Shepherding/Discipleship Movement Survivor's Blog

Humble Vessels

2006-05-29T06:51:00.000-07:00

I mentioned in a previous blog that I gave my (pre-Fender) Tacoma Roadking DR8C guitar to my current church's worship leader, and my husband has since been excited about the prospect of getting me a "better" guitar, like a Taylor or a Martin (he likes brand names. I was personally quite happy with the Tacoma, having initially chosen it over both Taylors and Martins). I'm not a big fan of Taylors in general, partly because I think one is paying as much for the brand as for the guitar, but more because Taylors are way too big and bright sounding for my taste. I like a warmer, more intimate tone one gets from smaller body guitars, including small-body Martins, as well as the Tacoma for that matter. Being that I'm primarily an electric player, I also like how smaller bodied guitars feel - a bit more natural for me. I figure that good tone can always be amplified, so I look more for a tonal quality that I like rather than sheer acoustic volume and/or projection. I also could care less about brand name but am very picky when it comes to tone, fit and finish, etc.

Last weekend we were visiting family out of town and spent a few minutes in "big box" music retailer Sam Ash where I fell in love with this beautiful 000 body Martin with Fishman's new Aura electronics. We almost bought it, but since cash flow was a bit of an issue, plus I wanted to check out what was available locally, we held off but that model definitely rose to the top of the list.

I went to a couple of local stores this week, tried some other brands, and kept going back to the small-body Martin and its tone... though no one locally had that particular model in stock. I did play a nice non-cutaway 000 equipped with the older Fishman electronics the Aura is replacing (combination microphone and piezo bridge) but plugged in the thing squealed with feedback way too much for my liking.

On a lark, yesterday I made my way across the Atchafalaya to the Red Stick where there's a Guitar Center open on Sundays. Alas, for all their selection they also did not have the desired Martin in stock (I was told that it was very popular though) but they did otherwise have a wider selection of acoustics than I could find closer to home, and the sales staff tried their best to find something similar in size and tone.

First off the wall was a gorgeous off-white cutaway Cort with the same Aura electronics as in the Martin. I've owned a couple Corts back in the day, and overall they're a nice guitar for the money - particularly since you're not exactly paying for the brand name. I could only imagine my husband's reaction if after going shopping for a Martin or a Taylor I came home with a lowly Cort. However, despite the fact that it was a dream to play, the thing sounded like a cardboard box. All the high-end electronics in the world weren't going to change the fact that acoustically it was like playing underwater.

I tried some smaller body Taylors, as well as a really nice Breedlove (new brand to me), and while the incredibly light and nimble $3,000 Breedlove came close with its clearly articulated tone, I kept going back to the Martins.

The salesperson left me to my own devices for a while, and there were a couple other guys in the acoustic room who were also drooling over the Breedlove, so I put it back on the wall so they could play and drool some more. I noticed there was a black 000 body Martin in the corner that no one had paid any attention to (it was only $650), so I took it down off the wall just to give it a shot, thinking it was going to sound like the cheap guitar that it was.

It didn't. In fact, it sounded almost exactly like the guitar I fell in love with last week, but for some reason was $1,000 less. I put it back on the wall and tried some others.

No, no, no and no. I even tried the Cort again, thinking that maybe it wouldn't sound as muddy as I thought on first play. I might as well have been playing in Henderson Swamp, with a tone that would even scare the alligators away. I took the little black Martin down again and plugged it into the acoustic sound system they had set up which is exactly the same system we have in our church. The thing sounded like a dream - while it didn't have the Aura electronics, the still high-quality Fishman Prefix Pro, designed for smaller body guitars, perfectly accentuated my somewhat rhythmic playing style (what they call the "Martin thump"). But unplugged it was still very much a Martin. No cardboard box here.

I put it back on the wall and mentioned to one of the Breedlove droolers, "You know, that little thing is the best bang for the buck in here."

I detected a veiled sneer. "Well... it's ok, I guess."

Exit droolers. I noticed too that the sales person who was helping me out kept his distance for a little bit, after I had obviously become enamored with this cheap little gem. But since I also was more ready to buy something than the droolers were, he eventually came back to check how I was doing. "What's the deal with that guitar?" I asked.

"Well, it's black. If you can get over the fact that it's black it's ok. I like real wood."

Turns out the body is made with Martin's patented wood-fiber laminate, and the neck is a maple "stratabond" which is supposed to be stronger than solid wood - I found it very comfortable to play as well. According to one retailer,

Martin Guitar's X Series feature acoustic guitars constructed with a combination of highly compressed wood fibers (high-pressure laminate, called HPL) and traditional tonewoods making these acoustic guitars extremely durable and affordable without sacrificing that "famous" Acoustic Martin Guitar sound and playability found in their more expensive acoustic guitars.

I called my husband. "I found what I liked. It's only $650. But it's a Martin."

"Are you sure that's what you want? I wanted to spend more money on you."

"It's perfect. It sounds great. It's black, though."

I didn't tell him that it wasn't "real" wood.

The resident "guitar guru"(I'm not sure if he works there or just hangs out in the store), a portly dude in his mid 50s who picked like a banshee, offered to set up the guitar, even though he kind of sneered at it as well. No matter, they restringed it with a lighter gauge set of strings, Mr. Guru readjusted it accordingly, and I brought it home. It didn't stay home long because I played it at church last night.

It played and sounded great, comparing very well with the "real" wood Tacoma.

Then the moment of truth. My husband played it. He liked it, too.

Ahh, there's a moral to this story, which is why I'm telling this on my blog. Names and reputations aren't everything. Test all things, rather than just accepting things at face value merely on the source's reputation. And don't overlook the humble vessel that may be sneered at and collecting dust in the corner. I've learned that the God I serve is often more likely to use humble vessels. In fact, it is with those that He can most demonstrate His power and glory.

Almost Like a Seminary Education...

2006-05-13T08:11:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the final meeting for the "cult class" I took this semester. (Yes, it's a real class for credit - the course name is "PHIL 231: Topics in World Religions (Cults).") When my instructor handed my paper back he said, "Go to seminary and use this as your master's thesis." Not bad for something that was mostly written in 3-4 days. He is not the first person to say I need to go to seminary, by the way. My husband especially has been encouraging me to go to seminary. Where or how, I don't know, but I'm sure that if that's in God's will for me He will make a way.

Though the last two years have almost been like a seminary education - two years ago, I was totally clueless. I could discuss postmodernism all day for sure (thanks to master's degree #1), but I wouldn't have been able to clearly articulate my faith outside of platitudes, much less write a thirty-plus page theologically-grounded treatise mostly off the top of my head. It started two days before I was to start VLI, when I stumbled upon potentially disturbing information about Morning Star's/Every Nation's leaders and history, and the Lord started speaking to me about using my writing talents for Him, to bring a word to a body that had forgotten Jesus Christ is the Head, and the rest as they say is history. In an incredible and incredibly humbling way, it looks to have become entwined with the history of that movement, hopefully for the better for those who have been helped in any way by the journey that the Lord has very publicly led me on - along with those of other current and former EN members. I know that at least some have found true freedom in Christ as a result... just as I have rediscovered my own freedom in Him. What an education this has been - and I might add a much different education than I would have received in VLI/ENLI. Not just intellectually, but even more spiritually.

A fellow poster on FACTNet recently commented that the church might instead focus on helping the poor and hungry. We as the Body of Christ are most definitely a "hospital church" for Jesus came for the sick and sinful, not for the healthy. He didn't primarily come to train leaders; He came to save the lost. And the "leadership skills" He did teach included being last rather than first, humbly serving others rather than being served, having only one Master, Teacher and Head... certainly not setting up pyramidical leadership structures. That post also made me reflect on Jesus' teachings about those poor in spirit, and those hungering for spiritual things. One who eats bread will become hungry later; one who eats of the Bread of Life, Jesus Christ, the living Word, will never hunger (John 6:35). There are so many starving for the Word, and I believe that's what the Lord has called me to do, to help point people to Him and to the Word so that they may hunger no more. And also to help warn people where there is tainted milk and meat in the process.

Hebrews 5:12-14 (NIV): 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

More Wiki Wars and Other Assortments

2006-05-03T12:11:00.000-07:00

Every Nation's Wikipedia entry continues to be revised... check out the entry's history. Take out the Scandals section and this could almost be linked from EN's own home page. The most recent clean up involved removing links to non-EN sites, including a new discussion board intended to be a safe forum for both current ENers and their pastors, along with former members and pastors, to openly discuss serious issues regarding the movement. Does this mean that someone doesn't think this is a particularly good idea?

However, I might suggest that good PR might start with simply being a good neighbor. Or, if the organization doesn't want to be called a cult, to perhaps stop giving people fodder to do so. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening in Franklin, Tennessee... Uh, check some of the comments, including those who seem to be church members gloating over their "victory." If all y'all had any idea who it's really a victory for... Bless your hearts; it could easily have been me. I'm praying for you.

I did just finish my paper. It ended up being over 30 pages long. If I more strictly followed academic formatting guidelines (12 point Courier, double spaced), it would have been thesis length. My instructor DID say "no maximum length."

I think I'm going to rest up a bit before I get it ready for publication. Maybe wait on his comments, too. But for a first draft it came out pretty well I thought.

Clarification

2006-04-26T06:46:00.000-07:00

I just got an email from a friend and reader joking that I must be pretty old to remember the 19th century communalist groups. Sorry, meant more modern day groups and the days when cults made headlines in the 70s and 80s. Sometimes I feel that much older, especially when climbing stairs, but I'm really only middle aged, and relatively early middle aged at that.

But, I already knew more than I should about the other groups too, since I'm also a product of the "Burnt Over District" of Upstate New York. This is what I wrote back:

Hehehehe, I thought I was writing it in such a way that I meant the more modern day groups, not the 19th century ones.

Though most of my time growing up I lived around a mile from the original US Shaker settlement, where Mother Ann Lee is buried. I used to go fishing in Ann Lee Pond. Also, my family is originally from the infamous Burnt Over District that spawned some of those other groups, including the Oneida Settlement - my birthplace is where they made Oneida silverware and have a street named after John Humphrey Noyes (their founder), and the Mormons also used to heavily promote the annual Palmyra pageant in our area too - Hill Comorah isn't that far away either. One could even say that Doris Wagner (C. Peter's wife), who is the one heavily into the spiritual warfare thing, is a modern-day product of the Burnt Over District since she's also originally from Central New York [. . .]. Central and Western NY was another hotbed of early Latter Rain activity - the revival based at Elim Institute occurred at around the same time as the original one in Canada. My brother even knows of a laughing revival church in the same area where they literally pipe in laughing gas every week - reason he knows this is he knows the guy who makes the weekly deliveries. The majority of people in that area are either vehemently anti-"born again" (like most of my family) or deeply into the off the wall stuff that causes others to get so turned off to "born agains." All this to say I already knew more than I should about many of these groups, hehehehe.

That last part is something that has always saddened me about the area where I grew up, and obviously more so now that I'm a "born again" myself, though I think my family is starting to see through me that "born again" isn't synonymous with "blithering idiot." There's been so much weirdness up there that so many people seem to already be culturally predisposed to be turned off to the real Gospel, preferring the safety of "dead" religion or no religion at all. My pastor while I was in grad school in Virginia (this was before my MSI/Every Nation days) was a second generation Italian from New York City, and for a while he and his Ontario-born wife pastored a church in Rensselaer, NY, which is right across the Hudson River from Albany. I was born in Utica, NY, but spent most of my childhood and early adulthood in Colonie, an Albany suburb. Anyhow, no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't make a go of their ministry there due to what they perceived as a heavy spiritual darkness and resistance to the gospel. Maybe things have changed; but I know when I left the area ten years ago, even though this was still before I became a Christian, I sensed the same heaviness as well - what a contrast to Nashville, where I finally surrendered to Jesus. Anyhow, if God ever leads me back to Upstate New York to be a light on a hill, no matter how dimly lit I think it might seem, I would go, despite the bitter cold and snowy winters that I've been happy not to deal with over the last decade since I moved south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Ok, I need to stop. I've got work to do and a paper to write.

