity And The Examination of Conscience“
Sally Coleman at Eternal Echoes
Liz Dyer at Grace Rules with “What I Wish The Church Knew About Spiritual Maturity“
Cobus van Wyngaard at My Contemplations with “post-enlightenment Christians in an unenlightened South Africa“
Steve Hayes at Khanya with “Adult Content“
Sound and Silence considers Inclusion and Maturity
Lew A at The Pursuit talks about Maturity and Preaching
Kai Schraml tells us about Mature Virtue

Todd Bentley

I’ve been watching Todd Bentley from the USA with some interest in the last few days. For those of you who don’t know him, you can see his website : www.freshfire.ca

I’ve posted this entry at www.emergingafrica.info to see the conversation there (which is usually more interesting than here) so you’re welcome to read this there and comment – or, just comment here!

Todd has, of course, caused some stir amongst Christian circles with the usual rumblings : he’s a heretic this, and a heretic that; OR, he’s the best thing to come since Christ Jesus.

Both views do, in my opinion, miss the point. But I’ll be honest : I always find myself skeptical when guys preach about these visions they’ve had, and that they’ve gone up to the ‘third heaven’ and spoken to this or that angel. Probably, I can understand some people do have a lot of visions (so, I can live with those — even if some of them seem a bit wierd.) But as for all the angels stuff, I just worry when people get all hung up on that. Too much of his teachings do focus around angels, and I’m like “why?”

I’m pretty sure that people are probably getting healed at his meetings. It’s impossible for someone to run a slick con-operation on this kind of scale. I always wonder why God seems to use the guys who we all might see as ‘wierd’ for this kind of thing — I just wish we could have normal, down-to-earth people in the healing ministry (There is Francis Macnutt, who I think seems pretty normal.) Maybe it’s because the eccentric are usually the only guys willing to make a fool of themselves, and the rest of us are trying too hard to be respectable? It would be interesting to hear thoughts on that.

(I do wish I could see someone like Francis Macnutt do this sort of thing : pity there’s no real free info of him on the web. I don’t think I can really afford to import a video — although I do recommend his book “Healing” which I am in the process of reading the second time now.)

Anyway, what do you all think about this sort of thing? The healing stuff does intrigue me, especially since I think healings of all types should be what the normal Christian life is about. Hopefully, one of these days, God will use me more extensively in healing ministry. I hope He uses us all! (or, rather, we’ll all be willing to let Him!)

Should we give up our respectability for a bit of eccentricness? Have you had any experiences of healing? I’ve been healed a few times myself, and only seen people healed from minor things at my prayer. Although, I’ve seen guys healed of some major things at the prayer of pastors I know. Anyone around here prayed for someone and seen them healed? Want to share it? And your thoughts on this stuff?

I do think Todd Bentley’s website sucks : it represents a typical American ‘give us money’ type of approach. Whether that is his heart or not is hard to say. I imagine he is probably too busy to worry about his website : but guys should make sure their team represents them well.

Calling the “H” word and dropping the “H” bomb

This is really my contribution to the synchroblog “Emerging heresy” called for by envoy at the emergingafrica.info website.

I think it’s a great idea to call for a synchroblog on this topic because the Church itself ought to be a universal/global community of unity and brotherly love. In other words, one of the things (I think) that will lead the church into unity is a proper definition of what heresy actually, really, is. To be honest, I see this term thrown around WAY too much around discussions of theology and ideas when, in fact, the word may be quite misplaced and ought not to even be in those discussions.

I’ll probably say a few broad statements in this (much hurried) post merely to get some thinking going. Apologies that it’s hurried – I’m currently in London and don’t have a heck of a lot of time to write my post. Although, I’ve been thinking about this topic for quite some time.

It’s clear both by looking at history and the present day that there are numerous interpretations of the exact same verses. It’s pretty clear to me that we cannot pin final authority to traditions of men or the institutions of men (which is what Luther and the reformers fought against in the reformation) but it has become also clear that final authority cannot be pinned down to the bible alone. Why do I say this? It’s because the bible is interpreted by men, and it has to be. There’s just too much there for it not require interpretation. What this has resulted in is the situation where even though people claim to follow the ‘Bible alone’ it’s pretty obvious that they follow their INTERPRETATION alone, and those people who do not fall within their specific interpretations of specific key topics are labelled ‘heretics’ and excommunicated from those groups.

