“The Shack Up”?  Is that the sequel to “The Shack”?

Not quite.

I’m talking about the idea of cohabitation before marriage.

I’m talking about “moving in” with your boyfriend/girlfriend before you actually get married.

I’m talking about “try before you buy”.

Now, I’m not writing for non-Christians here (as if too many will end up here or care what I say), but rather those people who profess Christ and still think that “moving in together” is a legitimate option for professing Christians.  I’m addressing those men and women who attend a church and would call themselves “Christians”.  I’m addressing people out there who at least claim to believe the Bible and follow Christ.

I’m also writing this to those of you that feel the cultural/financial/peer pressure to “move in” with your girlfriend/boyfriend and yet have some sort of silent alarm going off in the back of your head that makes you unsure, if even a little bit.  I write this for those of you who have searched for some wisdom but ended up at articles like this floundering mess on TodaysChristianWoman or this facepalm on the Christian Post or this absolute faceplant on Charisma.

If you’re like me or grew up in church circles like I did, you’ve probably heard people at church say that “living together before you’re married is wrong” but when you asked for specifics all you got was “the Bible says” without an actual chapter and verse (or an answer with any substance at all).  You were probably told the same thing about the concept of “sex outside of marriage” but when you looked for the verse that says “sex outside of marriage is wrong” and you never found that one either.  You’ve looked in the Bible and recognized that adultery is mentioned, but you’re not talking about committing adultery; you’re not even married!  You also saw that in Genesis 2:18-25 (and other places like Matthew 19:4-9) talk about how God has instituted marriage and ruled out divorce, but you’re reticent to leap “full bore” into this marriage stuff precisely because you don’t want to get divorced!

If you’re like I was when I was younger, you’ve found yourself looking in the Bible, being confused, and eventually seriously wondering if there actually were any reasons why you should not move in with your current love interest.

I mean, it seems like an okay idea right?

It cuts the bills in half.

A whole lot of people are doing it, right?

You test drive a car before you buy it, right?  Is not a spouse more important than a car?

Maybe you’re wanting to take the “next step” in commitment and let him/her know that you’re serious about your relationship?

Maybe you’re thinking that marriage is just a piece of paper, right?  It doesn’t make you love someone more, so why jump through some arbitrary hoop, right?

Or maybe your folks got divorced (along with the folks of many of your friends) so the “institution” of marriage isn’t something you want to get stuck with before you know what you’re getting into?

And who’s kidding who?

You’re somewhat interested in SEX, right?

I’ve got really good news for you. The Bible gives you a framework for dealing with, and even answering, every one of those questions.  The Bible has answers even if the “spiritual giants” in your life don’t seem to be able to find them.  I also grew up around a bunch of “spiritual giants” that were actually fairly clueless about what the Bible said about this stuff.  That’s probably why the youth groups (and the Bible College) that I was a part of were plagued with sexually-related problems.

Still, the same God who created the heavens and earth, who rescued Daniel from the lion’s den and resurrected Jesus from the dead is not silent on the issue.  He’s made his thoughts known to mankind.  Let’s take a look at the Bible on the topic, okay?  You might be surprised what God has to say…but first, we need a single foundation:

The Bible is actually the word of God. 

I’m not talking about some sort of esoteric “it’s a special book” kinda idea.

I mean that the Bible is actually a book where the ultimate source of the content is God himself.  It’s God’s book in that he’s the ultimate author.  In that book, in a way that no other book can claim, we have the thoughts of God made known to us.  The Bible is quite actually what God has to say about things.  When the Bible speaks, God speaks.

If we have that one foundation, we can deal with the question of cohabitation before marriage.  Without that one foundation all we have is a bunch of opinions by people who, regardless of how smart they are, are simply guessing.  Without that foundation we have no authoritative position on the subject, let alone issues of morality in general.  Without that foundation there’s no real reason to believe that anything matters, including doing good deeds.  Without that foundation, there’s no “good deeds”in the first place, except what society dictates…and who really cares what society wants, right?  Without that foundation there’s also no real reason to think that that there’s a life beyond this one, or that you’ll have to answer to anyone for what you do in this life.  You may as well run off and do whatever  you want and use any means to get it…

…but the fact that you don’t absolutely betrays the fact that, somewhere in your heart, you know better.  God has made you with implicit knowledge of good and evil (and passages like Romans 1:18-23 talk about this) and even though it’s fuzzy, it’s not gone.  Your inability to live as if nothing matters should inform you that, somewhere inside, you know that some things are morally right and other things are morally wrong.

The reality of the matter is that what you do in this life matters to God and he has made his expectations of you clear.  Those expectations are revealed in the 66 books of the Bible, and the Bible is the actual words of God from the mind and mouth of God, unveiled to mankind.  The Bible is actually God’s book.

The apostle Paul addresses this idea rather strongly in 1 Corinthians 2:1-16.  Remembering that Paul was the guy that God personally selected for taking his message to the non-Jewish world (Acts 13:44-52 – Paul wasn’t just some chump), Paul addresses the church in the ancient Roman city of Corinth and in the second chapter of his first letter to them, Paul says,

- When he came to Corinth, he didn’t talk about God with “lofty speech or wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:1), meaning that he didn’t try to impress them with being wordy or trying to sound smart.  Rather, he proclaimed a simple message of Jesus Christ crucified (1 Cor. 2:2) and left the “convincing” up to God and his power (1 Cor. 2:3-5).

- Paul then says that he still has a wise message, but not wise in the way that the secular world would recognize (1 Cor. 2:6).  The wisdom of Paul’s message is a “hidden wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 2:7) that the world didn’t understand because if they did, they would have never killed Jesus (1 Cor. 2:8-9).  In an effort to stop Jesus by killing him, the world gave God exactly what he wanted.

- The wisdom of Paul’s message is revealed by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:10), and the Spirit of God is the only person who can ever know God’s secrets (1 Cor. 2:11).  Also, the Spirit of God is the only one who can ever reveal God’s secrets, and that Spirit is exactly who God gave to Paul to reveal those secrets (1 Cor. 2:12) which Paul then can pass on to the people who are willing to listen to God’s message (1 Cor. 2:13).

- Those secrets revealed to Paul by the Spirit of God aren’t accessible or understandable to everyone, since the person without the Spirit of God in them (namely a non-Christian) cannot possibly understand them since it takes the Spirit of God to not only reveal them to Paul but make sense of them to Christians (1 Cor. 2:14).

- That being said, when Paul speaks words from the Spirit of God he doesn’t let the unbelieving world judge him or his words and decide what makes sense and what doesn’t, since the man with the Spirit isn’t judged by the world, nor can he be (1 Cor. 2:15).    The unbelieving world (meaning every non-Christian out there, added together) doesn’t know the secrets of God, nor can it tell God something that he doesn’t already know infinitely more than they do…but the apostle Paul, who has the Spirit of God in him, has access to the very mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16).  That “mind of Christ” is also what Paul reveals in his writings, and that mind of Christ that underlies the entire Bible is what gives the Bible it’s universal and unequivocal authority.

No other book comes close to the Bible with regards to truth or authority, for the simple reason that no other book claims to actually be written by God by means of people who were getting direct revelation from the Spirit of God (see 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:16-21).  The book of Mormon doesn’t make that claim, and neither does the Qu’ran.  The Bhagavad Gita doesn’t.  The various writings of Buddhism sure don’t, and neither do all the writings of the lesser religions (Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Zoroastrians, etc.).  The Bible makes a big claim with lots of implications that will probably surface in the comments, but I’ll deal with some those implications there (though it’s not really the point of this post to address every challenge possible that skeptics will bring against the scripture).  Still, if you claim to be a Christian this shouldn’t be new information to you.  This should be stuff you’ve heard before, but I just wanted to restate it to lay a little proper foundation for examining what the Bible says about the issues related to “the shack up”.

When the Bible speaks, God speaks and it’s time to listen up.

If we agree there, we can get some solid guidance on the issue of “the shack up”.

That’s exactly what we’re going to do in the next post.  Seeing that this one is already getting long, I’m going to save the Biblical exploration of the topic of “the shack up” until next time.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “trying my best to pick up the slack with what little time I have available” Unger

In the previous post, I introduced the topic of professing Christians “shacking up”, or cohabiting before marriage. I brought up a few common arguments for why professing believers may think about “the shack up”, and then I laid the foundation on which there can be some sort of positive resolution to the issue: the authoritative word of God.

So if we can meet on that foundation, let’s spend a little time in the scripture.  We’re going to address some specific questions that will fence us in for arriving at an answer to the question of whether or not Christians should we move in together.

Question 1 - Does the Bible mention cohabitation?

Answer 1 – Not in the contemporary sense, no.

If we’re being honest, we don’t want to read anything into or out of the silence of the Bible on the issue, since arguments from silence aren’t exactly arguments.

Now one could attempt to stretch the text in some places to attempt to speak to the issue, like Ruth 3:13. In Ruth 3:13, when Boaz wakes up and finds Ruth at his feet, he tells her to stay the night. Still, in Ruth 3:14 it reads “So she lay at his feet until the morning, but arose before one could recognize another. And he said, ‘Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor.’ ” So, if one were trying to stretch that passage, one cannot miss that both Ruth and Boaz knew how it would look if she was seen coming out of his threshing floor early in the morning. That recognition of appearances is, in itself, suggestive, but not exactly a firm statement on the topic at hand.

There are a few other texts that a person could attempt to stretch, but the result is the same. The harder you stretch a text, the farther away you get from the meaning of the text.

When you’re looking for a biblical position on an issue, it’s best to look at the passages of Scripture that directly address the topic, or the issues, at hand.

This brings us to the next question.

Question 2 - Does the Bible mention sexual morality?

Answer 2 – You bet!

This should be absolutely no shock to anyone who professes to be a Christian. The Bible talks about adultery, divorce, homosexuality, and various other issues related to sexual conduct and sin, but we’re not looking for some general statements about sexual morality.  We’re looking for something directly addressing the question of pre-marital sex…because if that’s out, then the question of shacking up is pretty much done.

Well, that is unless you’re one of those people who think anyone would believe that you’re going to be living together without sleeping together.

Sure Thing.

And that’s the real A-Team van too.

That leads us to our next question.

Question 3 - Does the Bible mention premarital sex?

Answer 3 – Yes indeed, though it doesn’t use the phrase “premarital sex”.

The Bible does lay out a framework that addresses the concept though. Let’s take a serious look at one specific text that definitely addresses this issue. Our text is Ephesians 5:1-5, which reads,

 ¹ Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. ² And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

³ But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. ⁴ Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. ⁵ For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Eph. 5:1 gives the general command. In light of what has come before in Eph. 4 (the forgiveness extended in 4:32, the sealing for the day of redemption in 4:30, etc.), the professing believer should live as an imitator of their heavenly father.  This is befitting of a child who is loved and cared for (all children copy their parents, but good parents are worthy of emulation). Christians should copy God, but how?

 Eph. 5:2 gives a framework for answering the question of “how” Christians should copy their adopted father. They need to “walk” in love, or live a life that is marked out by a continual pattern of love. This isn’t an emotional expression of affection either, but is rather an active giving up of self for others. Christ also didn’t just give himself up in part. Rather, he offered himself “for us” as a ” fragrant offering and sacrifice to God”. In other words, Christ laid down his life for believers. In this way, Christ has modeled the love that Christians should exemplify.