Next Up...

2006-04-25T07:12:00.000-07:00

Well, I just got permission to submit the paper I alluded to in my former entry for credit in my "cult class." Our assignment is to analyze either modern-day aberrant Christian groups or communitarian groups of the nineteenth century (eg. Oneidists, Shakers, Brotherhood of the New Life) according to the following criteria:

Psychological (individual attraction to the group and effects of group membership)
Sociological (how does the group view society and vice versa? Is it "world rejecting" or "world affirming"?)
Theological (how do the teachings compare with Christianity? How does the church as a whole view/treat the group and vice versa?)
Legal (are there areas of legal conflict between the group and the state that overstep the boundaries of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion?)

The abberant Christian groups we've discussed so far include Jim Jones/People's Temple, Branch Davidians, The Way International, Children of God/The Family, Moonies/Unification Church, and Heaven's Gate. We did discuss shepherding groups very briefly and generally toward the beginning of the semester but haven't profiled them specifically in class. So my question was, "Can I write about shepherding/discipling groups, like the ICoC, Maranatha, and Morning Star International/Every Nation, or am I limited to just the groups profiled in class?"

The answer: "Ms. Ulyankee, you can write about whatever you want."

Ahh, the benefits of relatively old age in a sea of late teens and early twenty-somethings. Not to mention that I'm fairly sure I have the only A average in the class so far, which is probably related more to being old enough to remember many of the groups we've discussed, plus my getting a two year head start on some of the other course material, than to the hours I (haven't) spent studying.

I think I may start my paper with a salient quote by Steve Cannon of Personal Freedom Outreach, who was one of the members of the "ad hoc committee" which investigated Maranatha (at its own invitation) back in the 1980s:

A committee that investigated Maranatha Campus Ministries from 1980 through 1983 got an intimate look at the inner workings of an aberrational Christian group that many believe uses heavy- handed tactics to manipulate its members. Maranatha is a campus ministry teaching basic Christian doctrine and using tactics similar to those of mind-control groups to recruit and subdue members. With the discovery of Maranatha, the issue no longer was black-and-white, cult-or-Christian.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of note... Richard Bartholomew of "Bartholomew's Notes on Religion" is being threatened with a libel suit over comments made on his blog. My readers may recognize Bartholomew since he has written several entries about Every Nation. While this particular case centers on a rather arcane UK law, believing that something similar couldn't possibly take place on my side of the pond is unwise as Nashville's NewsChannel 5 might be able to attest. My support goes out to Bartholomew and to others who dare to seek and expose the truth to the point of incurring legal threats or worse.

The Prerogative of Deity?

2006-04-12T14:59:00.000-07:00

I've been somewhat pulled in various directions over the last several days... I guess if you post stuff on the Internet along with your email address people will write you--and I welcome this!--but one of the things I've been wanting to do but haven't found the time to do is to write a documented, semi-scholarly article on the covering doctrine specifically as it pertains to Every Nation's "working theology" regarding apostolic/spiritual/delegated authority and present form of government. Right now it is comprised of two sticky notes on my desk filled with rough citations and notes that only I understand.

A couple things do stand out, though.

From the 3/2006 revision of The 2010 Initiative, emphasis mine (this section is unchanged from previous editions):

Each local church gives monthly into Every Nation; many give a tithe. In the future, the new churches planted will be "tithing" into the overall mission of Every Nation. This tithe recognizes the principle of spiritual authority and covering.

I highlight this as significant since this was published after the January reorganization - apparently the "principle of spiritual authority and covering" is still a key underpinning of the movement.

From Jim Laffoon's book, A Divine Alliance: How Apostles and Prophets Operate in Today's World (emphasis mine):

Apostles are also gifted to recognize the calling and spiritual destiny in the lives of God's people. One of the most powerful examples of this aspect of the apostle's ministry is found in the book of Acts: Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet (Acts 4:36-37).

The word encouragement comes from the Greek word nebee, which means prophet. Even as God renamed Abram, Jacob, and Simon according to their calling, the apostles in Jerusalem saw the prophetic calling on the life of Joseph, who was a businessman in the church, and redefined him accordingly. This is an amazing story. For the first time in history, God was allowing humans to rename people according to their spiritual destiny. That which had always been the prerogative of deity had now been given to humans through the apostolic office. It is no different today. God has given apostles the grace to perceive and define the calling and destiny of His people.

Aside from the fact that this conclusion is based upon an absolutely horrid little piece of exegesis, the notion that the "prerogative of deity" is given to those with the so-called "apostolic gifting" is more than somewhat troubling, at least to me. This sounds similar to Roman Catholic beliefs regarding the Pope and church hierarchy, and indicates that perhaps the counsel of the Holy Spirit, the Counselor Jesus sent Who would be with us until the end of the age, is not quite adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/30/06: Wow - look up "prerogative of deity" in Google... Beyond all the esoteric stuff that comes up first in the search, here's what Baker's Evangelical Guide of Biblical Theology says about this (emphasis mine):

God retains exclusive prerogative as deity. Any competing ideology is idolatry, whether that be the ancient worship of Baal or the modern preoccupation with technique, nationalism, or militarism.

This really is a key difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism... or maybe I should say between Every Nation and the rest of Protestantism...? And the Church Lady says,"Hmmm, could it be... CATHOLIC?"

Jesus Christ Alone

2006-04-02T05:50:00.000-07:00

As I stated in my last entry, over the last several days I've reflected on my new-found freedom in Christ, and have been so burdened to tell others about it. I don't know if "new-found" is the right terminology or not, since I have been free in Christ since January 1998 when I surrendered my life to Him, but if one remains in a jail even with the door wide open, afraid to leave the security of the jail, and not exercising that freedom, then I guess "new-found" still works.

Two years ago, when the Holy Spirit began speaking to me about this next season in my life and what He was to have me to do, He told me that He was going to use me to "bring a word to a body that has forgotten that Christ is the Head." It wasn't until several months later when I was reading Colossians that I realized this was a direct reference to Colossians 2:19, "He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow." I got chills... I had been searching and confirming and reconfirming that what God told me was in accordance with Scripture, and here was proof staring me in the face. In larger context, this was exactly what I was experiencing in my former church movement and seeing in many areas of the church at large... a return to Old Testament-style legalism. Colossians 2:16-23 (NIV) reads:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

So even though those who claim that "follow the delegated leader" brings them to a closer relationship with God, talking about how humble they are now, all the visions they have, how they've learned that through following, obeying, and honoring so-and-so they are following, obeying, and honoring the Lord, in actuality they have lost connection with the Head and risk drawing people further away. CHRIST ALONE IS THE HEAD. WE ALL FOLLOW HIM. Church leaders, ministers, pastors, the so-called five-fold ministry, rank-and-file, everyone.

Speakword, a fellow former-Every Nation member from South Africa recently posted a link on his blog to an excellent series of articles discussing the detailed roots and history of the "covering doctrine." I believe that the "covering doctrine" as practiced TODAY in Every Nation churches (yes, as in today, now, after the "reorganization"), particularly but not exclusively in the US, comprises the core of a false gospel where leaders become Christ to their followers, if not in name, certainly in practice. I agree with Speakword that it is idolatry. I also believe that it adds works to salvation, because if one does not unquestionably obey their leaders, then one's very salvation is called into question.

Though as I've stated before both here and on FACTNet, the issue isn't just when the practical applications of these teachings go "too far" and abuses occur. They have to be dealt with at their theological root. Time and again, the leaders of Shepherding-style movements, including Maranatha Campus Ministries and now Every Nation, have repented of "abuse" and "control." But not of the root theology that led to the abuse and control in the first place. Rob McAlpine, the author of the above linked series of articles states, "the fatal flaw was not in the existence of the abuse, but in the foundational assumptions that gave credence to the teachings on submission and authority."

I am "covered" by the precious Blood of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And not only "covered" in an Old Testament sense but cleansed free from sin. Read the book of Hebrews. Read Jesus' admonishments in the synoptic gospels that "so shall it not be among you."

I know that one of the objectives of "covering" and "accountability" is to keep people free from sin. This is not necessarily a bad objective, just a human solution to a spiritual problem that only God can solve through the power of the Holy Spirit Who indwells all believers in Christ. Sadly, as the periodic scandals and failures among leaders who teach and practice this doctrine illustrates, quoting the apostle Paul, these human, legalistic practices "lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." They didn't work in Old Testament times, and they don't work today, other than to point us to Jesus Christ as our only hope.

A friend gave me a note of encouragement the other day... it meant so much to me. I hope this person doesn't mind me quoting this here.

We need to trust in God and be faithful to what He has called or shown us to. [. . .] You don't need me to check up on you and you don't need an accountability board. You stand or fall with the weapons God has given you as long as you use them.

There may be some who say, to quote an Every Nation leader I heard say derisively some time ago (about someone else) when teaching about how to hear from God, that I'm just an "uncovered woman." To them I reply, I AM FREE IN CHRIST!!!! HALLELUJAH!!!!

Scary Faith

2006-03-29T11:03:00.000-08:00

One of the things I've been reflecting on over the last several days is how wonderful it is to not only be free in Christ, but to trust Him enough to exercise that freedom. I wrote this to someone this morning, and thought I'd share it here:

And you know, if there was never anything there [in Every Nation] that appealed to me, and not just in the flesh either, I wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. I mean, in a society full of sin, corruption, and uncertainty, it can be really comforting to have the security of committed, accountability/discipleship relationships, to have authority and structure, to even have someone lay hands on you once in a while and tell you about your great destiny, to think that maybe you can be a leader and change the world for the better. It's a whole lot scarier to put your faith in God and God alone, even though He never fails us.

I don't know if scary is the right word, because I know that Scripturally fear is the antithesis of faith. However, it's really easy to get driven by fear into finding security wherever one can find it, rather than holding fast to faith in the Lord - and that security can sometimes be found in churches that believe that the way to faith in Christ is by putting faith in men who claim to act in Christ's stead as his "delegated authority" on earth, whether it's intentionally or not.

I was absolutely terrified when I left Morning Star/Every Nation. I knew in my heart of hearts that it was the right thing, as led by the Lord Himself. Though leaving that security is terrifying. I mean, most people don't think they'll ever be faced with a decision to choose following Jesus on the one hand, and the institutional church on the other. Most people think that they're one and the same. I thought they were one and the same. And through this process the Lord has given me a much larger view of His body the Church, of His will, of the workings of the Holy Spirit, than I imagined possible. I still see through a glass darkly and will until He calls me home and I see Him face to face, but at least I'm learning how not to confuse the glass with Jesus Himself. I also found that the Holy Spirit does a wonderful job of leading us into truth, and keeping me "accountable." (That's His job, by the way.) By the power of the Holy Spirit, I don't want to sin, and when I do, He sure lets me know. I don't need a discipler, a small group, even weekly church services to keep following Christ. In fact, I learned that if you do, then perhaps there is something wrong. I don't need those things, instead I need Him, and He lives in me in the Person of the Holy Spirit Who indwells all believers. Now I am active in a church (and that was scary too - a lot of people coming out of discipling/shepherding movements have a difficult time with finding new churches), do attend a small fellowship, all those things. But I no longer feel obligated to someone else - it's because I want to learn more about the Lord, walk a closer walk with the Lord, and want to fellowship with others who want the same. I don't think, hmm, what if so-in-so calls me today and asks me accountability questions? Oh, no, I need to call so-and-so and ask accountability questions! Did I read my Bible, did I memorize verses, did I do my homework, did I spend x amount of time in prayer?