For me, it ought to be Christ alone and Spirit alone. The semantics of that ought to be worked out in another post, but we need to look at heresy here specifically.

Excommunication is nothing new, except that we don’t burn people at the stake anymore for disagreeing with a particular interpretation. But it’s clear that, throughout history, the label “heretic” has resulted in many various crimes which are clearly not Christ-like and certainly have no place in the church. It’s pretty clear that ‘heretic’ can be used against anyone that doesn’t agree with someone else; and that’s all it is actually ever used for. If you’re a calvinist and I’m an arminian open-theist (I’m not saying that I am) I am labelled a heretic despite the fact that we both read the same Bible and I just present a different interpretation. “How can this be?” asks the non-Christian, or the Christian who has come to the realisation that there’s a big world out there… at some point we have to ask “Who is REALLY teaching heresy, and who isn’t?” and once we go exploring down the road to decide for ourselves we find that we, in fact, may be led to conclusions that are considered heretical in our own grouping… and that simply scares us. And it can even make us question our salvation, or whether God truly does in fact exist.

There is, however, only one bottom line. We can have certain interpretations of the scriptures but there is one universal scripture, or – in fact – only one fundamental. Love each other. Unconditionally. And that, I think, is where the H-Callers simply get it wrong.

To see my conclusion from another angle is to look at our salvation itself. Is Christ concerned with what we believe in? Or, rather, WHO we believe in? It appears that it’s clearly the latter – for whosoever believes IN CHRIST will have eternal life. It’s not for whosoever believes the RIGHT THINGS about Christ will have eternal life. Your salvation must be placed within a person, not an idea, philosophy or systematic theology.

The truth is that you can believe in heresy and still be saved if you believe in Christ; because, if salvation depended on the ‘right’ knowledge alone we would all be in trouble. Anyone who doesn’t see that is simply not honest enough in my books. In fact, I want to say that the idea that salvation depends on if you believe the right things is a type of Gnostic idea– it’s saying that knowledge is the highest thing, rather than Christ (and a relationship) being the true central core of the entire matter.

So my proposal with the word ‘heretic’ is to shift the meaning of this word to where I think it actually ought to be. Christianity is ENTIRELY a relational issue; it’s about our relationship with God, and our relationship with each other. Likewise, it would make both logical and obvious sense to say that heresy is a RELATIONAL issue, not a DOCTRINAL issue.

In other words, heresy is actually an issue of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong.’ When we think in a ‘me vs you’ way the result is to break away from the ‘them’ and form your own little group… your own little ‘us’ — and then, of course, pronounce that ‘they’ are the ‘heretics’ and they haven’t found the ‘TRUE FORM of teaching’ that ’Us’ Enlightened ones have.

THAT is true heresy, and if you look at the early church that appears to be the way they saw things. This is why, it appears, you could (for example) have so many differing views on hell within the early church and yet no one claims any of those views to be heresy. Heresy is only claimed on those who wish to ‘break away’ with what those who break away call “true teachings.” The Gnostics were certainly those who fell under this category, because for them the true teaching was not salvation in Christ. Gnostics tried to break away from the church relationally.

It is true to say that the doctrine may LEAD to heresy, but not true to say that the doctrine IS heresy. The basic fundamental of the Christian faith, or – shall I say – Christ himself is this : love. I take a cue from seeing heresy in this way from John in the Scriptures :

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

The issue of heresy is ‘those who went out from us’ not those who stayed but discussed and conversed different interpretations of doctrine. John doesn’t even refer to ‘those who teach differently than us’ but refers to those who have broken fellowship and relationship with the church. Heresy is an uncommitment to our covenant with each other and (ultimately) with God for the sake of pushing our own teachings and views.

To make another sweeping statement : I question the covenantal commitment of a person towards God if that person shows non-committal within his covenant towards the body of Christ. When we entered into Christ and salvation, we entered into his Kingdom and His Community and His body. One cannot love the head only and not the body. We are charged to commit and love both in covenant, friendship, and true love.

I often think of Martin Luther and the situation he found himself in. This may be idealistic to say, but it may have been more correct for Luther to have rather attempted reform WITHIN the church. Although what occurred was probably necessary, we as the church today are more well positioned than any other generation to ensure we don’t do the same things. We must ensure that we do not become heretics : that we show a commitment to our relationships, and trust God to build the church, change mindsets and bring revival. Our relationships must come first, our doctrines second.