 Christians shouldn’t just occasionally help one another. Christians should put their lives (meaning their own desires and well-being) aside for the benefit of others.  That is how Christians should copy their heavenly father.

 Then, after laying out that general command in 5:2 that is an expansion of the general command in 5:1, Paul gets painfully specific in describing what sort of “laying down your life” he’s talking about. In Eph. 5:3 Paul gives three commands when he writes,

 ” But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints”

3a. The first command is that is “sexual immorality…must not even be named among you.” The phrase “sexual immorality” (sometimes translated “fornication”) is translated from the Greek term porneia and is used to refer to any sexual relationship outside a marriage covenant, where as “adultery” is translated from moicheia (which is not in Eph. 5:3) which refers to any sexual relationship in violation of a marriage covenant.  Adultery involves sexual intercourse that is contra-marital and where as “sexual immorality” involves sexual intercourse that is extra-marital.  It is worth noting that both terms refer specifically to physical sexual intercourse.

 Just because there is a lot of confusion about porneia out there, let me pound out a quick but comprehensive word study. Porneia occurs 26 times in the New Testament: Matt. 5:32, 15:19, 19:9; Mark 7:21; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29, 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:1, 6:13, 6:18, 7:2; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Rev. 2:21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:2, 4, 18:3, 19:2.

 In Matt. 5:32, it’s clearly referring to extra-marital sexual intercourse (if a man divorces his wife for sleeping around, she’s already an adulterer). The term carries the same idea (extra-marital sexual intercourse) in the rest of the passages with (i.e. every usage in 1 Corinthians is unquestionable), though a few may look confusing on the surface.

 When it appears in “sin lists” (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Gal. 5:19), it almost always appears alongside “adultery”. I’d suggest that this is because adultery and sexual immorality cover all possible occurrences of sexual intercourse exterior to the covenant of marriage. Like I previously said, adultery is sexual intercourse in violation of the marriage covenant and sexual immorality is sexual intercourse outside the marriage covenant.  Think along the lines of contra-marital and extra-marital.

 The only other confusing passages are Rom. 1:29, Col. 3:5 and Rev. 9:21. In Rom. 1:29, “adultery” doesn’t appear there at all and I’d suggest the reason lies in the people group being discussed (see 1:26-27). In Col. 3:5, the list is similar to the one in Eph. 5:3 and includes similar terms/concepts, though in a less focused list. In Rev. 9:21, it seems pretty easy to point out that the passage takes place during the Tribulation; a period of time when people won’t exactly be concerned with making any sort of marriage vows before God. Outside of those three unclear passages, every other passage where porneia appears is discussing physical sexual intercourse.

 So porneia “must not even be named among you”, since that is proper for someone who claims to follow Christ.  In other words, don’t do it. Ever.  There shouldn’t even be suspicions of it, nor should there be questions about it nor believable accusations of it.  It’s that dangerous because it leads to porneia, and porneia is deadly serious.

 Deadly serious? Really?

 Don’t worry. We’ll get to that.

 This then leads to the second term in Eph. 5:3.

3b. The second command is that is “impurity…must not even be named among you.”  The second term comes from the Greek term akatharsia (translated “impurity”) and this term speaks of something that is “unclean”, as in morally stained. The term appears alongside porneia in 2 Cor. 12:21, Gal. 5:19 and Col. 3:5 as part of a list of various sexual sins, and also carries a sexual idea in Rom. 1:24 and 1 Thess. 4:7.  In the other four occurrences in the New Testament (Matt. 23:27; Rom. 6:19; Eph. 4:19;  1 Thess. 2:3) it carries a more general idea of being unclean.  I would strongly argue that the term carries a sexual tone (though it also suggest more than just sexual impurity) here as it does a majority of times it occurs in the writings of Paul.  Akatharsia covers the bases (pun definitely intended) outside of porneia, which would basically mean all the physical actions that would lead a person to porneia.

Without being crass, this basically refers to all the physical stuff that would ever give the wrong person “mixed messages”.

 Again, akatharsia “must not even be named among you”, since that is proper for someone who claims to follow Christ. In other words, don’t do it. Ever.  It’s that dangerous because akatharsia is deadly serious.

 Again? Deadly serious? Really?

 Don’t worry. We’ll get to that.

 This then leads to the third term in Eph. 5:3.

3c. The third command is that “covetousness must not even be named among you.” The third term is pleonexia, which refers to a “desire for more”.  In the only other mention in Ephesians, it refers to a general sort of “desire”, but in this passage I would argue that the term is referring to a desire for more of something of a sexual nature.  Now if I’m being honest, the term is only used with a sexual connotation elsewhere in 2 Pet. 2:14.  The common usage of the term is of a general sort of “desire”.  So why do I suspect it has a sexual nature here?  Well, the meaning of porneia is clear and the meaning of akatharsia is also relatively clear, but Paul anticipates a practical question and preemptively addresses it in the following verse.  The question is “where do I start in order to stop myself from falling into porneia?

Paul doesn’t leave the church in Ephesus hanging.  Paul unpacks exactly what sort of manifestation of pleonexia he’s thinking of, and gives his readers three concrete places to “nip sin in the bud”,  so to speak.  In Eph. 5:4 Paul writes, “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.“

4a.  The term “filthiness” comes from the Greek term aischrotes, which only appears here.  That is significant because when Paul manufactures or imports a term, he desires to get a very specific idea across to his readers.  The term comes from aischyno, which occurs five times in the New Testament (Luke 16:13; 2 Cor. 10:8; Phil. 1:20; 1 Pet. 4:16; 1 John 2:28) and is translated as some form of “shame” each time.  In other words, the idea here is that Christians shouldn’t talk in a manner that would cause them shame if they were discovered.  Everything you say to someone of the opposite sex should be able to be said in front of the whole church without bringing yourself shame.

4b.  The phrase “foolish talk” comes from the Greek term morologia, which is a compound word of moros (from which we get the English “moron”) and logos (which is the Greek term for “word”).  The term only appears here and again, that is significant because Paul manufactures or imports a term to get a very specific idea across to his readers.  The idea here is that Christians shouldn’t talk in a moronic or foolish manner.  Everything you say to someone of the opposite sex should be able to be said in front of the whole church without bringing yourself accusations of being a fool.

4c. The phrase “crude joking” comes from the Greek term eutrapelia, which is a compound of eu (which means “well”) and trope (which means “turning”).  The term only appears here and again, that is significant because Paul manufactures or imports a term to get a very specific idea across to his readers.   The idea is that Christians shouldn’t talk in a manner that turns words, and every single teenager knows exactly what this is all about.  This is the teenage art of turning anything into an allegory for something sexual.  Everything you say to someone of the opposite sex should be able to be said in front of the whole church without bringing yourself accusations of having a dirty mind.

So as a rule of thumb, if you wouldn’t say it in front of your church, don’t say it to someone of the opposite sex.

This fills out the picture of what to avoid and how: Porneia refers to the physical act of sexual intercourse, akatharsia (in this passage) refers to the physical actions that lead to porneia, and pleonexia refers to the desire (as manifest in one’s talk) to participate in akatharsia toward the end of porneia. This means that you shouldn’t talk with the opposite sex about subjects that are sexually charged in nature, or make jokes that involve twisting an innocent meaning to make it into something sexual.

In other words, the battle for sexual purity is won or lost at the level of your tongue.  The questions of physical issues (kissing, petting, etc.) aren’t even on the table.

Finally, Paul gets to the big question of why.  In Eph. 5:5 Paul says, “For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.“

Here Paul restates the three terms of Eph. 5:3 and states why they “must not even be named among you”.  This is the “deadly serious” part.  The reason is simple: people who are marked by sexual immorality, impurity or covetousness don’t get any part of the kingdom.  To say it another way, people who are sexually active outside of marriage, or  who are marked by getting physical with the opposite sex, or people who are marked by sexually explicit talk, aren’t going to end up in Heaven.

To say it more crassly, the guy who sleeps around and claims to be a Christian is a liar.

The girl who’s the youth group skank most likely isn’t a Christian.

The guy who makes dirty jokes around the youth group skank because she’s the youth group skank (with hopes of being her next skank) most likely isn’t a Christian either.

Hard words?

You bet they’re hard words.

Stuff like this reads like absolute insanity to every single human being who isn’t operating on a biblical worldview where the scripture is actually the very word of God.  Then again, everyone working outside of a biblical worldview would stop reading at Eph. 5:2.  Christ calls everyone who follows him to give themselves up for others, and that goes against everything that the unregenerate world stands for.  With regards to a believers relationships with the opposite sex, Eph. 5:3-5 is what giving yourself up looks like.  If Eph. 5:3-5 seems like absolute crazy talk, the problem isn’t with the morality of the Bible.  The problem is with your moral compass.

So then, let’s wrap this up a tad.

I’ve only gone through one specific text of scripture, but it’s a pointed text that gives a framework from which to evaluate the topic at hand.  Ephesians 5:1-5 seems fairly clear that sexual immorality (being understood as any sexual intercourse outside of a marriage covenant) is completely off the list of options, as are the two steps that lead to sexual immorality.  People shouldn’t even be able to make substantiated accusations of such things against Christians.

The same goes for impurity (meaning all the physical stuff that precedes sexual intercourse) and covetousness (meaning all the ways a person uses their tongue in efforts to pursue impurity or sexual immorality).  So the question then remains:

Does moving in together make covetousness, impurity or sexual immorality more likely or less likely?

Does moving in together give people reasonable basis for accusations of covetousness, impurity or sexual immorality?

Can you still do it?

Well, think of it this way.  The apostle Paul lays out an option for you:

You can choose to share a place with someone you’re not married to, but that choice means you’re also choosing to not share a place (namely “the kingdom”) with Christ.

In other words, “Christians” who move in together are openly declaring they’re not really Christians.

WHAT?

That’s right.

I said it.

Whoops, correction:

Unless my exegesis is wrong, God said it.

This post has gotten more than long enough, but there’s most certainly a whole lot more said about these issues in the scripture. Here’s a few passages to investigate further (but it’s certainly not a comprehensive list):

Gen 2:18-25; Ex 22:16; Lev 19:29; 21:9; Deut 22:20-29, 23:18; Matt 19:1-9; 1 Cor 6:13-20, 7:2, 7:8-9; Eph. 5:1-21; Col 3:5-6; Heb 13:4; 1 Thess 4:1-8, 5:22.

Also, there are plenty of questions and conundrums, and I’m guessing that you have more than a few.  I’ll address a variety of questions and conundrums in the next post.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Let the comment craziness begin” Unger

I was up before my kids today, working and doing some reading.  I was in Exodus 15 and found myself reading Miriam’s song in Exodus 15:1-21.  That’s a passage I’d love to preach on, especially in a Mennonite Brethren Church (as if that’s happening before the second coming).  Miriam basically sings a song about how wonderful God is at slaying his enemies (15:1-10) and how glorious he is because of it (15:11-18).

“The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name.” – Ex. 15:3

I don’t see that praise song coming out of Hillsong anytime soon.

I’ll have to do a separate post walking through that magnificently metal worship song, but something caught my attention that I’m going to share with you.  Guess what?  Exodus 15:20-21 says:

“Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing.And Miriam sang to them:

“Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously;
the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.”

The English says “tambourine”, but I had a conversation with someone where I ended up looking into the term.  It’s the Hebrew word toph and it refers to a small drum with bells on it.  So quite literally, Miriam and all the women started banging drums (with bells on) and started singing about how the Lord has triumphed gloriously by slaughtering their enemies.