We're getting ready to do our taxes. I remember not so long ago when I would go into Microsoft Money and analyze our tithing and giving to make sure that our tithe was at least 10%, and giving was in excess of that, and would wonder in the very back of my mind if this really was in line with "cheerful giving" as we recited every week before the offering, or was closer to, "if you try to keep any part of the law, you are doomed to keep all of it." It became more and more obligatory, even though we started out as cheerful givers wanting to be obedient to the Lord.

Well, I need to say that this past year, we did not "tithe" to our church as in the brick and mortar institution. It was a healthy amount, I certainly don't want my pastor living in poverty, but we weren't continually keeping track of whether it was a "tithe" throughout the year either. BUT, I also have no clue how much we gave in general to those in need. Family members, non-family members, ministries, etc. Not just money either, but also things like the guitar we just gave to our current church's worship leader in part because he didn't have a decent guitar, and at 19 doesn't have a whole lot of income coming in to buy a decent guitar, but more importantly because God led us to. The Lord put that on my heart and, I thought, "no way, my husband will kill me, it was a gift!!!" and without our otherwise talking about it, an hour or so later my husband asked, "What do you think about giving xxxx your guitar?"

And maybe I should also count all "this" stuff, my research and "ministry" if you want to call what I've been called to do a "ministry." I don't raise a dime, don't ask for anything, it's all out of my own pocket. If someone wants an article or a CD or whatever, I just send it. I have no clue how much I've spent in ordering materials, books, CDs, documents, postage, subscriptions. So not all of our "giving" is documented, and so not all of it can be written off on our taxes, but based on what I do know we gave and spent it has to be at least what we used to give percentage-wise if not more. I don't say this at all to toot my own horn, in fact I feel kind of funny saying all this because our giving should be in secret (Matthew 6:3-5), but I say this merely to show how the Lord can lead believers through the Holy Spirit's leading to simply give where it is needed.

And we've been blessed. Our income went up quite a bit this year too, for the first time in several years... we didn't realize how much at first because we gave a lot of it away. We did notice that paying bills was overall a lot less stressful this year, and we've paid a bunch of stuff off, but our lifestyle otherwise isn't any different. The biggest thing we did for ourselves is buy a new-to-us car because the other cars are ancient and we felt uncomfortable driving either one further than around town. (Even though it didn't cost a huge amount, it's kind of a mid-life crisis type car, so it's not like we're total ascetics here. It's not quite a toy, but imho it's the most fun one can have on 30-35 MPG.) The most wonderful thing about all this is because it was so free, so led by God, so... cheerful. And we didn't sit through a single sermon on giving, on robbing God, anything like that. I think the pastor mentioned giving in passing once or twice.

Galatians 5:1 reads, It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. I can't tell you how many "freedom" songs I used to sing in my old church. But now my heart sings, it rejoices, in freedom in Christ. The apostle Paul continues (Ephesians 5:2-6; emphases mine),

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Wiki Tug 'o War

2006-03-27T15:42:00.000-08:00

Well, since I brought up Wikipedia some time back, there have been some significant changes made to Every Nation's Wiki entry. For starters, it now warrants its own entry rather than just being redirected from Maranatha's entry. Also, over the last several days it seems that the pro- and con- Every Nation camps have been having at it. The History section has been back and forth between the official and non-official versions of EN's history. Several days ago, someone added a section on Links to Maranatha, discussing corporate and leadership continuity between what was Maranatha Campus Ministries and what is today Every Nation, and included the Boston Every Nation church (now called Beacon City Church) as one example.

Some time ago I had discovered that this church, which was characterized as a "church plant" to its membership, was actually a former Maranatha church operating under its old corporate charter. As of today, EN's Wiki entry explains:

In 2001, KPIC [Kings Park International Church] sent a church planting team to Boston. This team joined with a few leaders remaining from the Tree of Life City Church, a church already a part of Morning Star, to form Morning Star International Church of Boston, which has since changed its name to Beacon City Church. Tree of Life was a former Maranatha church with roots in Maranatha's outreaches in Boston. Beacon City Church operates under Tree of Life's corporate charter, which was adopted while it was part of Maranatha. Its original associate pastor, Brian Diver, had been pastor of Tree of Life from at least the waning days of Maranatha.

Ok, I can appreciate this additional information, which does help to flesh out the corporate history - it can get a bit dry at times. Tree of Life had been listed in MSI's directory for approximately a year prior to the church planting team going to help out what looked to be a struggling church (aside from the fact that the rest of the MSI/EN world, including KPIC, was told it was a church plant). What is really interesting though is what happened when someone discovered that the VCM chapter at MIT claimed that it was the former Maranatha ministry on its website and then posted about it on his blog. This is what the MIT VCM website stated about its history before November 20, 2004:

History: Victory Campus Ministries was founded at MIT in 1983. Originally called "Maranatha Campus Fellowship", the name changed in 1996 to "Impact Campus Fellowship" and once more in 2002 to "Victory Campus Ministry". Although our numbers have varied over the years, the vision has stayed the same since our inception: to love God and one another, and share the good news with others!

Two days later this was gone from their website. I know because that's when I made sure to save a Google cache of the old site before it too disappeared.

And the Wiki explanation continues:

However, the new church has a far different vision, and there is almost no membership overlap.

[Hmm, what happened to "the vision has stayed the same since our inception?"]

Arguments can be made either way whether this is a new church plant or simply a revival of a dormant Maranatha church. Instances like this illustrate the difficulty of using corporate records to identify spiritual continuity.

Point taken. Keeping a record of what is said before it is cleaned up also helps a great deal.

P.S. - To date, the only things I've contributed to the Wiki entry is a link to the timeline as well as links to Christian Reconstructionism and the Latter Rain movement. (I couldn't help it. I have documented evidence showing those are two major streams contributing to what I call Every Nation's "working theology.") Otherwise, I plan on remaining a spectator.

3/29/2006 update: The relevant section of EN's Wiki entry now reads:

In 2001, KPIC sent a church planting team to Boston. This team joined with a few leaders remaining from the Tree of Life City Church, a church already a part of Morning Star, to form Morning Star International Church of Boston, which has since changed its name to Beacon City Church. Tree of Life was a former Maranatha church with roots in Maranatha's outreaches in Boston. Beacon City Church operates under Tree of Life's corporate charter, which was adopted in 1986 while it was part of Maranatha. Its original associate pastor, Brian Diver, had been pastor of Tree of Life from at least the waning days of Maranatha. While Beacon City is indisputably the legal successor to Maranatha Christian Church of Boston, proving spiritual continuity is somewhat murkier. None of the current ministry team members date directly back to Maranatha, and the vision is different in some ways on paper. However, the church planting team came from a former Maranatha church whose founding pastor was part of Maranatha. Also, Every Nation Campus Ministries' chapter at MIT has been in continuous existence since 1983, when it was a Maranatha chapter. [7] Nonetheless, this illustrates the difficulty of using corporate records to prove spiritual continuity.

BTW, there are more than five Every Nation churches currently operating under their old Maranatha corporate charters. Here's another.

Every Nation and Azusa Street Centennial Youth Convocation

2006-03-25T06:15:00.000-08:00

Several days ago I read this on www.ricebroocks.com:

Thousands of people from around the world will come to Los Angeles, April 25-29th to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Asuza St. revival. I have been privileged to be apart of the steering committee for the youth convocation on the final night, April 29th. We hope that many of you can attend and experience this historic event.

I filed this in my mental "follow up later" file. Yesterday I was on the phone with a friend of mine who is a former Maranatha member, and he brought up the Azusa Street Centennial.

"Oh, oh, oh!!! That's right!!! I forgot to tell you, Rice Broocks is on the youth convocation steering committee!"

Now, I've seen the Azusa Street Centennial main site, plus as a subscriber to Charisma I've read the ads and such. The January issue of Charisma lists all the keynote and workshop speakers... it's a mix of people from the Word-Faith, classical Pentecostal, New Apostolic Reformation, and charismatic movements. Some, like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, etc. I personally consider aberrant teachers, and some would say I'm being overly kind here. But there are also representatives from mainline Pentecostal denominations including the Church of God (Cleveland) and the Pentecostal Holiness church, which ironically don't really trace their history just to Azusa but further back to Appalachian revivals arising from both the Wesleyan and Baptist traditions. Either way, there's quite a bit of information out there on who is involved with the main program.

But my interest here isn't in the workshops geared to middle age stodgies like me, but in the youth convocation.

This on the youth website (emphases mine):

Join with thousands of spiritually hungry young men and women from across the world as they converge on the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Sports Arena to seek God for a fresh Pentecost for themselves and their generation. From 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday April 29, the entire energy of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement will be focused on the emerging generation. The highpoint of the Convocation will be a call for those willing to commit themselves as living sacrifices to the cause of the Gospel. As young men and women respond to this call, the Centennial Ministry Team, 300 key Pentecostal/ charismatic leaders from around the world, will lay hands on them for a once - in - a - lifetime impartation that will transfer the flame of Pentecost to the next generation and will launch a radical army of young warriors into the next century of Spirit-filled witness.

Ok, other than Rice Broocks, who else is involved with the Centennial Ministry Team? Who exactly are these "300 key Pentecostal/charismatic leaders?" For as the apostle Paul warned Timothy:

Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin. (1 Tim 5:22; NASB from Biblegateway)

Biblegateway also crossreferences this verse to Ephesians 5:11 - Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them [. . .]

(Which by the way, is one of the verses guiding my blog as well as my FACTNet posts.)

Now, I would assume that by inviting as many youth as can fit into the LA Memorial Auditorium and then laying hands upon them, that these 300 key Pentecostal/charismatic leaders are personally responsible for whether or not they are working in accordance with 1 Tim 5:22. I would say that it would be pretty tough to do, but that's really their call, not mine. BUT what about the youth? Who is going to be laying hands upon them? What are they going to be sharing in themselves? What exactly is this "activation" (see button) and "once-in-a-lifetime impartation" going to entail, which sounds more like something that Bill Hamon would say (or even the New Age?) than the general overseer of the CoG? One would hope that it really will be the Holy Spirit flame of Pentecost. But without knowing who these 300 leaders are going to be (one can guess, but we don't really know since the Centennial Cabinet hasn't been publicly announced), one won't really know who is going to be sharing what with whom, huh? Certainly those who attend the Centennial Assembly, a similar event scheduled immediately before the Youth Convocation, won't know:

In all the events of the Centennial, a conscious effort will be made to glorify God rather than to lift up personalities. Consequently, emphasis on individuals will be kept to a minimum in advertising materials and, in the Centennial Assembly at the Coliseum, no speakers will be announced ahead of time.

All I know about is one. And I do know about a previous, similar event that this leader presided over at the Every Nation World Conference in July, 2004 - I've posted a transcript on FACTNet some time back on the "What does Every Nation Mean" thread - the talk by Jim Laffoon was titled, "To Reach and to Rule." I won't post an extended quote here but I invite my readers to PLEASE take ten minutes or so to read the transcript and prayerfully consider it. It is not a call to Biblical discipleship imho but a call to literally take over the world, and using our youth as the army to do it. Rice Broocks then helped close out the talk by inviting Jim Laffoon to lead the audience of youth in a prayer "sealing" them as if in Revelation:

[Rice Broocks] We’re about to close. But I want Pastor Jim to pray a prayer. It says in Revelation that there’s this conflict that the church is called into. Here in this struggle that many theologians and… again, we’re not wanting to get sidetracked into end-time debates and scenarios and speculations, but… it seems when you look at the popular theology it’s all about leaving this planet and somehow that there are nations that will be reached after the church is gone, and there’s these elaborate speculations and themes and charts, yet that’s probably the greatest gamble in history. To gamble away the fate and the souls of men and women, for many times, a preoccupation with Western convenience and comfort. But in this battle of Revelation, in this struggle where the revelation is of Christ, and His rule and His authority, there was a moment when he said, “Seal my bondservants on the forehead, seal them.” [. . .] I just want you Pastor Jim, just where you know where that passage is specifically, but just to pray, and let’s ask God to do a miracle, even as Jesus said I prayed, guarded them that I did not lose one. I’m just praying that this ceiling, this… just in the minds and in the hearts, so many images, so many thoughts, that it’s going to be a miracle for us to do what he’s talking about. So Pastor Jim, go ahead.