By doing this we actually put a significant safeguard on doctrine. Any doctrine that can lead to heresy ought to be examined : and any person with different or even strange theological ideas can work these ideas out within the church and the relationships within the church. We would all be accountable to each other, and the Spirit would work within us to work towards unity in the faith and doctrine. In other words, if God reveals something amazing to me that the church isn’t ready to accept, I need to work this revelation out WITH the church and trust that the Spirit would work this revelation into the church. I must trust that Jesus is building His church, and that my revelation will also be revealed to others and that, eventually, the reform that must take place will take place. To trail ahead of the rest of the church and just leave everyone behind is heresy, regardless of whether my doctrine is in fact more correct. This would be because I would be placing doctrine ahead of my covenantal commitment. Surely that IS heresy!

This works both ways : neither those who are at the back-end (doctrinally speaking) can assert their views as superior and neither can those at the front do so. The church moves forward, organically, and those with a stronger faith ought to bear with the failings of the weak.

If we, today, decided to shift what heresy is from a doctrinal issue to rather a relational issue (or, shall we say, a commitment to relationships and covenant issue) I think there would be a GIGANTIC change in the way the church looks and – overall – preaches the Gospel. The fundamentals would rather shift towards what is the true fundamental- CHRIST. And Christ as a fundamental means there is only ONE fundamental action required on our part – LOVE. And Love means there are a few fundamental ways of living : seeking and saving the lost, and being committed to our relationships to the point that if we’re right about something we still don’t go and try and ‘do our own thing’ at the detriment of these relationships.

Which leads me to say something about what I think of the “Emerging Church” - which is partly what Envoy has called for. Firstly, the label is entirely unneccessary because it creates a subtle ‘us’ and ‘them’ approach. While this may not be deliberate, it certainly makes it way too easy for people to label and form a group out of it (in fact, this has already happened to various degrees.) It also makes people think they know where the wind is blowing, when in fact they don’t. Rather, the wind blows where it pleases and we do harm to the Spirit’s work when we try and label what kind of wind it is. I think, at least.

Secondly, the Emerging Church needs to make sure that it stays clear of heresy — by simply placing heresy in its proper context or seeing it in the proper way. If the “Emerging Church” (whatever that actually is) decides to form its own group and simply do things its own way out of frustration (or, perhaps, even arrogance of its own) it is as guilty of heresy as the very ideas within the groupings it tries to react against. One of those ideas is an ‘us vs them’ approach. We all need to stay clear of this.

Heresy must become a relational issue, not a doctrinal one. This way things may take longer to change, but they certainly would be more Spirit-Led (ie, we trust Jesus to build the church and to cause breakthrough in mindsets etc.) rather than hop on our own bandwagon and say “well, if you can’t keep up with what’s going on we’re outta here.” In fact, this may actually make things QUICKER to change. I admit that it can be terribly frustrating when we are ahead of the others, but the way of Jesus was never to abandon his disciples because they couldn’t keep up. We ought to show the same love towards those covenantal relationships God has placed in our lives.

(PS : I don’t know whether the “Emerging Church” is ‘ahead’ of the others, and it would be harmful if anyone who claimed to be ‘emerging’ ever thought so. The only way to really know is to work within the church itself, rather than break away and form some little committee of our own.) (PPS - I say this while not labelling or placing myself as an ‘emergent’ in any way, or as anything besides Christian for that matter.)

If the Emerging Church continues to marginalise itself, it simply makes it easier for others to marginalise it. Not only that, but it also becomes the very monster it reacted against. History shows us that this always happens : In twenty to forty years time, the Emerging Church has formulised itself and has it’s own ’set doctrine’ and ‘ecclisiastical practise’ or whatever; then a new group of Christians rise up to react against what’s going on and the Emerging Church claims them to be heretics. This way, we simply never really go as far as where I think God wants to take us. We ought to see this as an organic process, which involves a growing TOGETHER. The church is not the place for the lone-ranger, regardless of how pioneering he may in fact be.

This is a BODY, after all.

Here are all the contributors to the synchroblog :

Aratus – The Gender of the Creator and Face forward
Cobusvw – Conversing with the heretics
FakeExpressionsOfTheUnknown Who’s Heresy
Liquid Light – Coming out a heretic emerges
Mike Smith – Emerging Heresy
Nic Paton – The Lif Cycle of Heresy and The Blessings of Heresy
Roger Saner Towards a heretical orthodoxy
Steve Hayes Cult
Tim Victor – Confessions of a heretic

Enjoy them all! They all give some varying perspectives – great reads!