So much for all those Evangelical myths about the Bible never mentioning drums or drums being from Africa and therefore demonic, or “the rock beat” being the source of all evils in the church.  I’ve heard those lines time and again and I just ignored them as the silly rantings of superstitious people, but I never actually looked into the issue.  A few minutes with a lexicon has proven quite therapeutic for me, especially after decades of playing drums in church but being endlessly guilted by elderly folks in the church who threw certain books (like this book and this book and this book and this book and the book by the guy who’s name is Marijuana…no church musician can read that seriously) at every drummer who ever came into the church.

When young people left the church, they knew I had something to do with it.

Well, now I can finally sleep at night.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Searching for exegetical support for headbanging now” Unger

A short while ago, Dan Phillips posted over at the CrippleGate and shared some great thoughts about the idea of God speaking outside Scripture.  It got me thinking and reminded me of a rather startling interaction I recently had with a charismatic fellow online.  Seeing that I’m running out the door in a few minutes and just pounding something out, I’ll copy and past the interaction.  It was quite revealing to see how it played out as I tried a new way of derailing the “God told me” train:

*****

Anonymous Charismatic:

The Bible is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, etc. as it says it is. The Bible doesn’t talk about living together. The Bible is authoritative, but so is any person God still speaks to.

Me:

“The Bible is authoritative, but so is any person God still speaks to…”  So you think you actually get personal revelation that is on the same level of authority as the words of Scripture?

Anonymous Charismatic:

Yes

Me:

God told me you’re a false teacher who speaks for Satan, and also that every one of your words are lies crafted to deceive me regarding the truth about you.

How in the world could you possibly prove me wrong?

Anonymous Charismatic:

I guess I can’t. That is your opinion of me. But since I am not rejecting Christ I would say I am not working for Satan. I just have a different theology. Some would say it’s wrong to speak for God.

Me:

Ha!  You “guess” you can’t?  You’re not sure?  The best you got is to insinuate that you hear the voice of God but I don’t?  Wait a minute.  You claim that God still speaks and you hear his voice, but when I claim the exact same thing and tell you what God has said to me, you suddenly change your song and start referring to the “voice of God” that I hear as “your opinion.”  Isn’t that just a little too convenient?  Why are you the judge of whether or not what I hear is the voice of God?  I mean, you don’t seem to understand.  It’s not my opinion.  It’s God’s opinion.You’re say you’re not rejecting Christ…except that Christ IS the word of God (John 1:1-18), right?So in rejecting the word of God, you’re sneakily rejecting Christ.  You twist words and hide behind rhetoric, just like a workman of Satan would do.

Or I could point to your own words and point out how you say that you have “a different theology” and that “Some would say it’s wrong to speak for God…” and point out that we actually do not have a different theology.  I share your theology, and within your theological paradigm, I hear the voice of God.  When it all comes apart, why do you not believe the very theology you profess?

God has spoken to me.

God has told me that you’re a workman of Satan.  It’s not my opinion.  It’s God’s opinion.  So now what?  What do you do to that?  Are you going to repent of your falsehood and duplicity or harden your heart against the voice of God?  “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion” – Heb. 3:15.  Brother, I implore you on behalf of Christ to stop your rebellion!

*****

There was no response after that.

 .

.

Now I’ve rarely encountered someone that was that honest, but our interaction illustrates the problem that I always encountered when I was in Charismatic circles.  If God talks to you and to me, what do you do when God tells me something that openly and directly contradicts what he tells you?  By what standard do we judge between “words from the Lord?”  We can appeal to Scripture, but my uniform experience in Charismatic circles was that people generally don’t have an understanding of exegesis or hermeneutics at a level where they can meaningfully sort through conflicting prophecies unless one of them explicitly contradicts scripture (which very rarely happens).

.

Next time you’re talking with someone who claims to hear from God, try a less aggressive version of the “Oh dear…God just spoke to me and told me that you’re a workman of Satan” line and see what happens (I admit that, even in reading my own stuff, I may have been unnecessarily confrontational.  I blame my medication…?!?).  Try something like “God told me that he hasn’t spoken to you” or “God said that you’ve been deceived about whether or not you hear his voice.”

.

Such comments tend to stop them in their tracks because “words from the Lord” aren’t supposed to be impolite or contrary like that.  It also provides a conspiracy theory dynamic that can overrule anything they say (well, that’s what you would say if you were deceived…) and exposes the implicit paradox in the whole “God told me” line of thinking.

.

.

Don’t be rude, but be firm.  Be cautious and explain that you’re concerned for them, not judging them.  Don’t mock them personally, but ask them to help you make sense of what God told you and possibly help you judge competing words from the Lord with an objective and unchanging standard.

.

At the end of the day, they won’t be able to because they’re not basing their evaluation of their own “words from the Lord” on anything objective.  They believe their revelations are from God because they want them to be and the facts of Scripture and reality must bend to their desires.

.

At that point, they might be willing to talk sensibly and listen to a little biblical exegesis…if they don’t simply run away or condemn you as unteachable or in need of prayer (or something along those lines).  Sadly, that happens more often than not.  When faced with their own self-contradictory or internally incoherent theology and ideas, far too many people set phasers to “ignore” and…

.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The RedShirt” Unger

P.S. – The first picture, which is a famous picture of an 1895 train crash in Paris at the Montparnasse terminal (where amazingly only one person was killed, and she wasn’t even on the train), will forever be associated with this.  High school introduced me to the best use of the electric drill ever.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I tend to delude myself into thinking that I’m a little bit of the theological equivalent to Paul Gilbert…or maybe Paul Gilbert.

There’s an old saying on the internet:

Wise words to live by.

Okay…

I say that as a bit of a joke, but not entirely.

That’s the level of sheer stupid to which one has to plummet in order to make fun of bad ideas on the internet, because anything less stupid might offend someone.  People take almost everything serious on the internet, and it has been an absolute haven for the wicked, the wide-eyed and the witless since the first day someone sent a data packet across a phone line.  Every unfathomably stupid idea has found new life on the internet, and old heresies have found unprecedented popularity amongst those who have more information than discernment.

Speaking of stupid ideas, there has been seen rather pronouncedly among the resurgence of the “heavenly tourism” books.  There was a time when only folks in the barking mad Charismatic crowd (and other comically unreliable individuals) claimed to have gone to visited Heaven, but not anymore.  In the past few years, the whole “I went to Heaven and returned to write a book” crowd have gone mainstream and started getting on the New York Times bestsellers list…but God will not be mocked.  Recently, one book reporting a young man’s “trip to heaven” has been admitted to be fraudulent by the very boy who reported the trip in the first place.  There’s been no small scandal about the book, and rightfully so because the book was declared fraudulent months before the publishers took it from shelves and the publishers were alerted by credible sources.  That whole scandal is not what I’m writing about though.

In the light of the Alex Malarkey…uh…malarkey, Don Piper has great news:  His book 90 minutes in Heaven is going to be a movie!  Here’s the story.  Now, that’s not really big news but it’s rather obnoxious news.  I’ve written before on how everyone who claims to have gone to Heaven are liars, and I’ve also written a review of Don Piper’s book.  I’m going to update the “everyone is liars” post and write something a little harder hitting against the whole “heavenly tourism” book industry, bur for your current reading enjoyment, here’s the one picture summary of the book 90 Minutes in Heaven:

(Feel free to take that as a preemptive movie review as well)

In case that’s inarticulate enough, here’s the full review I wrote of Don Piper’s book:

******

******

If you’re a believer, I’d like to quote Brian Mattson’s review on the Exodus movie as to why you should not go see the 90 Minutes in Heaven movie when it’s released:

Evangelical Christians not only take the insults from Hollywood graciously and willingly, we pay them handsomely for the pleasure. So go see Exodus, if you want.  Just remember that the more you subsidize it, the more of this you’ll get.

I know you’re happy they’re making Bible movies.  But it isn’t because they respect you.

Demand more from “Christian” films and vote with your feet.  Don’t pay Hollywood for the honor of getting a pie in the face.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “that’s right, I said ‘liar’…” Unger

One last note.  Seeing that Hayden Christensen is playing Don Piper, I hope that the movie accurately portrays all his friends in Heaven…

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I just couldn’t resist.

Before the Strange Fire conference in 2013, I did a rather extensive primer on the Charismatic Movement as represented in the top 50 largest churches in the US as represented by Outreach Magazine.  Here’s the links in case you have a few hours to burn going over what was hundreds of hours of research and writing:

The New Apostolic Reformation
The Outreach Top 50: #1-5
The Outreach Top 50: #6-10
The Outreach Top 50: #11-15
The Outreach Top 50: #16-20
The Outreach Top 50: #21-25
The Outreach Top 50: #26-30
The Outreach Top 50: #31-35
The Outreach Top 50: #36-40
The Outreach Top 50: #41-45
The Outreach Top 50 #46-50
The Largest Churches in Africa
Only a few of the Largest Churches in Asia

That whole series was good for what it was, and is still a decent resource with a lot of information.  Some of the links are dead…especially the African links.  It seems like those churches change web servers every six months.  Some of the churches no longer even exist (funny how a mega church can disappear in less than 2 years), but those posts are probably still helpful.

I don’t have the time or resources to keep them up-to-date, but I have updated two posts as some rather striking information has come to light.  The first is #11 – Gateway Church pastored by Robert Morris.  When I wrote the post I didn’t have a whole lot of time to toss into watching all his sermons (and I definitely didn’t have money to buy his books), but since the time of writing a whole lot of interesting information has come to light that made me change my conclusion about him.  He’s now clearly a prosperity preacher and a blazing false teacher who says some rather insane things.

The second is #28 – Mars Hill pastored by nobody…but it used to be pastored by somebody famous back when it existed.  Given all the changes that have come out regarding Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill over the past year and a bit, I updated some of the information and added a new conclusion about him.  He’s now clearly a false teacher who has now started down a path that leads somewhere even worse.

Several years from now, I predict that people will speak of Mark Driscoll and say “We should have seen that coming!”  The last thing he needs now is be back in ministry or to start hooking up with the Prosperity Gospel crowd.  Either way, that’s just something that I’ve done seeing that those posts still get a fair amount of reads.

I’ve got more book editing to do now.

Also, I recently had a brainstorm and have come up with what I hope will be a fantastic book title.

No spoilers yet.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “writing books takes forever” Unger

Hi-Ho readers!

As you know, Fred Butler and I have been re-working our responses to Michael Brown’s book Authentic Fire and and preparing them to become a book.  Being the somewhat perfectionist Bible-geek that I am, I’ve re-tooled all the posts from which this book has spawned and have added over 50 pages of new material.  Most of it is in rather obsessively copious endnotes (it’s going to be released on Kindle, so footnotes aren’t an option), but I just finished working on a footnote that turned into quite the study project.  Knowing that the book Authentic Fire is somewhat “old news” but questions about Charismatic issues are not, I’ve added a whole lot of content to the upcoming book that will hopefully make it a far more valuable resource than just a book critique.  I promise you that if you pick up a copy, the endnotes will be more than worth the price alone.

Today I was writing and was responding to Steve Alt’s appendix in Authentic Fire.  Alt suggests that God still communicates with believers via angelic messengers (among other things).  I started responding to the point, but then I fell into my rut: I realized that I hadn’t ever really dug into what the Bible says on that specific issue and I don’t like not knowing.  So I decided to set aside a few hours for study.  After all my study, I came to a conclusion that actually surprised me.  When I get surprised I’m guessing that I learned something that other people probably might be interested in as well (and possibly don’t know), so I figured that I would share my findings with all my wonderful readers here.