[Jim Laffoon] There in the book of Revelation, where it talks about the mark of the beast, whatever that is, it talks about those that had the name of their Father written on their foreheads. They were sealed with that. The Lamb stood on Mount Zion, “Father come now, write your name upon our foreheads, as we meditate on your word, as we confess your word, as you transform us, let your name GLOW on our foreheads!” God I pray that you would SEAL this generation! You would SEAL us with discipleship! SEAL us with accountability! SEAL us with family! SEAL us with your word! Filling us with your LOVE and your GRACE and your POWER. And as you seal us, keep us, give us the wisdom to be inserted into every area that affects culture, that we’re trusting your sealing, your blessing, and your help.

The talk in general, including the part about the current generation being birthed to rule with an iron scepter, comes right out of Latter Rain and Manifest Sons of God theology. These theological roots of Maranatha, Every Nation, and various other streams in present-day churches made me recall some excellent and well-researched articles by Tricia Trillin about the "overshadowing" and "sealing." She writes,

A more recent, but associated nightmare is the possibility of a visible sign, a mark, appearing on the bodies (foreheads?) of those who believe they are the "anointed overcomers" of the New Order. Alternatively there may be strong pressure to join an elect number of believers who have received a spiritual sealing or mark of God in the forehead. All this will be explained later in the article, but for now I just want to say that this most dangerous and blasphemous sign must be avoided at all costs!

I am unable to go to the Azusa Street Centennial. However, I will be praying that the Lord's will be done, and that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth prevails. I pray that those born-again children of God in Christ Jesus, particularly our precious youth, who are already sealed* by the power of the Holy Spirit Who indwells all believers, do not accept any other "seal." Even if my concerns turn out to be unwarranted, I don't believe that's a bad prayer to pray.

*Ephesians 1:13-14 & 4: 30; 2 Corinthians 1:22

Every Nation Exposed

2006-03-20T07:36:00.000-08:00

There's now a new blog devoted to a former member’s experience in Maranatha - it's extremely detailed and well-written from a first person perspective. One of the things that has me completely intrigued is that this person who was in the original Maranatha Campus Ministries is convinced that Every Nation, which is descended from Maranatha, is another strain of the same virus… a mutated, more virulent strain. Interesting that the blog's URL doesn't refer to Maranatha but "Every Nation exposed." I'm eagerly awaiting more...

"He taught us how to live... then he taught us how to die."

2006-03-05T08:24:00.000-08:00

One of the primary reasons why I haven't been consistently blogging over the last several weeks is because my father-in-law recently passed away. He knew, loved and served the Lord faithfully, and our family is comforted knowing that he now sees Jesus face to face. Even though we rejoice in that, it's still been a bittersweet time. I personally will miss him a great deal.

My father-in-law was a (classical) Pentecostal pastor who spent most of his adult life serving his flock as to the Lord. In this day and age when it seems many religious leaders are found to be involved in one scandal or another, it's easy to forget that there are many like my father-in-law, ones you may otherwise never hear of, who really do live out what they profess.

He didn't get rich off his pulpit, he didn't demand that his flock serve him as if he Jesus by proxy, and until the last months of his life when he was physically unable to, would drive the hour or more to local hospitals in East Tennessee on pretty much a daily basis to visit sick members of his congregation or even sick family members who had never set foot in his church or dropped an offering in the basket.

My father-in-law was pretty much the only person for a while who supported my decision to leave Morning Star International/Every Nation, and up until nearly the very end of his life kept reminding me of how proud he was that I took such a strong stand for the truth in Christ. I had confided in him soon after even my own husband started saying things like perhaps I was hearing from Satan, or that I was "driving" the decision to leave our church (comments that didn't initially come from him but from our church btw). He assured me that we were doing the right thing in leaving, and that he and my mother-in-law had been praying for months that we leave, which was a big surprise because I had initially been told (not by him) that he really liked our church. While I unequivocably knew that I was hearing from the Holy Spirit and certainly not Satan, my father-in-law's unwavering support and commitment to Scriptural truth helped keep me going in those very trying times as we were leaving MSI/EN.

The most amazing thing about my father-in-law and his faith was how it was tested in his illness, and how he continued to be such an example to those around him even when he was taking his last breaths. He continued to praise God to the very end, even when he was in such excruciating pain and discomfort.

Ten years ago, I lost my mother to cancer - this was before I became a Christian. My mother was also considered a pillar of her community; she had been active in 12 Step programs for nearly twenty years and was kind of considered an icon in local 12 Step circles. However, as she deteriorated, so did her faith - what 12 steppers used to call her "spirituality." One of my last coherent conversations with my mother centered on how angry she was at my biological father and pretty much everyone else who had wronged her in her life. What a contrast to my father-in-law. While I don't want to pass judgment on the state of anyone's soul, I can say that I don't have the same assurance that I will meet my mother again in heaven as I do my father-in-law.

Four weeks ago, my husband, my father-in-law's associate pastor, and I were with him in Houston, where the cancer experts at MD Anderson (a world-class cancer center) gave him 3-6 months to live and basically said there was nothing else they could do for them. Day and night he praised God anyway. He continued to have faith that God would and could heal him; his faith was in Him, not the doctors. I started having misgivings, hoping that any Word-Faith stuff that might have crept into their church wouldn't derail anyone's faith in a sovereign Lord. I wisely said nothing when I saw a Charles Capps book among the associate pastor's things. I didn't say this to anyone except to my husband, afraid it would be interpreted as lack of faith on my part, but in my heart I knew that God wouldn't heal my father-in-law this time.

He's been miraculously healed before. When he was eight years old, he had a fever/virus that attacked his optic nerve and he lost his sight. His doctor said it was permanent. His Baptist grandfather showed up at his house one day and told his mother that he had come to pray that his sight be restored, and would not leave until it happened; seven days later his sight came back as my father-in-law was groping around the house toward the bathroom. When they took him back to the doctor, the doctor broke down in tears saying that it had to have been a miracle of God because there was medically no other explanation. A few years ago, my father-in-law had a heart attack that caused some heart muscle damage, but several weeks later follow up tests confirmed there was no discernible damage to his heart (and pre-op exams in Houston a few months ago confirmed again that his heart was healthy).

But I knew in my spirit that there would be no miraculous physical healing this time, other than the ultimate healing that awaits believers in the Lord Jesus. I continued to pray for that if it were God's will, but I also prayed that God give us all the strength and faith to accept whatever His sovereign will was in the situation.

Last week, when his assistant pastor spoke at what we called a celebration of his homegoing, he commented on how my father-in-law continued to praise God and call out to Him no matter what; "He taught us how to live... and then he taught us how to die."

The lesson that God made clear through him is that yes, He is a God who heals, but He is also a God who has sovereign plans for us, for those who fight the good fight and run the race of faith to the end. The Kingdom of God is so much bigger and greater and better than anything we can fully conceive in our earthly existence... we can see Him through a glass darkly, but then we will see Him face to face. That was my father-in-law's blessed hope, one that was realized at 12:30 AM, February 24, 2006 when he went home to be with the Lord.

The Test II

2006-03-04T12:32:00.000-08:00

I found this linked from the Supernatural Kingdom blog, and just had to take it for myself.

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant

100%

Nestorianism

67%

Apollanarian

33%

Pelagianism

33%

Monophysitism

33%

Arianism

Monarchianism

Adoptionist

Docetism

Donatism

Albigensianism

Modalism

Gnosticism

Socinianism

Are you a heretic?
created with QuizFarm.com

Hooray, I'm not a heretic!!! And I promise I didn't cheat by looking at "Speakword's" answers first.

Actually, I had a much easier time answering these questions than the ones on another related test, "What's your theological worldview?"

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

71%

Reformed Evangelical

64%

Neo orthodox

61%

Fundamentalist

61%

Emergent/Postmodern

46%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

25%

Classical Liberal

18%

Roman Catholic

14%

Modern Liberal

14%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Hmm, hmm, hmm... well, I guess that settles it, I'm not really Pentecostal/charismatic. Theologically confused is probably more like it. I was surprised I scored as high on the postmodern/emergent scale as well, given how I have some serious problems with postmodernism. But I guess I can live with being predominantly Wesleyan. At least I'm sure about Christian essentials, including the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity being eternally one God in three Persons, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, etc. But I often feel like the apostle Paul seeing through a glass darkly. Outside of the essentials, I try not to be overly pedantic. However, when it comes to the essentials I am admittedly dogmatic.

Also, I got a 93 on my first "Cults" exam, which was the highest score in the class. Average score was in the 60s. Scarrry...

The Test

2006-02-12T06:53:00.000-08:00

Well, my first exam in my Cults class is this week... it's hard to believe that the semester is going by so fast. I am enjoying it immensely, although I am finding that since this is a 200-level class, and I've done a fair amount of reading and research on this topic already, that I'm already familiar with how most of the various cults we've discussed so far have emerged through history. And there were a few times when I've had to bite my tongue - one notable example was when the instructor lectured that the Rosicrucians were founded by Christian Rosencreuz, who changed his name to Rosy Cross. No, no, no, NO!!! While this accurately portrays Rosicrucian legend, in reality Christian Rosencreuz was most likely the mythical literary invention of Johann Valentin Andreae, who is generally credited with writing the Fama Fraternitatis and the Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosencreuz. One cannot really claim that Andreae single-handedly "founded" Rosicrucianism either, since it was more accurately a movement among a like-minded circle of European intellectuals of that period, including himself, Comenius and several others, which was soon driven underground after the Battle of White Mountain sparking the Thirty Years War. However, since I had already promised that I wouldn't attempt to come off as any kind of cult expert in class just because I happen to be a former cult member, I'll see if there is an appropriate way and time to recommend that the instructor get a copy of Frances Yates' The Rosicrucian Enlightenment.

Anyway, despite a few glitches here and there, the class is basically confirming what I had already hypothesized... that modern-day Bible based cults didn't just arise out of a theological (or theosophical?) vacuum, and that their belief systems usually can be traced to their source, which typically are not limited to the cult leaders' private revelations, whether or not they are characterized that way to their followers.

I did ask the instructor after class on Friday what he thought of extremist movements in the present-day church that sought to put together opposing theological or eschatological systems into one neat little package (like, hmm, I saw in Morning Star International/Every Nation). He's at least 25-30 years older than me, which means that neither of us are postmoderns, which also means that neither of us believe it's possible to really pull this off. However, he thought it crazy that anyone would even attempt it, while I think, crazy or not, it hasn't stopped people from trying. Well, what about the resurgent Latter Rain, Manifest Sons of God, and other forms of dominion theology, which are postmillennial to the extreme in that they tend to presume to act for God, arising within and taking root in what is in the US a predominantly premillennial Pentecostal, evangelical and charismatic church? He shook his head and said, "It won't work."

Well, yeah, I totally agree. But the big difference in the picture between 1949 when the Latter Rain movement was discredited by the Assemblies of God, and today, is postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy, and specifically deconstruction, which can trace some of its key roots to alchemy, teaches that it is possible and indeed preferable to put opposing viewpoints together... though not to create a system but to demolish meaning, to get at the truth, which isn't really truth but an abyss of meaning devoid of human "constructs."

I can't tell you how many times I heard this F. Scott Fitzgerald quote while I was in grad school - it was almost a postmod mantra...