Stick it to the man!

Having been back in JHB for almost a week now I feel the pressure… the endless voice of the Invisible Man insisting that you need to be doing better… you need to worry about money. You need to worry about where your life’s going. You’re not performing well enough, man. You need to be making something out of your life, you’re not doing enough. Where are you going? Argh! Man, he can irritate me.

I think one of the principal things you learn while on holiday is what is of real value. And, in the end, what’s of real value is God and friends and family. That’s of real value. Really. Of course I want to enjoy my job. Of course I want to make a difference in this world. But the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which produces a harvest. It’s the small things that matter, the small things that are of worth, the small things that bring us joy. It’s in the small things… the free things… that you really find God. JHB can make you forget that. With it’s continuous humdrum of restlessness and pursuit of so called ‘bettering your life’ all it’s doing is making you forget what really matters.

This is why, I think, I often feel quite alone here. I’m not saying I feel LONELY, only ALONE. My week is nothing but about performing well… oftentimes, even at church. Deep down, I just want to be with my friends. I Just want to ‘be.’ Delirious used to sing a song called ‘All I want is you’ and there was a line that said “Maybe I can just call up my friends, play some music, be myself. All I want is you Lord.”

That’s really how I wish I could live my life. But so many voices around me tell me that that’s not how I ought to live. But God is amongst us when we get together as his people. Probably more than when we get together to perform a program or to DO something. I don’t really want to DO church anyway, I only want to BE it… and BE it together, with my friends, my brothers and sisters, and all those who will be my friends in the future.

The challenge is to live your life for what really matters despite what the Invisible Man says to you over your shoulders… “You’re wasting time man, life is short. You need to make your stamp on history. Make enough money for you to retire well, and your kids to do well.” These things can even sometimes sound so holy, but they’re just a red herring. In the words of the great Jack Black from School of Rock “You got to stick it to the man!” Thanks Barry Griggs for that reminder!

Back from holiday!

Well, I’m back from a totally AWESOME holiday in East London.

I went down to be at Lindsey and Shane Riley’s wedding, which – I must say – was one of the best weddings i’ve been to. Well done guys, it was really awesome and excellent being able to share the day with you guys. Plus, it was ultra cool having wraps for a wedding! And being able to dress in whatever you felt like! I was pretty stoked!

Shane, your speech was the best dude. I could have listened for another hour for sure!!

Here’s a random photo of the B&B we stayed in, about to go to the wedding. Was loving the wedding clothes! Myself on the left, then JJ and Benji and a fat little dolphin at the back. Caroline on the right. Sorry guys, now your photo’s are on the web. Ha ha! And I didn’t even ask permission!!

Thanks also to the Willis family, your hospitality is amazing!! I think that you really showed me the idea of hospitality in the Bible – it was an incredible testimony. It was awesome being with you guys, and great to hang out with JJ and Benji for a while. And all my JHB friends too.

Sorry the quality’s a little dodge, but needed to mention that we’re all king’s of poker now and if I wasn’t a Christian i’d probably make a lot of money from the casino. Ok, I know that’s cheesy, but I didn’t really know what else to say. Actually, to be honest, it was really only Jonno Warmington and John Stone who were raking up the match sticks. The rest of us were sucking pretty bad.

 What else can I say? I loved every second of it. East London is actually quite a wonderful and beautiful place. I’m feeling pretty refreshed. Back to work! Start a new job next month at last!

 Well, enough about me. Here’s the last photo. Thanks Andrea for the photo’s – she took them on a cell phone, so they’re not the best. And I hope everyone is ok with me putting photo’s of them on the www! If you’re not, get over it. Chops.

 Chopper… er, I mean, John Stone, posing like a chopper eating his bacon next to Ands.

Links, wonderful links

I’ve also posted my blog about hell on the engagenations blog at http://emergentafrica.com. It has resulted in some wonderful comments and conversation, worth some reading.

 Ryan

My feelings about hell

Over at the engagenations blog, i’ve posted my feelings about hell and whether or not this topic is prohibiting Christian evangelism rather than encouraging it. See http://engagenations.wordpress.com