So what does the Bible say about angelic visitations?

Here’s the fruit of a few hours of study that will end up as an endnote that few will likely read:

Here’s a list of every single non-theophany angelic visitation in scripture: Gen. 18:1-19:22, 32:1; 1 Kings 13:18; Dan. 3:24-28, 6:21; Zech. 1-6, Matt. 1:20, 2:13, 2:19, 4:11, 28:1-7, Mark 1:13; Luke 1:18-19, Luke 1:26-38, Luke 2:8-15, 24:23; John 20:12, Acts 5:19, 8:26, 10:3, 12:7-10, 12:23, 27:23, Revelation 1-22 (The whole book is essentially a singular vision involving angelic communication). I don’t include theophanies (i.e. “the angel of the Lord/angel of God”) in the Old Testament since he was Jesus Christ. When Jesus comes back to earth to visit, I dare suggest that people are not going to miss it.

Processing all that data, there are a few things to notice:

1. In all 4,000+ years of Biblical history, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, the Old prophet at Bethel, Daniel, the prophet Zechariah, Joseph, Mary, Mary’s cousin Zechariah, Jesus, the Shepherds, Mary Magdalene, “the other Mary”, Herod, Peter, Philip, Cornelius, and Paul all experienced angelic visitations from God. The old prophet at Bethel was lying (1 Kin. 13:18) and Herod got killed by his visiting angel (Acts 12:23).

That leaves fifteen people in all biblical history.

2. Of those fourteen people, two were patriarchs.  One was the relative/companion of a patriarch.  Two were Old Testament prophets. Two were the parents of the Messiah. One was a parent of John the Baptist; forerunner to the Messiah. One was the Messiah. The shepherd’s were witnesses of the birth of the Messiah. Mary and Mary were witnesses of the resurrection of the Messiah. Three were apostles of the Messiah.

That leave one guy: Cornelius. That’s one guy who wasn’t a patriarch, a relative/companion of a patriarch, prophet, apostle, or directly involved in the birth or resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.  Still, Cornelius was part of the foundation of the church (namely the inclusion of the Gentiles).

3. Historically speaking, the patriarchs were involved with the initial establishment of the nation of Israel.  Daniel and Zechariah were involved in the captivity and return from the captivity (another highly significant time in Israel’s history).  The rest of the people were involved in the birth and resurrection of Jesus or the establishing of his church.

Anyone else seeing a pattern?

Just to cover my bases and anticipate complainers, I recognize that Hebrews 13:2 suggests more people than the ones I’ve listed have received angelic visitations. The problem is that Hebrews suggests that the people who get angelic visitors are unaware of who’s visiting them.  Contemporary people who fall into that category aren’t going to be talking about their visitations since they don’t know it happened.

So, on the basis of the Biblical data alone, I wouldn’t say that angelic visitations are incredibly rare. Actually, I’d say that they’re over until the tribulation. I have rather compelling Biblical grounds to suggest that anyone who claims to have been visited by an angel is a liar.

I hope that helps sort through some debates that you may find yourself involved with in days to come!

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Weeping Theologian” Unger

I was working on something and a stupid thought (picture, actually) lodged into my head so I’m getting rid of it (and sharing it too) in order to allow me to return to work.  On the web, there are certain theological issues that involve rather aggressive fighting between proponents of different positions on the issue.  One of those issues is eschatology (namely, “end times” stuff).  There are rather a lot of different eschatological positions and a lot of unrelated issues that get dragged into eschatological discussion/debate/drive-by shootings.  There are respectable academic discussions that happen online…and then there’s the other 99.8% of “discussion”; the kind that you see on Facebook.  It seems like around 99% of Facebook thinks that they’re the first people to seriously study eschatology and imagine that their opponents are idiots for the singular fact of disagreeing with them (or not having read some random book that “destroys” a position).  I’ve lurked some discussions and been involved in some of my own, and it’s amazing how many people think that anyone who doesn’t share their eschatological position gets their theology from something like this:

It’s amazing how many professing Christians completely lose their marbles when someone confronts with their theological hobby horse (or arsonist leprechaun).  There are other people out there who disagree with you who have studied the issue more, read more, and thought more about the issues that you’re talking about.  They might still be wrong, but they’re more than likely not imbeciles.

This post has been brought to you by the book of Revelation, the numbers 2 and 5…but that’s a post for another day.

Now back to work.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Blame the drugs” Unger

P.S. – Here’s one more picture I had in my head:

I haven’t watched the Simpsons in years, but for some reason I had Ralph Wiggum in my head today.

…was going to be the study project that I was going to work on, but then I found out that someone had already done it.  Back in 2006, Dr. Rodney Decker from Baptist Bible Seminary was a guest speaker at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.  He gave three lectures on the topic of cremation, which is one of those “I’ve never thought about that much, but I’d like to sometime” subjects.  I’ve always had some vague thoughts about it, but now I’ve got a far more educated position on the matter.

The talk is somewhat technical (though not super bad), but it is very comprehensive.  I highly recommend the talk if you’ve never really tackled this issue seriously before.  Here are the links to his three lectures:

1.  Biblical Data Related to Cremation.

2.  Theological and Historical Issues Related to Cremation.

3.  Cultural Issues Related to Cremation, Q&A.

I hope it proves to be as helpful a resource to my readers as it has been to me.

Oh, and since it’s Feb. 14th, I wanted to re-link my post from last year regarding the history of Valentines day (in case anyone is interested in such things)…and for those male readers of mine who are less interested in the history of the holiday and more interested in what to do on Valentines day (for that special someone), allow me to point to a rather obvious lesson with an illustration from nature:

Yup.  Clean up your self and your place, figure out what she likes and then do it without complaining (or sharing thoughts about completely unrelated subjects).  That is otherwise known as “manning up”.  It’s a relatively new concept, but I’ve discovered it to be highly effective.  After seven years of marriage, I’ve learned that a rather large component of the guy’s part of a healthy relationship involves three things: clean up, buck up, shut up.

Now off to bed!

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “fighting all the Valentines Day cremation puns” Unger

Well, it’s been almost a month since I’ve written anything on here!

Yikes!  I’d better punch something out before I run to bed!

So what have I been doing?

Well, I’ve been having a little fun at a few people on Twitter and Facebook, doing some e-mailing and pursuing church work, and helping my family through a time of some sickness/infirmity.  Mostly though, I’ve been preparing for the upcoming Bible Conference that I’m speaking at.  I figured that I’d spread a little word around the web, seeing that the conference doesn’t really seem to have much online presence.

The conference is called the Last Days Bible Conference.  From what I understand, it started as an eschatology conference but has turned into something far broader.  They’ve had people from all over talking about various issues over the years, and this year I’ll be giving four presentations.  Now it’s not exactly a big conference, but Canada doesn’t really have any big conferences…at least not big when compared to anything like the Shepherd’s Conference.  I also have volunteered with Sola Scriptura Ministries from time to time, and they do some of the better conferences in my area.  Still, even they maybe get 200 people out for a conference (out of the 2.5 million people in my area).  In 2013, James White came up here and spoke on Islam (the videos of his presentation are here) and there was maybe 200 people out for that.

So what am I speaking on?

Not quite.

My four sessions will be on the Charismatic Movement:

1. The History of the Charismatic Movement. I’ll be attempting to give a rather broad overview of the factors leading up to the formation of Pentecostalism, as well as the first few decades of Pentecostalism.  I’ll see how I much I can comfortably fit into a 45 minute session.

2.  The Heterodoxies & Heresies of the Charismatic Movement. This will be essentially a discussion of the foundational beliefs of Pentecostalism and then the doctrinal changes/developments from 1906 leading up to this decade.

3.  A Biblical Understanding of Tongues, Healing and Prophecy.  This will be a really brief explanation of the biblical teaching on these three issues, and a very brief explanation of how the biblical definitions and teaching on these three issues are the standard against which all modern variants are judged.

4.  A Biblical Understanding of Words, Faith and Prosperity.  This will be a proper interaction with the concepts of positive confession, Word of Faith, and the Prosperity Gospel.

This will essentially be my own smaller StrangeFire Conference, and I hope to take some of what I learned from the last 2 years and offer something both highly informative and also edifying.  It will not and can not be comprehensive, nor will it cover most of the issues, but I imagine that I should be able to deal sufficiently with Pentecostalism, and more specifically the post 1960 Charismatic Movement, and give people, both inside and outside the movement, some solid biblical criteria by which to evaluate their own experience and beliefs.

So beyond the fact that I’m the one speaking at the Last Days Bible Conference, why do I think you should come?

1.  It’s FREE.  That’s right.  Due to some fantastic supporters, the conference doesn’t cost a penny.  Every Mennonite-blooded friend of mine lost almost every excuse not to come.

2.  It will be a great time to connect with other conservative, bible-believing Christians in Western Canada.  There’s not that many of us, and I’d love to meet and connect with all of you.

3.  I’ve been working for over a month already, digging through all original sources, and pulling out some stuff that will absolutely make your hair fall out.  Here’s a little taste.  William Seymour, leader of the famed Azusa Street revival in 1906, said some interesting things in the very first edition of the official paper of the Azusa Street revival, The Apostolic Faith (Sept. 1906):

He wrote that the Apostolic Faith Movement was “the restoration of the faith once delivered unto the saints” (page 1), and then part of that “restoration” was the teaching that “the blood of Jesus will never blot out any sin between man and man they can make right; but if we can’t make wrongs right the Blood graciously covers” (page 2).

That’s right. Follow the link above and read it for yourself.  William Seymour openly and proudly taught that the atonement does not cover intentional sin, but only unintentional and original sin.  The intentional sins that a person commits must be personally atoned for.  That was part of “the restoration of the faith once delivered unto the saints” (page 2) that was brought back to the church, after being lost since the time of the apostles.

That’s not exactly subtle, and not exactly orthodox Christianity.

Does that sound familiar?

What’s worse is William Seymour’s response when someone had the audacity to point out his error and preach about the finished work of Christ at Azusa Street.  I’ll save that little tidbit, and a few hundred others, for the conference.

Sound interesting?

Well, for those who attend I might toss together a few dozen pages of notes with some even more interesting (and damning) quotes…and once the sessions are over, I’ll probably head out for coffee with whoever wants to come and share the rest of the stuff that I don’t have time to share in my presentation.  It’s going to be rather fun.

So if you’re one of my friends from Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Regina, Kelowna, Medicine Hat, Vauxhall, Veggerville, Vernon, Kamloops, or anywhere else within realistic driving distance of Calgary, think about booking April 23 & 24 off work and making a little trek to Calgary!  If you know someone who might be interested, let them know!  I’d love to see you (or your friends) there and have a chance to spend time with old friends and make some new ones.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Budding Armchair Pentecostal Historian” Unger

I recently uncovered a little buried treasure tonight that I had to share!

For a long time, I’ve utilized a simple argument with Mormons that I’ve found quite effective.  When we talk about Mormonism and they start talking about the restoration of Christianity (or the book of Mormon), the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet frequently comes up.  Instead of arguing about whether or not he was a prophet, I direct the conversation to how a person know whether or not anyone is a prophet.