"The test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

Though one could say that Fitzgerald was not able to do this, nor anyone else for any length of time, without destroying himself. At the time he wrote this, he was in the process of drinking himself to death, and knew full well this was exactly what he was doing, too. He wasn't a first-rate mind according to his own definition and was acutely aware of it, and I argue that if this is what the world more and more agrees is a first-rate mind, we're in big trouble indeed.

But for the Lord. He alone is our hope.

Wikipedia

2006-02-05T06:14:00.000-08:00

A couple weeks ago, I searched "Maranatha Campus Ministries" in Wikipedia, just to see what would come up. Lo and behold, it was their Every Nation listing!!! And the timeline was referenced as a source!

I thought this was somewhat ironic given the amount of time and effort the Every Nation crew seem to have put into cleaning up its Maranatha past, if not outright evading it at times. Not to mention their recent rebranding as "Every Nation."

Now since Wikipedia is open source, meaning that anyone can go and edit listings, it could be claimed that I was responsible for this. Well, if it means by conducting the research into, writing, and eventually posting a historical timeline tracing Maranatha's history and how it morphed into what became Morning Star International and Every Nation Churches and Ministries, yes. But I didn't add, edit, or otherwise personally contribute any related content to Wikipedia, and I have absolutely no clue who did, either. Just for the record. :-)

Thought I'd add that in light of recent claims that congressional aides are revising their employers' Wikipedia entries...

History of Every Nation Churches

2006-02-04T14:52:00.000-08:00

In light of recent technical "issues" with the FACTNet discussion board, I thought it might be a good idea to publish my timeline tracing the history of Maranatha Campus Ministries, Morning Star International, and Every Nation Churches and Ministries to its own home page.

New Blog... "Voice of Reform"

2006-01-27T07:10:00.000-08:00

Voice of Reform includes a series of articles from a former leader in a prominent South African charismatic church fellowship crying out for reform in the church. These days we hear that we are on the cusp of a supposed "new reformation" or "new apostolic reformation" in the church. However, all is not as it seems behind the curtain, where the primary sin is considered disobedience if one does not silently and unquestioningly submit to leaders' supposed "apostolic authority." Reversing what Martin Luther started in 1517 with the nailing of his 95 Theses on the Wittenburg door is no reformation.

Note that the author of these articles has been personally threatened for some of his views. While I may not necessarily agree with everything posted here, it is unconscionable that he would be threatened merely for speaking out against corruption and sin in the church, particularly among church leadership, and I believe that his voice must be heard.

I apologize for the formatting… I will take time over the next several weeks to clean this up. However, I wanted to get the content on Voice of Reform posted as quickly as possible.

A Course in Cults

2006-01-18T10:29:00.000-08:00

I'm all excited because I just attended the first class meeting for the "Cults" course I'm taking this semester. It's a bonafide college level, for credit class. I won't try to come off as a cult "expert" when I'm done just because I've taken a silly class, but at least I'll be able to say I'm a little more formally educated in cult issues than someone who reads a bunch of stuff posted on the 'Net.

I was a little concerned when I got the book for the class, since it takes the viewpoint that many of what are commonly called "cults" are merely misunderstood "new religious movements." However, it seems the professor takes a harder line on some of these groups, acknowledging that they can be quite dangerous and harmful, and that we'll be using the book mostly as reference while the primary text will be his lecture notes. Also, while the class won't be exclusive to Christian/Bible-based cults, about 70% of the class will focus on those since those comprise the majority of what are commonly known as cults here in the US.

The professor was also a pastor for many years, and he briefly mentioned things like, "excesses in the church," the impact of televangelists, disillusioned Christians no longer going to church, so while one of the ground rules is no soapboxing for one's personal theological agenda (including his), I have a feeling I'm going to agree with him on a few more issues than I was concerned I might going in.

I'm easily 20 years older than anyone else in the class, except the professor of course who makes me feel pretty darned young. You know you're getting old when everyone else thinks, "Essays have to be THREE PAGES???" and I think, "ONLY three pages?" Oh, and there's the little issue about it being on the fifth floor of a building with an elevator restricted only to those who are truly disabled. Either I'm going to be in decent shape at the end of the semester, or I'll completely blow out my already semi-arthritic knees and become officially qualified to take the elevator.

One thing he said in passing that has me very intrigued... that there are three Bible-based cults that have recently established a presence in our area. Makes me wonder which three he's referring to. Or if my former group is on that short list. I suppose I'll find out soon enough.

Another "Kingdom Rebel"

2006-01-16T07:12:00.000-08:00

I invite you to check out this new blog, Next to the Cat [now Supernatural Kingdom - see below], which looks like will address many of the same issues I am here but from a different national and theological perspective. We're in 100% agreement when it comes to cats. :-) I don't have any virtual or real apostle cats like Apostle Muggins, but one of our five cats is named Lord Nelson because despite his small stature he is our proud alpha kitty, who happily thinks he is lord of everything and no amount of systematic theology will make him change his mind. Sound familiar?

Anyway, my cats follow me around like puppy dogs, and am very grateful that during my time in Morning Star/Every Nation I was never "delivered" of a supposed spirit of "inordinate affection to animals" by the former dean of the School of Campus Ministry (see - "soul ties"), who proudly told us during a visit to my former church about how he and his (Maranatha) pastor delivered his roommate of one of these because he was disturbed when Mr. Roommate displayed what sounded to me like typical affection for a loved pet. The dog licked Mr. Roommate's face! Mr. Roommate called his dog goofy names! Eww! Must be a demon! Demon was "cast out," and the face licking and goofy name calling ceased. It sounded more like coerced behavior modification to me but heck, my husband calls me Kitty Lady so what do I know?

Our cats don't lick my face, but Nelson bites my leg in the morning when I have the audacity to use the bathroom before they get fed. My affection for animals isn't so inordinate that I don't kick him away in response to his razor sharp teeth nipping at my calf. Being that he thinks he's in authority over me, and vice versa, we go through this biting and kicking routine pretty much daily.

Speakword, happy blogging, and to everyone else, happy reading!

blessings, ulyankee

1/19/06 note: Next to the Cat has been named Supernatural Kingdom, and I am happy to report that Apostle Muggins has humbly repented of her controlling ways in order to avoid being sent on sabbatical to a "backwater" for reeducation and counselling. Here in the States we don't consider Florida a backwater. Here we call it "vacation," or what others around the world call a "holiday." But whatever works for Apostle Muggins! In all seriousness, I invite you to check out this blog, because it makes it abundantly clear that human dominionism is NOT synonymous with postmillennial eschatology.

Eschatological Schizophrenia?

2006-01-14T05:36:00.000-08:00

For the last couple days I've been pondering how well-known neo-conservative evangelicals, like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson, et al, are able to reconcile their seemingly premillennial eschatology with that of Christian Reconstructionists and other Dominion Theology/Kingdom Now advocates with whom they often cooperate in the common goal of taking over the nation and world quite literally for Christ. I'm not so sure about where Robertson stands now, but as far as I know LaHaye and Falwell are still premillennial at least publicly, though one might say as Gary North does that they are "operational" postmillennialists. Well, leave it to the Chalcedon Foundation to have thought about this as well and provide their analysis of the situation:

Jerry [Falwell]'s Liberty University, and the Chalcedon Foundation, of which I am executive vice president, are on an eschatological collision course. Let me explain. We both agree that Christ will return one day visibly to earth ("The Second Coming"). We disagree radically on what will precede that great event. While Liberty and LaHaye are dispensational, we at Chalcedon are postmillennial. We believe that Christ is already reigning from the heavens (Acts 2:29-36). He extends His kingdom in the earth by His Spirit, using redeemed humans, Christians (Acts 2:14-21). The Bible teaches that Christ will return after all human enemies are placed under His feet (1 Cor. 15:24-27). Jesus indicates that it will be a good, long time between His First Coming and His Second Coming (Mk. 13:32-37; Lk. 12:37-48). Between these two Comings, the kingdom of God will grow slowly, almost imperceptibly (Mt. 13:31-33). But it will one day overwhelm the earth. Then will be fulfilled the great Old Testament prophecy that "[T]he earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab. 2:14). There will be a fully Christian culture on earth – not only after Christ's Second Coming, but also before.

I'm no big fan of Falwell and Lahaye, mainly because they are consistently in league with Christian Reconstructionists and other Dominionists to establish a theocracy... oops, theonomy... on Earth before Christ's return, but there are several problems with this paragraph.

First, those who are premillennial are not all "dispensationalists," and are not all "pessimists" as the Christian Reconstruction movement would have one believe. There is also something called historic premillennialism which some say is the oldest eschatological position in Christiandom. Also, ANY position that has Jesus Christ bodily returning to earth is not "pessimistic," which means ALL Christians who await His return, not just the Christian Reconstructionists, believe in an "eschatology of victory."

The next two points I agree with. However, one Scripture passage here is totally taken out of context and twisted oh-so-slightly to say something the Bible absolutely doesn't say...

Chalcedon version: The Bible teaches that Christ will return after all human enemies are placed under His feet (1 Cor. 15:24-27).

But, hmm, does it really?

The Bible says this, in context (1 Corinthians 15: 23-27 NIV; from Biblegateway):

But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet."

There are two very serious problems with Chalcedon's interpretation of this passage. While it doesn't exclude postmillennialism in general, it doesn't support this particular flavor of postmillennialism wishing to take literal dominion of the earth for Christ before his return, either. First, this passage does not at all refer to human enemies. The last I knew, death wasn't a human enemy, except maybe on Halloween. This doesn't refer to secular governmental authorities, or those pesky, sinful non-Christians. Whether one is pre-, post-, a-, or I-have-no-friggin'-clue-millennial, our enemies are not human. This is blatantly anti-Gospel since Jesus exhorts us time and again to love our brothers, neighbors, and yes, even (human) enemies. In contrast, Ephesians 6:12 reminds us that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." The real rulers and authorities we must resist are spiritual, not human.

Second, verse 23, which was conveniently omitted from Chalcedon's argument, makes it even more clear that Jesus Christ is the one who is going to hand the kingdom over to God the Father, "then when he comes," not us. And it doesn't state or even remotely imply that we will hand it over to Jesus first, either. Jesus is the one who is going to destroy all dominion, authority and power, and He's the one who will reign until He places all enemies under His feet; again, not us. This doesn't necessarily rule out postmillennialism (especially when viewed in light of Hebrews 10:13), but it DOES rule out human dominionism, which is really what Christian Reconstruction and Dominion Theology are about, in the guise of eschatology. Pretty scary when you think about it - because this passage states that ALL dominion will be destroyed. It doesn't say "except that dominion taken in His name" or anything like that. An awful lot of work buiding a theocracy just to have Jesus destroy it when you proudly hand it over, huh?

If there is to be a fully Christian culture on earth before the Second Coming as Chalcedon claims (and I believe there will be, just not the type that Dominionists do), then perhaps this is how we are to build it:

And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:24-25 NIV, from BibleGateway)

This is pretty radical. No guns, no stealth government coups, no trying to reimpose Mosaic law, no stonings... Let's meet and encourage one another, spurring each other on toward love and good deads, and all the more as the end approaches. Sounds so like Jesus to me. And not the General Jesus, card-carrying member of the GOP some would have us believe He is, but the Jesus Christ who commanded us to love one another and in a final act of ultimate love, laid down His life as sacrifice for our sins.

Take Dominion 2

2006-01-13T05:07:00.000-08:00

I thought I had read pretty much everything on the 'Net dealing with Christian Reconstruction and Dominion Theology, but here's another article I stumbled upon today. Here are some key quotes:

Rushdoony claimed to have 20 million followers -- but Reconstructionists say many of their followers don't know they've enlisted.

---------------------------

Reconstruction isn't shy about its motives and beliefs. But its tactics for growth are stealthy -- aligning with and then recruiting people and groups who share concerns over, say, abortion or evolution.

(Both Katherine Yurica and Frederick Clarkson say essentially the same thing, arguing that this is intentional. Reconstructionist Gary North expreses admiration for stealth tactics here, as does former MCMer and Forerunner editor Jay Rogers.)

---------------------------

Recruits to Reconstruction's adopted causes soon find the movement has a blunt distaste for pluralism and democracy. North wrote in 1982 -- in an effort to reach Baptists -- "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty ... until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

---------------------------

The University of Georgia's Larson says it has gone unnoticed by many, perhaps the majority, of Americans for a simple reason. "A hundred years ago," he says, "newspapers published the sermons preachers preached on Sunday. Everyone knew what the Baptists believed, or the Lutherans or the Presbyterians. That's no longer the case. And it has worked to the benefit of [Christian Reconstructionists] as they doggedly pursued their goal."

Kingdom Lost

2006-01-08T06:53:00.000-08:00

For Christmas, a friend of mine graciously sent me a copy of Kingdom Lost, a new novel by Cultwatch's Mark Vrankovich. (Thanks again!!!) Cultwatch is a New Zealand counter-cult apologetics ministry providing information on a wide variety of cults, including Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc., which also has done quite a bit of investigation into the New Apostolic Reformation movement. Some might say the NAR is not technically a "cult" because its churches and leaders by and large publicly affirm essential Christian beliefs (barely - see my last post), but as Cultwatch and others have observed, tends to use coersion tactics more commonly used by full-blown cults, as I witnessed first hand in my former church.

Kingdom Lost is, in literary terms, a "dystopian" novel in the same vein as George Orwell's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Or, one might argue, like the first gazillion volumes of the Left Behind series, though millennialism of any sort is markedly absent from Vrankovich's version of the future. While Kingdom Lost won't join the ranks of great literature like 1984 or Brave New World (in a purely literary sense-I don't totally agree with either Orwell's or Huxley's base philosophies) and I would argue is not meant to, Vrankovich does an excellent job using fiction to teach about the dangers of the NAR in an entertaining, compelling fashion.

The novel is mostly written from the perspective of Max Churchill, a "level four" CitInt (intelligence) agent for GKing, who at the beginning of the story we find leading one of the most successful cell groups in his church cluster in a race for KPoints, in order to gain a promotion to cluster leader and keep his nemesis, the universally hated, vengeful and controlling Viktor, from doing the same. Churchill seems destined to become an "hundred folder," someone who lives in relative luxury rather than in the communal dorm-style "palaces," and eats real food every day (instead of synthetic meat); already, at 24, he has a restored Jaguar, has just been allowed to date one of the most eligible single women in his cluster (who happens to be an elders' daughter) and is well on his way toward fulfilling his "destiny" of "blessing," prestige and power in God's Kingdom. However, with the accidental discovery of an illegal artifact - a "Lie Card" - one of the forbidden electronic apologetics tracts dropped on GKing by a former "apostle" revealing the "why and how" of GKing, Max's life is turned upside down. Driven first by mere curiosity, then by the growing realization that the Lie Card may actually be telling the truth, Max reads it and slowly realizes that his race with Viktor is a distraction, he's not really in love with the desirable Candy but is instead falling in love with the "loser" Kimmy, GKing isn't God's Kingdom at all but rather a pyramid scheme, and most importantly, that he wasn't really a Christian as he had been led to believe his entire life. In at first reluctantly assisting the "rebellious" Kimmy to plan her escape, he concludes that he has no choice himself but to leave GKing, never knowing that time is running out for him to make this decision since he is already being secretly investigated by a bounty-hunting Level Six CitInt agent intent on getting him sent to the mysterious Building 65 merely for looking at Kimmy ten seconds too long at their first meeting on the palace lunch line.

Vrankovich wisely avoids the extreme pro- and con- positions regarding the NAR. The NAR believes itself to be the government underpinning the Second Apostolic Age that will usher in the greatest revival in history, completing the Apostolic Mandate and bringing Christ back. Many NAR opponents believe that the NAR may be the movement that will usher in the anti-Christ. Vrankovich steers a middle course... in his fictional world set in 2046, the NAR leadership once based in the US are ruling GKing as a small theocracy (really oligarchy) on the northern tip of New Zealand. Thanks to a Soviet-style state press, its inhabitants, the "Cits" innocently believe that the rest of the world is in ruins, but that they are blessed to be in God's Kingdom on this small beachhead as led by God's "set man," The Apostle. In reality, the rest of the world, including the US, have long ago discredited the NAR movement and life has gone on, much like today. In the larger world picture, GKing is presented as similar to countries like North Korea, Cuba, or Saddam Hussein's Iraq - vilified and isolated, under limited embargo, monitored by the UN but allowed to exist despite the fact that it is on invaded territory taken over from a still-sovereign New Zealand. GKing "cits" are regaled by thrilling news reports of the Second US Civil War pitting the "bad" Democrats against the "good" Republicans, but Churchill soon realizes that these news reports are being acted out by GKing actors and life in the US has continued, in relative prosperity under constitutional law and the same two-party structure as today. This smaller-scale dystopia set in an otherwise "normal" world - similar to The Truman Show - allows Vrankovich to paint a chilling picture of what might happen if the NAR continues its present course without inviting charges of (millennial) extremism. In short, Vrankovich sticks with Biblical essentials so there is much here that Christians of all theological backgrounds can agree with.

One of the most difficult literary tasks Vrankovich deals with here is incorporating the contents of the Lie Card's apologetics into the story. In many ways, this is similar to Ayn Rand's decision to lay out her philosophy through John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged (which itself is a similar communtarian dystopia, even though Rand's cultish objectivist medicine is philosophically as bad if not worse than the disease), though Vrankovich does a much better job incorporating the Lie Card's contents in small chunks throughout the story. We find first Max, and then Max and Kimmy, escaping to his workshop/garage to read the Lie Card over a several week period, helping to further incorporate the contents of the Lie Card into the plot which more and more centers on how it changes Max's perspective of his life in GKing. One can totally skip Galt's speech without losing track of Atlas Shrugged's plot, while it's less possible to do so in Kingdom Lost. However, Vrankovich also includes an index to the Lie Card's contents in the back of the book, for those readers who don't have the patience to read a few pages of apologetics at a time, or for those who later want to go back and use it as a reference.

Don't want to spend the money for a "thought reform specialist", but can't get your loved one to visit - much less believe - websites revealing the truth about their church? Send a copy of Kingdom Lost to your friends and family who you suspect may be caught in a controlling NAR church. Order an anonymous copy for your pastor, or even former pastor. It may well be the best $17 (US; $24.95 NZD) you've ever spent.

Changing Church & the "Religious Spirit"

2006-01-04T12:33:00.000-08:00

It was a banner day at the post office yesterday... received a couple of new books I've been eagerly waiting for, both by C. Peter Wagner.

I was going to write a full-on review, but this one on Changing Church (2005) is pretty decent and is probably a lot better than I'd be able to do myself. Much of what is in Changing Church can be found in Wagner's other books, including Churchquake! (2001) and Spheres of Authority (2002). However, compared to these earlier books, Changing Church further marginalizes anyone who disagrees with his position that apostles have been rightfully restored to the government of the global church as having a "religious spirit" keeping them from accepting anything other than the status quo. That's where his other recent book, Freedom from the Religious Spirit (2005) comes in. It's a primer on how to identify and cast out this religious spirit, which instead sounds an awful lot to me like just plain (and warranted!) resistance to takeover by the New Apostolic Reformation.

I was personally identified at one point as as having this "religious spirit," for daring to stand up for Christian essentials like the Trinity and the full humanity and full deity of Jesus Christ. I can't speak for others, but in my case I am 100% sure that it was the HOLY SPIRIT convicting me of the truth in Christ, not a "religious spirit" keeping me from accepting a new teaching as was implied.

So this is why this quote from Joseph L. Castleberry's Changing Church review really jumped out at me (emphasis mine)...

Wagner’s argument improves to some degree as he discusses a trend “from heavy doctrinal load to a lighter doctrinal load.” It is true that such a trend is evident in the church, and though his embrace of Open Theology and his suggestion that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an essential Christian belief will dismay some readers, Wagner makes an effective case for greater tolerance of ambiguity in terms of doctrine.

Wagner's hypothesis is that New Apostolic Reformation churches are less exclusive doctrinally than traditional denominations. I actually don't have a huge problem with this in theory AS LONG AS HISTORIC CHRISTIAN ESSENTIALS ARE ADHERED TO. However, Wagner has apparently determined that Open Theism - the belief that God is changeable and is not omniscient or omnipresent, but allows mankind to determine history - as well as modalism, are quite ok to include as acceptable Christian beliefs. First, he states that he agrees with prominent Open Theism apologist Greg Boyd that "God does change His mind" and then states that "most intercessors and prophets assume open theology" (Changing Church 154-55). Next, he argues that adhering to the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth by the 325 AD Nicene Council is too exclusive in that it bars Oneness believers from Christian inclusion, and that the Trinity instead "might not be regarded as an absolute on which we would gauge our ability to support each other and work together in advancing God's kingdom" (159).

What next? Fellowship with Mormonism? Jehovah's Witnesses? I mean, they say they're Christians, right? However, consider what John, a true and foundational Biblical apostle, had to say regarding perservering in the teaching of Christ:

Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. (2 John 1:9-11; NIV)

Wagner additionally posits that present-day apostles "have little or no desire to traverse many of the traditional pathways laid down by professional academic theologians. [. . .] I have never offered a course in systematic theology [in Wagner Leadership Institute] simply because there would be virtually no demand for it among our in-service, apostolically oriented student body" (145).

Quotes like these should be enough to put the book down and go home. Even though Wagner continues to insist that the New Apostolic Reformation entails a change in how we "do" church without affecting doctrine (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary), it is apparent that this so-called new apostolic government isn't really as concerned with upholding sound doctrine as was the apostle Paul, another true and foundational Biblical apostle, and certainly isn't being equipped by Wagner and Co. to not only hold to Christian essentials themselves, but to additionally bring the Body of Christ into the maturity of the faith. This makes me recall a related quote by a not so little known author Wagner mentored at Fuller, Rick Warren... "the last thing many believers need is to go to another Bible study." So, no Bible, misidentifying the Holy Spirit as a "religious spirit," deconstructing Christian essentials, it doesn't really matter as long as we're in unity to fulfill the Apostolic Mandate (deconstruct-ese for the Great Commission), right? While I'm not advocating that everyone be a professional theologian, basic knowledge of Christian beliefs and WHY they are Christian beliefs is essential, especially of someone claiming to be an "apostle," since one of the main roles, responsibilities and qualifications of a church leader is not just holding to any old doctrine, but holding fast to SOUND DOCTRINE:

Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:8-9; NIV)

If the New Apostolic Reformation follows the direction of its leader as put forth in Changing Church, it instead risks fulfilling Paul's words to Timothy:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4; NIV)

Wagner tells how he almost flunked his Fuller Theological Seminary tenure examination due to beliefs like these - in the second go-around, he didn't mention the Trinity, and passed (159-60). Someone into Open Theism could certainly argue that Fuller theologians changed history by letting him slide.

Spiritual Family, Dominion & Babel

2006-01-02T06:58:00.000-08:00

A former Maranatha member posting this morning on the FACTNet discussion threads I also participate in had this to say about the notion of "spiritual family" and its relationship to dominion theology:

If God takes dominion through the family and EN [Every Nation] is your spiritual family then the leaders must be your Father and Mother and like the good book says 5.) Honor your father and mother.