I use the following simple line of reasoning:

1.  If Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, I must listen to him.

2.  God has established specific criteria for determining prophecy.

3.  If Joseph Smith meets that criteria, then he’s a prophet and I must listen to what he has to say.

At that point, most Mormons tend to misunderstand me and try to urge me to read the book of Mormon and pray about it.  I cut them off and tell them that if Joseph Smith is a false prophet, the Bible commands me to do several things:

i. Do not listen to them (Deut. 13:3; Matt. 24:25-26)

ii. Treat them as unbelievers (Gal. 1:8-9)

iii. Avoid them (Rom. 16:17-19)

iv. Do not associate with them (2 John 1:10-11)

Notice that “pray about it” isn’t on the list.

I then ask them about whether or not they know what the Bible does say about the test for prophets, and they’re always stumped to respond.  It’s at this point that we shift the conversation to places like Deut. 13:1-11, Deut. 18:21-22, Is. 8:19-20, Rom. 16:17, Titus 1:9-11, etc.  We used to talk about prophetic fulfillment and orthodoxy.  I also have wanted to bring up Ex. 4:1-9 and 1 Kin. 17:17-24 and the idea of miraculous verification.

I haven’t really had any fuel on that front though, not really being super familiar with Joseph Smith or whether or not he attempted to perform any miracles.

Tonight I randomly stumbled across an account of several of his failed miracles.  The following pictures are from the article “History of Mormonism” in The Southern Quarterly Review: Volume: 1, Issue: 2, Apr 1842, pp. 398-413.  I’ve marked out the relevant section.

How’s that for failed miraculous verification?

No wonder that “he has finally concluded, that the power to work miracles is a non-essential as far as the truth of the brazen bible, and the Mormon faith in general.”  It’s utterly amazing to me that Mormonism is as big as it is today, given the slapstick beginnings it had.  Then again, I’m continually reminded at how unbelievably gullible large quantities of people can be.  There’s absolutely no shortage of proof of that on the web.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “doing my best to remain as unpopular as possible” Unger

I’m neck deep in reading to prepare for my upcoming conference sessions in April.  As I’ve been going berserk in searching through old papers, archives, and innumerable books, I’ve run across plenty of enjoyable tidbits and quotes.  Today, I was looking at the archives of Word & Witness, an early newsletter from the initial years of the Pentecostal movement.  In Hot Springs Arkansas, there was a conference on April 2-12, 1914.  In that conference, five distinct “Pentecostal” (for lack of a better term) groups came together and the Assemblies of God was formed.    In the May issue of Word & Witness, the newly established Assemblies of God denomination was articulating their statement of beliefs for their new denominational members.  It’s in that statement that the following quote appears:

No Rolling or Nonsense:

“Because people often fall in our meetings under the power of God, those who are ignorant or who desire to slander us call us Holly (sp) Rollers. But we have never been in any way associated with the real Unholy Rollers wrongly called holy, nor do we practice or believe in such shame and folly as rolling from one side of the house to the other. This is nonsense and dishonoring to God. But if God’s mighty power takes all the strength out of one and he falls in a heap before the Lord, this is not foolishness and we say to God to work as it pleaseth Him. Daniel fell before God, Dan. 10:5-10; Ezekiel fell on his face, Eze. 1:3, 24; John fell as one dead before the glorified Christ, Rev. 1:17. It is an honor from heaven, if the real power and presence of God does the same today.”

Wow.  Three thoughts:

1.  If you have to spell something out that clearly in the statement of faith, one has to wonder just how much of a problem it is…?!? (It’s worth noting that two of the groups involved had historically been known for wildly unrestrained activity in their worship services)

2.  I wonder what the contemporary churches that have practiced such things (especially the Assemblies of God churches…) would say to their forefathers who called such things “nonsense and dishonoring to God” or “foolishness”?

3.  Beyond the shallow proof-texting, why is “Spirit-induced” falling into a heap totally acceptable where as falling into a heap and then moving around totally unacceptable?

It seems like rolling around would be exactly what a person should do when they catch the fire from the…oh wait

No.

Scratch that.

Just a quick tidbit from all the research I’ve been doing.

Lyndon “Always sharing my best stuff” Unger

It seems like everyone and their dog is hearing “the voice of God” these days.  “Hearing the voice of God” used to be the mark of a prophet of God, but over the last century or so, it’s slowly become the mark of a mature believer.   These days, once “conservative” folk like Beth Moore think that God speaks to them…not in audible voices, but propositional statements (and ultimately the audible/inaudible distinction is meaningless).   The issue of “hearing the voice of God” is probably the most significant infiltration of bad Charismatic theology into non-Charismatic circles.  It’s a train-load of insanity and heresy steaming through Evangelicalism, and it seems like there’s no stopping it; part of the danger of this idea is that it’s seemingly immune to both scripture and logic.  As illustration of that, I recently was doing some historical research into the foundation of Assemblies of God.  In 1906-1915, the “God told me” train was running like mad all over North America.  It was quite revealing to see how quickly the “God told me” train derailed when everyone and their dog was getting divine revelations.

 .

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

.

By 1914, there were hundreds of Baptist, Methodist, Christian & Missionary Alliance, Congregational, etc. churches who had accepted this new “Apostolic Faith” and broken off from their denominations.  300 pastors and missionaries from these various churches/fellowships met together at Hot Springs, Arkansas in April, 1914, and banded together to form the Assemblies of God. (And I just cannot resist mentioning something. At that meeting in 1914, the closing address was by Bishop C.H. Mason, founder of the Church of God in Christ; America’s first and largest Pentecostal denomination.  He preached a sermon from Acts 2:16-21 [pg. 8] which was revealed to him by God speaking to him through a sweet potato.  You read that right.)

.

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

.

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

.

 .

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

******

.

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

.

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

 .

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

 .

.

If John 10:27 doesn’t mean what it says (and I’m not talking about a simple, surface reading of the text, but rather a careful exegesis of the text), then there’s no real reason to assume that any other text does either.  Of course every Charismatic/Pentecostal is wildly inconsistent at this point, and that’s a good thing.  The reason that many hang on to orthodoxy (in other areas) is in spite of the hermeneutics they use to arrive at their distinctively Charismatic/Pentecostal beliefs.

.

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

 .

Until Next Time,

 .

Lyndon “Gleaning what I can from conference prep” Unger

I was just working on updating my last post to go onto the Cripplegate when I saw today’s analytics.  I’m all of a sudden getting more traffic from Sweden than from Canada.  I regularly get a few dozen hits every day from South Africa, Australia, the UK, etc. but my main source of traffic is the United States and then Canada (by a lot).

Not so today.  I’m getting swamped by people from Sweden.

Don’t know why.

Can’t see what they’re reading.

So, välkommen to all you dear Swedes!  I’m so glad that you’re here!

If there’s anything I can do for you, or a subject that you’d like me to address, please feel free to drop a comment in this thread.

Also, if you’d like to tell me what has brought you to this little corner of the web, I’d love to know!

Finally, my Swedish visitors might be surprised to know that this is my current desktop background:

Why?

Well, it’s because my wife is Swedish!

Here’s a photo of her childhood Swedish choir to prove it (she’s second from the left in the back top row):

And here’s how her and her sisters used to do their nails when they went out together:

Okay.  That might not exactly prove that she’s Swedish, but it’s kind of hard to establish someone’s Swedish credentials from a few old photos!  What else can I say?

My sister-in-law had her bridal reception at the American Swedish Institute?

We watch this every Christmas while eating krumkake?

Okay.  I give up.

Still, my wife (who watches “Allt för Sverige” with dreamy eyes) is totally delighted that some folks from Sweden stopped by my blog.  I don’t have a clue who has stopped by, but your very presence has made someone very happy!

Thanks and Gud välsigne,

Lyndon “Jag vet inte riktigt tala svenska men jag kan använda google translate” Unger

Throughout the last century or so of church history, there have been continual debates about various issues to textual criticism and whether or not a few passages (namely John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20) have been rightly included in English translations of the Bible.  For all the ink that’s been spilled on the issue, there’s still no resolution in sight.  People disagree about the facts (though most simply don’t know and don’t really care) and therefore also disagree wildly about the right understanding of the facts.  Beyond that, most people lack the skill set to evaluate the arguments so they either have no opinion or arbitrarily choose an expert and trust them (hoping for the best).

The reason this is important is because of the nature and implications of the two passages in question.  For example, some folks take 16:17 as suggesting that all believers should speak in tongues and cast out demons.  If that’s supposed to be a normative part of Christian experience, that seems rather significant.  Some take 16:18 as saying the same thing about drinking poison and handling snakes.  Again, the same thing can be said, though it may seem rather dumb to some folks.  Still, the longer ending of mark is also important to people who aren’t in any danger of handling snakes.  Did you ever notice the verse that is in a rather well-known logo?

If Mark 16:15 isn’t part of canonical scripture, the folks who take that passage as the great commission are building their ideas about evangelism around a passage of scripture that isn’t Scripture.

Sobering thought.

But how can a person know for certain whether or not those verses that are included in the Bible are canonical or not?

Well, one could study textual criticism and learn about the issues enough to have an educated position on the issue…but that’s a lot of work, right?

It would sure be convenient if God would simply tell us the scoop on those verses, right?

This is a job for…

Woah! No!  We don’t need fictional super heroes to authoritatively settle issues of textual criticism!

I was going to say “This is a job for a prophet!”

How about some volunteers from the audience?  How about someone from Azusa?

Sorry Christine.  Why are you here?

Yeah…uh…Phil?

What’s going on?  What are you doing here Brian? What in the…

…er…I’m not sure Russell even heard the question.

Why in the world did…

OH!

I said Asuza, not Australia.

The “prophet” I was thinking of was William Seymour, of Azusa street fame.

Now can I get back to what I was saying?

Thank you!

I’ve discovered a whole lot of things as I’ve been preparing for the upcoming conference.  I’ve probably read 40 books and hundreds of old newpapers/articles/tracts/pamphlets so far, seeing that the historical side of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement is the weakest link in my personal study by far.  I have around 90 pages of notes that will be refined into a talk on the history of the movement.  I’m guessing that I’ll have another 20 pages of notes by the time my research is complete and I’ve connected all the dots I’m trying to connect (finding specific facts is difficult though).

Still, you never know what you’re going to run into when you’re reading.

Apparently there were some questions at Azusa Street regarding Jesus’ promises about tongues and casting out demons in Mark 16:9-20.  The Azusa Street folk thought that they were experiencing those promises, therefore questions about the authenticity of that text arose.  Educated clergy in the city who opposed the Azusa Street revival didn’t recognize those verses as canonical (due to things like textual criticism and the facts of history and stuff) and thus used the non-canonical nature of Mark 16:9-20 to fuel skepticism regarding the claims of the folks at Azusa Street.

One of my reading projects has been the issues of the various papers like The Apostolic Faith, the newsletter of the church at 312 Azusa Street.  In the second issue of that magazine, I ran across a little gem that talks about Mark 16:9-20 and addresses the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark.  Here’s the article in full:

SHALL WE REJECT JESUS’ LAST WORDS?

 Many of the dear holiness people are rejecting the last words of Jesus in the last chapter of Mark, beginning at the fifteenth verse :

 “And He said unto them: Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. Re that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpent. and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.”

 Why do they reject these verses? Because Dr. Godbey, in his commentary and translation, has left them out. Why did he leave them out? Because they were not in the Sianitic manuscript from which he translated. It was a manuscript found in later years in a mission on Mount Sinai. The man who found the manuscript, a German by the name of Tischendorf said that some sheets of it had already been thrown into a receptacle for kindling wood. In this or some other way, a part may have been lost from that manuscript.

However this may be, we feel sure that these are the words of Jesus. The writer herself, being a great admirer of Bro. Godbey, was for some time influenced by his views in regard to the last words of our Lord as given above. But since being in these Holy Ghost meetings, and hearing these same words given again and again by the Spirit in unknown tongues and interpreted, all doubt has been swept away in regard to them. Besides they are proved true before our eyes. We have thrown all doubts to the winds and taken to our hearts the whole word of Jesus. Dear friends, do not let any man riddle your Bible for you or cut out any part of it. You need the whole. Hallelujah for the Word.

Isn’t that convenient?

William Seymour didn’t really know why learned people didn’t recognize Mark 16:9-20 as canonical scripture, but he knew it was canonical scripture because God confirmed it…by prophetic revelation via tongues.  Beyond that, he knew that Mark 6:19-20 was canonical because they saw those things occurring “before our eyes?”

That’s interesting.  Apparently the divine confirmation they received covered every verse in the passage except verse 18: “they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

It’s not surprising that a few years later, some folks would recognize that the Azusa Street revival wasn’t experiencing Mark 16:18 and would take the necessary steps to experience the full manifestations of the Spirit.

From the worldview of William Seymour, I wonder how he justified his inconsistency?

Maybe I’ll encounter the answer to that question later in my study.

If I find out, I’ll let you all know!

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “I don’t drink poison, but I once tried Starbucks coffee” Unger

The Renewal? What’s that?

That is the term that none other than Jack Hayford uses to summarize all the various movements and denominations that have arisen over the last 115 (or so) years that have been categorized with names like “Pentecostalism” or “the Charismatic Movement”.  Seeing that some scholars break up Pentecostalism into a series of waves (three waves, sometimes four, sometimes five), or Movements (Apostolic Movement, Latter Rain Movement, Charismatic Movement, Signs & Wonders Movement, etc.), the term “Renewal” serves as a useful catch-all for the various churches and denominations that have one specific activity in common.  Can you guess what it is?

Yup.  It’s “speaking in tongues”.

So who started the Renewal?

Some say it was the Holiness Methodists (or a stream therein).

Some say that it was Charles Parham and his Bible School in Topeka Kansas in 1901.

Some say that it was William Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival in 1906.

I’ve encountered all those positions from the authors I’ve been reading as of late, but today I encountered a position that nobody I’ve read yet has held. 

Before I tell the position that Jack Hayford holds, I should give a little perspective for who exactly Jack Hayford is.  Jack Hayford is a man of no small impact in Renewal circles in North America.  He was the founding pastor of the gigantic The Church On The Way, ex president of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, author of over fifty books, author of over 500 hymns & choruses, founder and ex-president of The Kings University (which was recently handed off to prosperity preacher Robert Morris…who thinks that Hayford is the second apostle Paul…and God had to get Morris’ permission to give it to him), and best of all: he’s Benny Hinn’s pastor and officiated Hinn’s re-marriage to his ex-wife.

I’m told the Hinn wedding had quite the reception too. Apparently there was a bartender and everything…

Cheap jokes aside, I’ve been reading through Jack Hayford’s book The Charismatic Century, which was published on the 100th anniversary of the Azusa Street “revival” as a sort of retrospective look at the past 100 years of the Charismatic Movement.  Starting off on page one, Hayford writes:

On January 1, 1901, the first day of the new century, from the Vatican, Pope Leo XIII invoked the Holy Spirit by singing the hymn “Veni Creator Spiritus” (Come Holy Spirit, Creator Blest) dedicating the twentieth century to the Holy Spirit. That same day on the other side of the world, a group of students in Charles Parham’s tiny Topeka, Kansas, Bible school, experienced a Pentecostal outpouring when a young woman was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke “in tongues.”

The Pope?

Well, not exactly.  Hayford doesn’t come outright and say that the Pope is the cause, but it’s strange  that Hayford points out the concurrence of the two events, as if there is some connection (strange but not surprising; the papal bottom is no stranger to Renewal lips).  He further insinuates that only a few pages later.  On page 16-17 he then follows up his comments on page one with the following explanatory quote:

There is an inescapable dynamic inherent in the fact that the century literally began with the most visible and ecclesiastically powerful person in the world issuing a distinct invitation to the Holy Spirit to “Come!” Irrespective of how any particular protestant may feel about the Pope, God seems to have sovereignly moved upon the man as a means of providing His own invocation. At that time, global Christianity held a creed regarding the Holy Spirit but lacked confidence in how to partner with Him – how to personally relate to the third person of the Trinity.

In reality, so much of the vital life of the early Church was overtaken by apathy, pride, spiritual blindness and biblical ignorance, empty tradition and ecclesiastical power struggles, that only with the Reformation (c. 1500 AD) did a beginning of recovery occur. Starting with the foundational concept of the authority of God’s Word and the truth of justification (human salvation) by faith in Christ alone, a century-to-century process was launched.

Degrees of reform effected the restoration of the Church’s concepts of and approach to (1) the great commission, (2) personal sanctification, (3) practical devotion, (4) social responsibility, and (5) forthright evangelism reappeared – often within both protestant and catholic circles, and thus each generation brought to its “moment.”  But it wasn’t until the turn-of-the-century, global outpouring of the Holy Spirit that a growing familiarity with His fullness, works and power began to spread, bringing the Church to this moment.

So that seems a little clearer.  Jack Hayford writes that God “seems to” have orchestrated the entire Renewal with a pronouncement made by the head of the largest false religion in the world.  He notes that non-Catholics are called “Protestants”, but he neglects to mention why.  We’re called “Protestants” because we protested the damnable heresies of the Roman Catholic Church…and the Roman Catholic church butchered us for it.  They burned us alive, like a medieval version of ISIS.

What’s worse is that when Hayford refers to how “vital life of the early Church was overtaken by apathy, pride, spiritual blindness and biblical ignorance, empty tradition and ecclesiastical power struggles”, the “spiritual blindness and biblical ignorance, empty tradition and ecclesiastical power struggles” he’s talking about is the spiritual blindness and biblical ignorance, empty tradition and ecclesiastical power struggles of the Roman Catholic Church.  The “recovery” of the “authority of God’s Word and the truth of justification (human salvation) by faith in Christ alone” are both utterly denied by the Roman Catholic Church to this very day.  Catholic apologists are always eager to attack the concept of sola scriptura, and belief in justification by faith alone (“alone” is the important word there) is still anathema in official Roman Catholic teaching.

When he talks about those five concepts and approaches being restored “often within both protestant and catholic circles”, he seems to be suggesting that they were both legitimate restorations.  He doesn’t volunteer the fact that the Catholic restoration was done without the previously mentioned “truth of justification” (among a few dozen other things).  Call me crazy, but having a saving Gospel seems to be important in making any “restoration” noteworthy.  Beyond that, much of the Catholic changes were in response to, and often as direct attacks on, the changes in Protestant circles (i.e. the council of Trent was a direct reaction to the reformation).

So that leads to an obvious question, right?

How did the same people who removed the Holy Spirit (not to mention the biblical gospel) from the church bring him back with some sort of invocation?

How does the man who Thomas Cranmer called “Christ’s enemy” successfully become Christ’s boss?

How in the world does that make a lick of sense?

Well, it doesn’t.  That’s why Hayford has to quickly follow up the previously quoted nonsense the typical head vs. heart dichotomy.  Since a rational mind cannot make sense of a nonsense argument, Hayford has no choice by to attack the rational mind.

On page 17, Hayford immediately follows up the previously quoted section with:

As remains the case today – God responds to an increased hunger for, and full hearted openness to Him; recognizing that The Holy Spirit of God is poured out at the hand of The Son of God (John 1:33; Acts 2:33-39).  Indeed, to this day there are many who seem mystified by the very fact of God’s three-in-one-ness, almost preferring to avoid too direct an exposure to the Holy Spirit himself.  There is something about our oft-human insistence that seeks either information or an explanation about the Holy Spirit, rather than opening our hearts as Jesus commanded – to an experience – saying “Receive the Holy Spirit…and you shall receive power” (John 2:22; Acts 1:3).

Especially in the Western world, intellect – which is never demeaned or insulted by our Creator – too often is made a substitute for Him. But the Living God, Who knows that our finite minds will never be able to fully comprehend His greatness, grandeur or the breadth and scope of His being, comes to us as a Father. He invites us to experience a relationship with Him – to the One Who is responsible for our life’s existence, and Who offers to bring us, through knowing Him personally and intimately, to understand our life’s purpose and potential through His love and power.

So there you have it: the standard Renewal response when someone says something patently nonsense.

If the whole idea of including Catholics in the Renewal (let alone being a catalytic force behind it) doesn’t make sense to you, the problem is that you’re seeking reason rather than relationship.   If you don’t understand how people who hate the God of the Bible can be given a special blessing reserved for those who love the God of the Bible, then you just need to turn off your brain.

Since God is a triune being and we can’t understand that, nothing about him needs to make sense…right?

Well, sorry Jack.

There is a spoon, and it’s soaked in the blood of martyrs.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Giving the Gleanings” Unger

I’ve been reading and sorting through multiple books, using Jack Hayford’s The Charismatic Century as a jumping off point from which to fill in some historic blanks of the 70’s and 80’s.  Jack was definitely a large part of the Charismatic world at that time and personally knew almost every single mover and shaker (ha!) in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles from that era.

The book is from 2006 and basically covers the Renewal (a broad term for all the Pentecostal, Charismatic and Continuationist streams) up to roughly 2005.  In 2005, the New Apostolic Reformation was just starting to gain steam, and Hayford wrote a bit on the (then) new movement. In explaining it, he commented on the architect of the movement (C. Peter Wagner) and talked about how the main difference was one of ecclesiastical organization.  Essentialy, the N.A.R. is people organizing under free-flowing authority relationship to “apostles” that they choose out of preference, rather than denominations that are picked according to doctrine…yeah I know. That’s a recipe for crazy if I’ve ever seen it.

Once Hayford talks about the movement he gives an example of a guy who embodies the N.A.R.  This is the guy held up by many as a modern “apostle” even though he might not use the name of himself (probably being humble and all, right?).

Who do you think Hayford mentions?

Mike Bickle?

Lou Engle?

Bill Johnson?

John Arnott?

Nope.  None of the above.

Here’s a quote; make sure you’re not drinking anything.

An example of such a leader is ORU graduate Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. His church, planted in 1985, has grown to over eleven thousand members. The independent congregation does not call itself a Pentecostal church but in all ways typifies a church moving in the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Around Haggard has grown a worldwide association of pastors and churches. Haggard does not call himself an apostle- though use of the title is becoming more common – but in Wagner’s view is an example of one nonetheless. Haggard is widely respected and presently serves as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, further illustrating the reach of Pentecostalism after a century.

Wagner left his teaching post at Fuller Seminary and moved to the Colorado Springs area to establish a nontraditional ministry training school called the Wagner Leadership Institute. He continues to strongly affirm the present day expression of both apostles and prophets and started the International Coalition of Apostles to foster relationship and dialogue among apostolic leaders. Wagner is a part of Ted Haggards’ congregation.

Oops.

Missed that one by a tad.