This was in response to these Every Nation Leadership Institute teaching notes:

5. Honor Your father and mother: The fifth commandment (w/7th/8th/10th) establishes the family as the fundamental authority in the earth. God's original commission to man was take dominion. (Gen. 1;26:28). This is to be primarily carried out through the family. The state has taken away much of the authority of the family today, including taking dominion or ruling over the earth.

This is classic Christian Reconstructionist, theonomic thought, which is based on Calvinistic "covenant theology." Basically, in this mindset there are three spheres of authority - family, church, civil.

Every Nation's Purple Book of Biblical Foundations (2004) has this to say about "spiritual family:"

Just as God sovereignly determines our parents and other family members, he also sovereignly chooses which spiritual family we are born into. The church is God's instrument for advancing his kingdom. He has no "plan B." The church is the only legitimate setting for walking out the Christian faith. No long-term "lone ranger" can be a true disciple of Christ. All who truly desire to follow Christ must find their place in a church family. (51)

From Maranatha's old magazine, the Forerunner:

The family is one of God's governmental units. Rebellion against the government is commensurate to treason. Today, we have no problem with seeing treason against the civil government as a capital crime. The problem is that we have a low view of the family today. The family is actually a higher form of government than the state and deserves greater protection. Rebellion against the family is an expression of rebellion against God's first established form of government and therefore against God himself.

Wow, so is rebellion against family a capital crime (otherwise known as something requiring the death penalty)? What about rebellion against "spiritual family?"

Rice Broocks expands on the notion of "spiritual family" in Every Nation in Our Generation: Recovering the Apostolic Mandate:

There are two primary ways God joins people to a spiritual family: He births you into one or He grafts you in or joins you after you’ve been saved. Obviously, we are “baptized into one Body” when we become Christians. So, we are a part of the universal family of God when we are born again. However, the concept of spiritual family is a matter of discerning what part of that body you are specifically joined to. It’s not enough to say, “I am a part of the universal Body of Christ” without a connection to a specific local church, which God has designed as a practical commitment for every member of the larger Body.

Many face the emotional challenge of having been separated from their natural family before they were old enough to remember anything about them. They may spend a good part of their lives searching, trying to find out where they belong and, in a sense, who they are. That is even more common among Christians who go from one church to another, searching for their spiritual family. [. . .]

There are many benefits we gain when we find our place in spiritual family. One is protection from spiritual enemies. Not only are the forces of darkness less likely to have an opportunity to attack when Christians are in real unity, but negative emotions like discouragement, loneliness and fear – among many others – are held back as well. Perhaps even more important than these defensive benefits, however, is the manner in which being joined together helps us to advance the Apostolic Mandate [note: this is Broocks' deconstructed/reconstructed term for the "Great Commission," but with additional meanings since it is "Apostolic"]. [. . .]

Secular management books use the term “synergy” to describe what happens when every part and every joint supplies according to it proper function. Synergy suggests that the effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The Apostolic Mandate is never going to be accomplished by a church or group of churches unless there is a synergistic coordination of the gifts and talents that the Holy Spirit has placed in the Body of Christ. Without this unity and proper placement, your gifts will never function according to their proper working order. In that case, everyone loses: the Kingdom of God, the world and you.

So, does this mean that if I don't submit to a "spiritual family," I will hold back the "Apostolic Mandate?" God depends on me rather than the other way around? I will lose out on my destiny? I won't be protected by God (see my entries on the covering doctrine)? Even though the Body of Christ is in unity through the Holy Spirit, we're not REALLY in unity unless we enter into some kind of synergistic relationship in a "spiritual family" and get imparted with its "spiritual DNA?"

Later in the chapter, Broocks identifies a weakness with this position, comparing it to Babel... however, he doesn't seem to see how it might apply to his own church:

The greater the mandate a spiritual family attempts, the greater the unity that is required. That was true in the ancient city of Babel. Their vision was to make a name for themselves and to keep their people from being scattered across the earth. God commented on them and their purpose: “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”

Two things are evident from this story. First, just because you’re really committed to something doesn’t mean you’re doing the right thing. These “Babelites” had a purpose and a plan: to build a tower and keep their people unified. The problem was that they were seeking their own glory and not God’s.

There are all kinds of organizations, including some churches, which require a high level of commitment. It’s not right to demand commitment only for the sake of maintaining your own organization – i.e., to keep people from scattering. If self-perpetuation turns out to be the primary goal, the leaders need to rethink what they’re doing and measure it against the purposes of God. Whenever we talk about commitment to a local church and the vision of Every Nation, it is always in the context of fulfilling God’s purposes. For us, that means fulfilling the Apostolic Mandate by planting churches and making disciples of nations.

The second thing that is evident from the Tower of Babel story is that great things can be accomplished if people are united and committed to a common purpose. A house divided cannot stand, but when a people are united “nothing will be impossible for them.”

Hmm, if in this mindset the fulfillment of the "Apostolic Mandate" is dependent upon me and my submission and commitment to spiritual family, rather than upon God, yet God is sovereign, then isn't this type of unity - one dependent upon man rather than upon God - like rebuilding Babel? God confused the common language of Babel so they could not communicate and scattered its people so that they would stop building the city (Genesis 11:1-9). He had nothing good to say about Babel. I would be very cautious about using Babel as an exemplar of true Christian unity poised to take dominion.

Interestingly, a Google search for "spiritual family" comes up with some startling New Age parallels. "Synergy" is a term used by Dutch Sheets which apparently includes agreeing in prayer with and "redigging the wells" of the dead, otherwise known as NECROMANCY:

God said to me, ‘I need you to agree in prayer with Gordon Lindsay.’ I knew we weren’t supposed to communicate with the dead, and he’s been dead for 30 years. He said, ‘He’s dead, but his prayers are not. I can’t do what he asked me to do until this generation comes into agreement with him. I need the synergy of the ages.’ When I re-dug that well at the Wesleys’ I laid hold of something. I said, Where is the Lord God of John and Charles Wesley? I stretched out on the grave of David Brainerd, and I said, where is the Lord God of David Brainerd? If the dead bones of Elisha could raise the dead, there’s still anointing in those wells of the past. (from http://www.despn.org/chuckpierce.pdf)

What some spirit is apparently telling both Rice Broocks and Dutch Sheets is that God is blocked from doing something unless they/we do something to make it happen. And in both cases, this "something" they are to do is that which God has condemned elsewhere in Scripture, whether it's rebuilding Babel under the premise of "spiritual family" or engaging in necromancy. This does not sound like the Holy Spirit to me but another spirit entirely, since God is not limited by what we do or do not do. However, as the Apostle Paul warned, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons" (1 Timothy 4:1, NIV).

Take Dominion!

2005-12-26T06:11:00.000-08:00

Those familiar with the old Maranatha Campus Ministries may recognize the title as that of Bob Weiner's biography cum sales pitch for the movement and its modus operandi... spread the gospel by literally taking dominion of the earth. MCM called itself God's Green Berets; academic observers like Sara Diamond called them "Shock Troops for the Christian Right." While I don't wish to demonize anyone on the right side of the political spectrum, the type of rhetoric that was considered fringe during MCM's heyday has become increasingly mainstream, both in the religious and political realms.

While some have identified two distinct theological streams in dominionist Christianity - Christian Reconstructionist (radical Puritan) and Latter Rain/Kingdom Now (radical Pietist/chiliastic), Sarah Leslie identifies three - the spiritual warfare movement (w/ties to the Latter Rain), the Mission as Transformation movement (evangelical) and Patriotic America movement (w/ties to Christian Reconstruction).

I contend that what is occurring is that fringe doctrines from the original Latter Rain and Christian Reconstruction movements - which are theologically opposed on many points, but share their drive for literal planetary dominion - have gradually seeped into the mainstream and threaten to erode historic Christianity into a syncretic religion.

This has happened before, during the Protestant Reformation. While most people believe that the Reformation was all about recovering true Christianity, thinking of people like Luther, Knox, Wesley and Whitefield, several people and movements which had significant impact and in some cases were mainstream at the time were far outside what would be considered "mere Christianity" - what Winkie Pratney glowingly calls the "red-headed stepchildren of the Reformation."

Postmodernism seeks to recover lost knowledge... which includes alchemy, kabbalah, and other false doctrines and practices... believing that nothing is really false but instead truth can be found in a plurality of voices. So God's voice is just one voice among the din.

More later...

Characteristics of Cults

2005-12-24T07:33:00.000-08:00

This morning I found a couple of good lists of cult characteristics.

From Let Us Reason Ministries:

For abusive cults, the key word is CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL by Submitting to the Leadership - leaders tend to be the absolute end, looked to as prophets of God, as specially anointed apostles. [. . .]

It can take time for them to gain power over the new convert, but it will eventually be there. [. . .]

The methods of control which are used is usually FEAR of displeasing God the leader or both. Fear of rejection, punishment, losing ones salvation, missing the rapture, going to hell. Guilt, Fear, intimidation are Weapons used to maintain their loyalty and devotion to the group. [. . .]

And the characteristics are...

COMMAND OVER THE GROUP IN INTIMATE MATTERS
GROUP TRUST
A DOUBLE STANDARD
TAKES LICENSE WITH GOD'S WORD
MISPLACED LOYALTY
ISOLATION
AN "US AGAINST THEM" ATTITUDE AND PHILOSOPHY
FOCUS ON AN IMAGINED ENEMY
END-TIME REVELATION
MOTIVATIONAL TEACHING
RULES OF SILENCE
CONVERSION TECHNIQUES
REVELATION KNOWLEDGE
MYSTICAL ALTERED STATES
LEADERS HAVE A PRIDEFUL UNTEACHABLE SPIRIT
PRIDE OF THE GROUP
BRAINWASHING
DEVOTION TO CONVERT OTHERS TO THEIR GROUP AND ITS BELIEF SYSTEM
DISTORTED TITHING OR EXCESSIVE GIVING
ATTEMPTING TO BRING IN THE KINGDOM NOW
TOTAL COMMITMENT
INDIVIDUALITY IS SACRIFICED FOR THE GROUP
INCONSISTENT DISCIPLINED LIFE
MARTYRDOM COMPLEX
CURSES and THREATS

And from CultWatch.com, better known for its SuperApostle Detector, are a list of mind control tactics used by cults:

Deception
Exclusivism
Fear & Intimidation
Love Bombing & Relationship Control
Information Control
Reporting Structure
Time Control
Pressure Selling
Cult Recruitment Techniques

Wow, these all sound very familiar. And they said it wasn't a cult. Maybe it was a duck instead. :-)

Merry Christmas, everyone!

blessings, ulyankee

Thoughts on The Discipling Dilemma

2005-12-23T06:07:00.000-08:00

I saw this quote from The Discipling Dilemma posted on another discussion board and thought it pertinent to quote here:

The word "discipling" is used in this movement to mean much more than making converts. It is used primarily to describe a system of intense training and close personal supervision of the Christians being discipled. Disciples are regarded as being superior to mere Christians. Disciples are said to be Christians who have received special training. This training includes much more than mere teaching. There is an intense one-on-one relationship between the discipler and the Christian being discipled. The discipler gives detailed personal guidance to the Christian being discipled. This guidance may include instructions concerning many personal matters of a totally secular nature. The person being discipled is taught to submit to the discipler. Furthermore, the person being discipled is taught to imitate the discipler. Christians being discipled are required to confess their sins to their discipler. Such confession is followed by rebuke, correction, admonition, and prayer. If the person being discipled seems reluctant to confess sins, the discipler asks probing personal questions to elicit the confession.