I actually didn’t know that Haggard was one of the big kahunas in the early stages of N.A.R. until today.  No wonder they don’t mention him in any of their documentation from the last decade: only months after the book came out, Ted Haggard was fired (like a cannonball) from New Life Church for some rather unbelievable sexual impropriety over a period of years, among other slight “hiccups”.

So much for C. Peter Wagner being a “prophet”…

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Giving the Gleanings” Unger

Well, it’s crunch time and I’m half done organizing my 200+ pages of research into outlines for my talks at the upcoming conference.  I’ve got 2 done, and I’ve got 2 to go.  It’s getting down to the wire, but I’m confident I’ll have something great when it’s all done. This afternoon I’m working on my synthesis of 4 centuries of history into a 45 minute talk. Oh boy! Well, I’ll make this quick (and full of spelling and grammar mistakes…)and give a little glimpse into what you won’t see or hear when I’m speaking.

I’m talking about the stuff that doesn’t make it in.

The stuff that gets edited out in the process of research.

Here’s one example that I just slugged through and left me all disappointed: I found a great quote that I couldn’t use after I checked it out and found that it was either unverifiable or made up (and I try hard to not share information that I cannot verify).  The quote is apparently from John Wimber:

“In a church-planting seminar in 1981, Wimber said: ‘Calvaryites [Calvary Chapel attendees] are sometimes a little too heavily oriented to the written Word. I know that sounds a little dangerous, but frankly they’re very Pharisaical in their allegiance to the Bible. They have very little life, and growth and spontaneity in their innards. Sometimes they’re very rigid and can’t receive much of the things of the Lord.’ “

I found this quote here: http://www.pfo.org/last-lgh.htm It sounds like a ringer of a quote and it would be great if I could use it, but I want to make sure it’ s for real. So, here’s a little insight into what happens with information I don’t use:

1.  I grab the distinct phrase “‘Calvaryites are sometimes a little too heavily oriented to the written Word” and plug that into Google.

2.  I look for a link in a book (i.e. Google books) mostly because published stuff is more accurate than stuff on random web pages (but I still don’t trust anything because it’s published). I find this link: https://books.google.ca/books?id=_u3ZW3z-970C&pg=PT81&lpg=PT81&dq=%22%27Calvaryites+are+sometimes+a+little+too+heavily+oriented+to+the+written+Word%22&source=bl&ots=ZQy4rw2c5c&sig=R5qkB9pzTWa7ERiRnRX5Dxz7jN0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zhI0VcmCKMKpgwSM2YDgDg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%27Calvaryites%20are%20sometimes%20a%20little%20too%20heavily%20oriented%20to%20the%20written%20Word%22&f=false

– It’s Hank Hannegraff, so I’m guessing it’s relatively reliable.  Still, as a rule of thumb, I don’t trust anyone when it comes to research.  I want to find the original source and read information first hand.  That means from the original author who said/wrote it, not someone I like or respect who cites it.

–  Sadly, the link doesn’t open on my browser for some reason so I’m off to another link.

– I find this: http://www.bible.ca/tongues-anti-intellectualism.htm.  It has the quote at the bottom and gives me a source: (John Wimber, “Healing: An Introductions,” (audiotape no. 5) and “Church Planting Seminar,” as quoted in Stephen F. Cannon, “Kansas City Fellowship Revisited”)

– Now I’m looking for an actual article.  Things are looking up.

3.  I end up searching the title and end up here: http://www.banner.org.uk/kcp/kcp-revisited.html

– I find: Stephen F. Cannon, The Kansas City Fellowship Revisited: The Controversy Continues, and see that it was originally printed in The Quarterly Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, Oct.-Dec 1990, which sounds good.  Peer-reviewed academic journals are usually fairly reliable sources of information.

– I look at footnote 14 in the article (John Wimber, “Church Planting Seminar,” cited in Testing the Fruit of the Vineyard, by John Godwin.) and that then takes me to a different article. Now I’m starting to get nervous. When quotations get twice removed or more, I immediately start having questions of credibility.

– As a side note, seeing that I’ve never heard of “The Quarterly Journal”, I look it up (along with the article title) and find this: http://www.pfo.org/res2a.htm

– There, I see a lousy website realize that this is not a peer-reviewed academic journal.  It’s just a glorified newsletter with long articles.  The fact that they’re selling their articles on CD-ROM also tells me that these folks aren’t exactly on the cutting edge of technology. That isn’t wrong per say, but it immediately makes me nervous. I’m guessing it’s a small ministry with incredibly limited resources (which more often than not means a semi-reliable ministry). I search the page and find the article listed, but it is not readable on that website.

4.  So, I go back and search Google for the article title, along with the author name, and get here: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/KJCVINEY.HTM

– First off, it’s a lousy website (which again makes me nervous: people who don’t care about presentation, more often than not, don’t care about other things like integrity).

– I look at footnote 15, and here it is: “John Wimber, Church Planting Seminar, Tapes I, II, III, IV, V. March 28, 1981.”

– So now I’m glad I did my research, since this quote is unverifiable and is far too questionable to use.  I mean, it’s a single quote and I’m supposed to search through FIVE tapes to find it? This guy doesn’t know how to do proper citation, and that makes me suspect that he’s either a bit of a dip or lying…thus I am really suspicious of his credibility.*

Am I being a bit harsh?

Let me explain a tad:

– The whole point of citation is credibility.  You want people to be able to verify that you’re not making things up, hence the need for specific citation. That gives you credibility as a writer and researcher. We don’t all do that perfectly, but we should try. With the article where my research ended up, I’m apparently going to have to listen to 5 hours (or more) of cassettes to find a single quote, and I imagine that when I get there, I’ll either not find it or I’ll discover that it’s ripped out of context.

– I’m going to skip that whole headache and simply ignore the quote.  The author may be credible or may not be, but he’s clearly not expecting anyone to try to verify the quote, so I’m going to ignore his research and simply be annoyed that he wasted my time.

– That’s one reason why I stay away from sites like www.Deceptioninthechurch.com. I find that though those sites may offer some good information, research trails that end there end in mystery more often than not.  They tend to rely too much on information from sources that are next to impossible to find (out of print teaching tapes, pamphlets that are as rare as the ark of the covenant, class syllabi, etc.).

In my writing, I try to link stuff to live articles (meaning current stuff that is working, like in this very post). Sure, blogs and websites change over a period of years, but I write my stuff for immediate usefulness (where as, with the conference, since it’s going to be more of a lasting resource, I’m sticking with almost exclusively mainstream print material for my research; books that are readily accessible).  When my stuff is first posted, I try to make sure that my readers can go through my work and verify what I’m saying. My analytics tell me that very few of my readers do, but I ultimately don’t provide citation and documentation for them; I do it for God and my own conscience.

The internet is full of unreliable “scholars” who do build their blogs or reputations on gossip or misinformation, knowing that most people don’t really care to track down the truth of a juicy story or damning detail.   There are far too many folks disseminating information that think they’ll get a “well done, good and faithful servant” for just alerting people to spiritual dangers, regardless of whether the details are true.

I’m pretty convinced that they’re dead wrong, but the type of folks I’m thinking of likely wouldn’t take correction from Jesus himself. Christians should be people of truth.

Christians should be people of integrity.

Christians should have nothing to do sneaky half-truths or misrepresentation, even with regards to their enemies.

That involves a whole lot more work than just passing on juicy or damning statements that apparently come from people you dislike .

That involves checking those statements: tracing down original sources and seeking to verify the authenticity of those statements.

That also means not passing on juicy or damning statements that cannot be confirmed.

Sadly, that means that for fellows like me, a short blog article (never mind a long research project) often takes 15 minutes to read and 15 hours to produce; half of that time (or more) is involved in sorting out details and not including stuff that we imagine would get more traffic to our sites and might earn us a bit more fame.

Hopefully, that will earn a “well done, good and faithful servant.”

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Working for the Weekend” Unger

*Also, someone along the citation chain is unreliable (or lying) since the citation I found in step 2 said the quote was from “audiotape no. 5″ but the original source citation does not say what tape the quote is from.   That’s suspicious (though it probably comes from confusing footnote 13 and 14 in the article I found in step 3: http://www.banner.org.uk/kcp/kcp-revisited.html).  I try to assume mistakes and not idiocy or intentional deceit.  I don’t always succeed, but I try.

Well, I just wrapped up giving four talk on the issue of the Charismatic Renewal movement. Things went pretty well (though as a speaker you never really know how things went; my self perception is always highly inaccurate), but I made one error big enough that I feel the need to point it out and offer some correction.

In my second talk on Saturday, I was talking about tongues, healing and prophecy. In my lecture, I got lost in my notes and went berserk for about 40 seconds as I remembered a point but got the supporting content wrong.

I was mostly speaking off the top of my head throughout most of my talks, and I said something simply untrue. I stated that Luke, the gospel writer, was an apostle, and I went on about how Jesus took a doctor with him while he was healing.

Luke was not an apostle.

The word I was thinking was “disciple,” and the part about Luke being a witness of Jesus’ ministry and miracles is personal conjecture. It is not stated in Scripture.

I have reasons for suspecting that Luke had witnessed Jesus’ ministry and miracles, but it’s theological guesswork and it’s not a hill I’d ever die on.

Someone was listening closely and asked me about it after, and I realized that I had stated something untrue and presented something as fact that was instead just a point of opinion.

For the sake of integrity and being open with my faults, I’m tossing this quick post up using my phone (hence no pictures) and hoping to clarify before the audio from the conference is posted on the web.

Thanks to the brother who pointed out my error and I’m sure once I listen to the audio, I’ll find some more incidents of “did I say that?”

I’ll deal with corrections as need be.

Well, I’ve gotta get to bed in prep for preaching tomorrow.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Christ is perfect; I’m certainly not” Unger

As promised, I’m tossing up my notes from the Last Days Bible Conference.  The audio from the conference (and possibly video: there were cameras there) isn’t up yet, and I am not sure when it will be.  There is audio up from my sermon at GraceLife Church in Calgary, and that audio can be downloaded here.  Apparently there will be video up sometime soon, and when the conference audio/video is up, I’ll certainly throw a post on here showing people where they can go to watch it.

I’m going to break my notes up into 2 sections, just to keep the post from becoming unbearably long.

Also, there are no references or footnotes in these notes.  It’s all documented, but in order to get this out I didn’t spend the dozen plus hours needed to go back through all my notes and find whatever specific quote or references was appropriate.  I didn’t provide references in my talk (for obvious reasons of time constraints), and these are the notes I preached on (with minor changes to turn points into complete sentences and whatnot).

So, here are the notes from session 1: The History of the Renewal:

******

The History of the Renewal

Before we start:

1. Definitions:

a. Pentecostal and Charismatic believers and scholars make distinctions between various camps:

i. Pentecostal – The denominations that started basically before 1947.

ii. Charismatic Movement – The denominations and independent churches that started basically after 1960 when tongues-speaking got into non-Pentecostal denominations.

b. Many folks claim that “Pentecostal” refers to the older, more civilized groups like The Assemblies of God or the Church of the Foursquare Gospel, and “Charismatic” refers to more excessive modern groups like the Catch The Fire or Bethel Church.

After almost 2 years of intense research, I actually disagree.

The theology and practice, at its core, hasn’t really changed all that much.  There has been development and nuanced progress to various ideas, sure.

Still, the modern heretical doctrines peddled by the craziest folks in the movement are often just the logical extension of the heresies peddled by their spiritual forefathers…and their spiritual forefathers were often only slightly less crazy.

c.  I’m going to make distinctions, but not the typical distinctions.

I’m going to steal Jack Hayford’s term Renewal and break the Renewal as a movement that started in 1901 with 4 distinct periods:

– 1901-1947

– 1947-1965

– 1965-1982

– 1982-now.

d. Also, in the critical side of my presentation I’m taking aim exclusively at the corrupt leaders of the movement, not the average people on the pew.

It’s the people who are in the limelight, writing the books, headlining the conferences and peddling the horrible ideas that I’m going to be critiquing.

Most megachurches are, in reality, led by 5 -15 people who set the theological agenda and do most of the teaching.

I’m not after the people who are being deceived; I’m after the deceivers.

Factors that led up to the 1901 Renewal.

1. Expectation of the outpouring of the Spirit

a. The 1800s was a time of intense eschatological expectation.

i. There was a revival in studying biblical prophecy

ii. The belief that the end times were near contributed to “restoration” movements like the Mormons, the Irvingites, the Millerites, and the Seventh Day Adventists.

– They all thought that they were living in the “last day restoration” of the true church or Spiritual power.

b.  The belief that the end times were near led to a growing expectation of an outpouring of the Spirit, which would provide a great empowerment for service.

i. This drove much of the missionary movement in the 1800s.

c.  The growing expectation of an outpouring of the Spirit also meant the restoration of the gifts.

i. Tongues, healing and prophecy were universally considered to be gone in the 1800s.

ii. The only groups where they appeared before around 1875 were heretical “restorationist” groups.

–  The Quakers (1650) “received the Spirit” and shook, spoke in tongues, prophesied, and witnessed healings.

– John Wesley labelled them heretics.

– The Jansenists (1650) “received the Spirit” and had all manner of experiences: seizures, trances, barking like dogs, dancing in a frenzy, jumping on one leg, spinning on their heels, speaking in tongues, prophesying, healings, levitation, etc.

– They were Catholics.

– The Shakers (1750) “received the Spirit” and shook, spoke in tongues, sang in tongues prophesied, and witnessed healings.

– Their leader (Ann Lee) said she was part of the Trinity, which was actually just her and Jesus.

– The Cane Ridge Revival (1800). A tent meeting revival where people got “the jerks”, were slain in the Spirit, had “holy laughter”, barked, fell into trances, spoke in tongues, danced until they fell over, prophesied and predicted the date of the second coming, etc.

– The “manifestations” fell upon believers and unbelievers alike.

– The leader, Barton W. Stone, denied the trinity, became a universalist and eventually left to become a Shaker (endorsing Ann Lee as part of the Trinity Binity).

– The Irvingites (1820). He taught the restoration of the gifts and biblical offices and the return of Christ in 1864.

– The gifts were apparently “restored” in 1830.

– Irving then appointed 12 apostles, formed seven churches (apparently the churches of Revelation 2-3) which comprised the Catholic Apostolic Church and pronounced himself to be the angel of the seven churches.

d. From 1875 to 1900, there were dozens of recorded events where people reported speaking in tongues.

Some think that the significance of 1901 was the “restoration of tongues”, but Roswell Flower, one of the founders of the Assemblies of God in 1914, wrote, “There had been recorded many instances of persons speaking in tongues prior to the year 1900…“

Tongues wasn’t new in 1901, and it had been around (in the United States) with sporadic frequency for 25+ years before…and exclusively around in heretical circles long before that.

2.  New Teaching on the Baptism of the Spirit

a.  John Wesley and Phoebe Palmer

i.  In the 1700’s, John Wesley taught “Christian perfectionism”; a “total surrender” to God that resulted in no more intentional sinning (known as “Christian Perfectionism”).

ii. This moment of “surrender” was a second work of grace, after salvation.

iii.  Phoebe Palmer focused on the moment of surrender, teaching that it was a moment of tangible change.

b.  Higher Life Movement

i. Went from 1858-1875 and developed the idea that the “moment of surrender” was actually the “Baptism of the Spirit”.

ii.  The Baptism was a “second work” of grace: empowering for Holiness.

iii.  The Higher Life movement collapsed in 1875 (the leader was revealed to be an unrepentant adulterer) but their theology continued on in the Keswick Holiness Movement.

c.  The Keswick Holiness Movement

i. The Keswick Holiness Movement taught that the Baptism of the Spirit was a baptism empowering for service rather than holiness (though holiness also was a byproduct), and also that the Baptism was a tangible experience following salvation.

– A.B. Simpson, D.L. Moody and R. A. Torrey were the three biggest voices that popularized the idea of the baptism of the Spirit as an definite (and even tangible) experience following salvation.

– R.A. Torrey is one of the most quoted pre-1901 writers in Renewal circles (which is interesting, seeing that he condemned the movement).

3.  Healing by Faith

a.  The idea that one could be healed by prayer alone was first put into practice by Swiss healer Dorothea Trudel.

b.  American physician Charles Culles visited Trudel’s healing house in 1873 and then incorporated faith healing in his practice.

c.  Culles then wrote “Faith Cures” in 1873, which basically claimed all the “healing” promises of the Old Testament as a covenant right for believers by means of twisting a select few New Testament scriptures (i.e. Gal 3:14)

d.  In 1882, A.B. Simpson experienced healing at Cullis’ camp in Old Orchard Beach, Maine and adopted his teaching.

e.  In 1882, A. J. Gordon wrote The Ministry Of Healing and the movement grew wildly in popularity over the next 10 years.

f.  In 1894, the Methodist Church officially spoke out against divine healing, which lead to several offshoot churches/organizations and independent healers:

i.  Charles Fox Parham was a disgruntled faith healing Methodist who had gone independent in 1895. He pronounced his denomination, and all others, as apostate because they lacked the Holy Spirit.

ii.  Parham travelled to both Zion Illinois and Shiloh, Maine in 1900 to see the two faith healing centers.

– Alexander Dowie ran the one in Illinois. Dowie was a notorious showman and unbelievable fraud.

– Frank Sanford ran the one in Maine. Sanford introduced Parham to speaking in tongues.

– After Parham left, both men pronounced themselves to be the prophet Elijah and renounced the other as a fraud.

This leads us to the first of 4 significant time periods in the Renewal:

1901-1947 – The Beginnings of Pentecostalism

1. Charles Fox Parham

a. In October 1900, Charles Parham bought an old house in Topeka, Kansas and started Bethel Bible College.

b. Parham had heard about the baptism of the Spirit all over the US: it was a big topic of the day.  Parham wanted to clarify his confusion with regards to the baptism of the Spirit.

c. The problem that Parham saw was the disagreement on the evidence of the baptism; people didn’t really know when they got it.  There was no agreed upon mark of the baptism.

i.  Right before Christmas, Parham left for a few days to preach.  He urged his students to study the Bible (specifically Acts 2) while he was gone and find out what the Bible laid out as the definitive mark of the Baptism of the Spirit.

ii. Parham returned and the students shared their findings with him: the definitive mark of the baptism of the Spirit was speaking in tongues.

iii.  The students found that Acts 2 clearly taught that one should, by the Spirit, speak in previously-unknown earthly languages.

iv. The students then prayed and waited for God to give them the baptism of the Spirit.

– This happened Jan. 1, 1901, when Agnes Ozman spoke and wrote in Chinese, as well as just spoke Czechoslovakian.

– Parham pronounced this event “the restoration of Pentecostal power” and called his movement the Apostolic Faith movement.

d. The school closed in 1901, but Parham went on the road.

i. In 1905 he moved his headquarters to Texas.

ii. He also started a school, and a young black man named William Seymour attended.

– Since Seymour was colored, he couldn’t be in the classroom so he sat in the hall and listened to Parham’s lectures.

– Parham took Seymour with him and shared the pulpit with him when he spoke at colored meetings.

e. In 1906 Seymour was invited out to Los Angeles to take over a Holiness church when the pastor, Julia Hutchins, decided to become a missionary since she had previously received the baptism of the Spirit and thought she was now “spiritually empowered” for successful missionary service.

i. Seymour showed up Feb. 22, 1906, and after hearing his teaching about the baptism of the Spirit and tongues, namely that their pastor had not received the baptism of the Spirit and was leaving on a missions trip that would be a fool’s errand, Hutchins chained & locked the doors.

ii. Seymour then moved in with some church people on 214 Bonnie Brae street and started a bible study with them.

iii. The quickly got the baptism of tongues and the study grew incredibly rapidly.

iv.  One month later the Bible Study purchased 312 Azusa Street started the Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission.

2. The Azusa Street Revival

As a note of the amount of confusion and lack of discernment in at Azusa street, there was a rather interesting and relatively little-known fact about The Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission.  When you went in the door, there was a creepy sign in the entrance: “Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin” was written on the wall, in green letters with the letter’s ‘N’ and ‘S’ upside down. ?!?

a. It was utter chaos:

i. There were tongues galore (both ecstatic speech and earthly languages), dancing, screaming, laughing, people being “slain in the Spirit”, people rolling on the floor, healings, etc/

ii. It was so loud that the police got called out nightly and people regularly were arrested for disturbing the peace.

iii. They were labelled “holy rollers” since they were known for literally rolling on the floor. The “holy rolling” phenomena preceded Asuza (and was found in bad places), but it was also found at Asuza.

b. It was filled with horrible theology:

i. First issue of Apostolic Faith explained the name of the movement: “The Apostolic Faith Movement stands for the restoration of the faith once delivered unto the saints…”

ii. They taught that “The blood of Jesus will never blot out any sin between man and man they can make right; but if we can’t make wrongs right the Blood graciously covers.”

iii. They taught that speaking in tongues wasn’t necessary to be a Christian, but it was the only proof that a person was.

iv. They taught that the Baptism of the Spirit was a third work of grace, after salvation and sanctification.

v. In a strange twist, even though the baptism of the Spirit was supposed to be an empowering for missionary service, any unbelievers who were discovered were literally thrown out of Azusa St. There are stories reported in local papers of “sinners” being physically assaulted, told they weren’t wanted, and tossed out of the meetings.

c. Fallout:

i.  The manifestations quickly got out of control; he knew that some of the “manifestations” at Azusa were fake, but he didn’t know how to tell.

ii. Seymour invited Parham to help him sort things out in October, 1906.

iii. Parham quickly condemned the movement as mostly a work of “the flesh” and Seymour chained and locked the doors, keeping Parham from teaching.

iv.  Seymour then tried to bring in William Durham, a respected pastor from Chicago, to help Asuza in 1911.

v.  Seymour chained and locked the doors on Durham as well, but 2/3 of the people followed Durham and started a new church.

vi.  After Durham went through, Azusa floundered and suffered financial scandals (i.e. thousands of dollars came in every week and not a cent was ever accounted for) until Seymour died in 1922.

d. The Growth of the Movement

i.  The church died but the movement still grew and spread like wildfire as Azusa workers swarmed the US and Europe. By the end of 1907 the movement had touched all over the US, as well as spread throughout Europe and Asia.

ii.  In the next 20 years after Azusa, many Holiness, Christians & Missionary Alliance,, Methodist and Baptist churches all left their denominations to form new Pentecostal denominations:

1911 – Pentecostal Holiness Church.

1914 – Assemblies of God

1927 – International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

iii. Due to their tremendous growth, in 1943 the National Association of Evangelicals embraced the Pentecostals. This was a turning point in the acceptance of Pentecostals by mainstream evangelicalism.

******

And next, we’ll walk through history from 1947 to around 2012.

The next post should be up soon.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Historian” Unger