Discipling is hierarchical. There is a clear distinction between the discipler and the person being discipled. A Christian might have many peer relationships, but only one person is that Christian's discipler. That discipler is the person who must be imitated and obeyed. After a Christian has been discipled for a while, that Christian is expected to start discipling others. The result is a pyramid of relationships that resembles a multi-level marketing system. In various denominations where the discipling movement has appeared, the typical pattern has been for the founding pastor of a church to be at the top of the pyramid. That founding pastor disciples a small group of other pastors. Each of them, in turn, disciples a small group of lay leaders. The lay leaders then disciple members one step lower in the pyramid. That hierarchical system continues through as many steps as may be needed as the discipling movement spreads. The growth of the discipling network typically goes beyond one local congregation to include many other congregations established by the parent group. (The Discipling Dilemma Ch. 1)

Even though The Discipling Dilemma is primarily about the International Church of Christ, a non-charismatic shepherding group that split off from the mainline Church of Christ and is commonly viewed today as a "cult," this sounded as eerily familiar to me, a former member of Morning Star International/Every Nation, as it did to the person who posted it on a UBF discussion board. Shepherding groups come in a variety of theological flavors, but have in common a pyramidical hierarchy that presumes to act with God's authority over the whole group through replacing the counsel of the Holy Spirit and of Scripture in context with that of the group and its leaders, often through intense one-on-one discipling and "accountability."

The group I was a part of has charismatic roots; there are others which are fundamentalist (ICoC), Pentecostal (Master's Commission), evangelical (Navigators), para-denominational (YWAM), ecumenical (Promise Keepers), etc. Some, like the Navigators, have attempted to move away from their Shepherding roots (which went back to the early 60s, predating the "Fab Five"), others have not, at least not in practice. And even though the original Shepherding movement was discredited a number of times... in the 70s with the original Fort Lauderdale Five controversy, in the mid-80s when the Fort Lauderdale elders disbanded, in the late 80s-early 90s with the break-up of Maranatha Campus Ministries... it didn't go away but instead has spread and mutated to where even some ordinary, mainline churches today practice Shepherding in some form or fashion, even if they don't even know what it is, where it came from, and what its long-term effects and implications have been in other high-impact groups and settings.

In my personal experience as a member of Morning Star International/Every Nation, I witnessed all the characteristics Yeakley notes above, including:

Emphasis on special training. We were taught that in order to be equipped to win disciples, we had to go through our movement's training school, which was originally only available in certain churches but was implemented in all churches on a local level a number of months before we left. There was a plug for this training school in every sermon; we were told that one way of demonstrating our obedience to our spiritual leaders was by enrolling. My husband noted that this might cause division - an "us" vs. "them" attitude between those who were "trained" and those who weren't. It is in this training that one learns how "important" submission to spiritual authority is, and how to make disciples under the "covering" of this spiritual authority.
One-on-one discipleship/"accountability." We were taught that submitting to a personal "accountability partner," whether that was a cell group leader, a personal mentor, etc. would plug us in to spiritual family, impart us with our movement's "spiritual DNA," mature us as Christians, and demonstrate our obedience to spiritual authority. In addition, all Christians needed to have a Paul (someone "speaking life into" us) and a Timothy (someone we discipled and "spoke life into"). The authority flowed one way - down - from the pastors and leaders. This was conceivably how we were "covered" by Christ. One of our local pastors - someone who is now a vice president of one of the other groups listed above - even taught that regularly confessing sins to an accountability partner was required to get and stay saved - not just faith in Christ. Ding ding ding!!!! Warning! Warning!
Emphasis on getting people in the church and "making disciples." We were encouraged to recruit members from among our families, co-workers, friends, etc. and there were several programs designed to "plug" people in to the church once they started to attend. A certain amount of this is just ordinary evangelism... but when it got to the point where the entire congregation was involuntarily divided into outreach groups in order to get as close to 100% involved in service to the church (it was "only" 50%!) and to recruit new converts, it got a little scary.
Pyramidical authority structure. I could trace my personal chain of command as: me->cell group leader->associate pastor's wife->associate pastor->senior pastor->Jim Laffoon (our movement's prophet)->Rice Broocks (our movement's top apostle/CEO). We were told that these leaders had "delegated authority" over us and as such, spoke with the same authority as God over our lives. The fear of leaders was the same as fear of God.
Enforced confessions. We had lists of "accountability questions" that we answered in cell group meetings; we were also told not to be surprised if a pastor approached us with something we said in group. At least this certain cell group leader was honest - I know there were others who never told their groups that what was said in group was reported to pastors. Before we left, our "records" were checked, including whether we tithed, participated in church-mandated training, faithfully served the church, had any sins or issues reported to pastors, etc. Yes, yes, yes, no... This had them scratching their heads because we were model congregants for the most part. The only thing that was brought up was that I had missed some cell group meetings and so was less than faithful to my cell group. I also was too "isolated" because I did not have enough close relationships (in other words, didn't reveal enough personal issues) within the church. My local church, as well as the movement to which we belonged, also practiced something called "inner healing and deliverance"of curses and spirits including the Jezebel spirit, the religious spirit, spirit of rebellion, etc. Aside from the fact that this belittles the cleansing power of Christ's finished work on the Cross to heal us of sin and iniquity, this leads to mind and behavior control, not freedom from spiritual bondage.

The result? A congregation that is brought in line by fear, guilt and shame. MIND CONTROL.

About a year or so ago I wrote Dr. Yeakley about some of his research findings, since he had included Maranatha in a comparative study of "manipulative sects;" as I've said before, Maranatha is the group from which my former group was descended both legally and spiritually. His research revealed that these groups actually changed the personalities of their adherents away from what they were before toward the group norm; this was not observed in mainline groups. His hypothesis is that the more a person's personality type differed from the group norm, the more psychological damage that could be potentially done to that person:

Those who are already ESFJs when they come to the Boston Church of Christ are likely to fit in quite well and not feel much of the pressure toward conformity that others feel. The greater the difference between a person's true type and the ESFJ model, the more likely that person is to feel the pressure toward conformity. Those who come to the Boston church as INTPs are in the greatest danger. (Appendix; emphasis mine)

He told me in an email that the Maranatha findings, including the group norm, were the same as that of the Boston Church of Christ/ICoC. In 1998, after I became a Christian but before my association with this group, I tested as a very polar INTP. Ewwww...

Lee Grady vs. Universalism

2005-12-22T07:06:00.000-08:00

Charisma editor Lee Grady has written a series of columns critical of the Charismatic movement lately, which on the one hand I think is very courageous on his part, but on the other I find somewhat puzzling given other affiliations he has in the movement. For example, in the December 2005 issue he writes:

It troubles me that many charismatic and Pentecostal church leaders today are not displaying the necessary backbond to label a heretic a heretic. We have become masters at soft-pedaling and inaction when the Lord requires us to confront. (6)

He then gives the example of (Bishop) Carlton Pearson, who is apparently teaching universalism, and who has been on the pulpits of several churches, including that of Earl Paulk, who is perhaps best known in discernment circles as one of the leading proponents of Kingdom Now and Manifest Sons of God theology, which teaches among other things that Christ can't or won't come back until the church wakes up and takes literal dominion over the earth for Him first. I'm actually not at all surprised that Pearson has gotten into universalism, since one of the main theosophical sources for both the Latter Rain movement and Universalism/Unitarianism is none other than Jane Leade, a 17th century English mystic who had visions right out of the Cabala/Kabbalah, in which the entire earth would be brought into unity through the rebirthed corporate Manchild and all would be redeemed as a result, including Jesus' "brother" Lucifer.

(See why bringing the church into unity is so important to these guys?)

Anyway, I applaud Grady's courage to call a spade, a spade, while naming names rather than hiding behind Matthew 18 as so many other Charismatic leaders do. Hoo-ray! However, in the same issue, another article states:

About 1,000 people took part in a special gathering held at the huge Circus Maximus in Rome. "Contrary to what most people think, more martyrs gave their lives in the Circus Maximus than in the famous Coliseum," [C. Peter] Wagner explained. "We felt we had to do some prophetic acts to call forth the power of God through the blood that was shed [my note: by the martyrs, not Jesus] and to open up the 40/70 Window for the gospel.

The participants worshiped, prayed, prophesied and formed small groups of about 10 people. Each group took communion and, in a symbolic act, spilled the leftover communion wine on the ground where the blood of the martyrs was shed hundreds of years ago.

"We felt that we were cleansing the ground with the blood of Jesus represented by the wine," Wagner said. "The blood now is redeemed and freed to open the pathway for the power of the Holy Spirit." ("Prayer Campaign for '40/70' Window Ends in Italy" 31; emphases mine)

Ewww... isn't this dangerously close to the same thing? That by pouring communion wine that comes really close to having the same power as the blood of Christ (so almost Catholic?), the ground is cleansed and the blood of the martyrs is redeemed, allowing the Holy Spirit to move through not Jesus' blood, but that of the martyrs? Who repented and came to Christ? Is this redemption without repentance, based on a twisted interpretation of Colossians 1:19-20, which is yet another tenet of universalism?

Mr. Grady, I totally appreciate your position as an insider within this movement, as editor of one of the main published voices of this movement, in how you are using it as a "bully pulpit" for the truth of the Gospel. However, I would hope and pray that you, as a member of the International Coalition of Apostles headed by C. Peter Wagner, would also confront Dr. Wagner about the same kinds of teachings and practices you called Carlton Pearson on, consider resigning your post from this group if this is unsuccessful, and also refuse to publish articles in Charisma that support positions like these. That would be truly courageous, and would send a very clear message across the bow to those who are distorting the Gospel of salvation through Christ's finished work on the Cross alone.

blessings, ulyankee

Unity in Spirit or Unity in THE Spirit?

2005-12-20T08:35:00.000-08:00

A few months back, Charisma magazine devoted an entire issue to recently deceased Pope John Paul II, anointing him Vicar of the Spirit. Not surprisingly, a number of Charisma readers were shocked.

Has Charisma gone Catholic? Just about everything in the June issue was about Catholics. I thought you were Pentecostals. The Catholic Church is full of paganism and witchcraft, and the pope is worshiped to some extent. You should get away from all that mess.

However, it really shouldn't be shocking. Charisma isn't Pentecostal; it is instead a voice for the Charismatic movement. Which includes... both Protestants and Catholics.

If this had happened two years ago, I would have been shocked myself. However, my research into the Shepherding/Discipleship movement, and how it rose in response to the Charismatic movement of the '60s, revealed two rationales for Shepherding/Discipleship, according to its top leaders:

Shepherding/Discipleship was necessary to curb doctrinal and spiritual "excesses" seen in the cross-denominational Charismatic movement during the '60s.
Covenants and agreements forged among the top "shepherds" or "apostles" of these movements would bring the various independent streams together first into two streams (Protestant and Catholic), and then into one stream. By virtue of these top level covenants, the entire Christian church would be brought into unity.

I would maintain that (2) was probably the more important rationale, because doctrinal unity is subservient to spiritual unity, and convincing people to covenant with and submit to the authority of "shepherds," "apostles," "spiritual leaders," "spiritual family," etc. in a systematic, pyramidical fashion is one very effective way of getting this done. Anyone who needs proof of this merely needs to read the minutes of the Shepherding/Discipleship General Council - unity was absolutely the driving motivation behind this movement, and it was driven from the top down, not from the bottom up, and I contend not by the Holy Spirit, either. And this unity was between leading charismatic leaders and The Holy See.

If one looks at the history of the Charismatic movement, which spread throughout Catholic and mainstream Protestant communities in the 60s, 70s and beyond, one can figure out pretty quickly that it is by definition ecumenical. And so is Charisma's readership, even if some of its Protestant readers may not be aware of this. The Shepherding/Discipleship movement was an attempt to get all these different "steams" together in total Christian unity, and one could argue that the "New Apostolic Reformation" of today is attempting to do the same thing, using many of the same methods and teachings.

So the question is... is this a good thing?

One thing I want to say, I am not anti-Catholic. I am anti-Roman Catholic church. There is a difference. I was brought up Roman Catholic and for most of my life, I really didn't have a clue what the Roman Catholic church really believed or stood for. I also didn't know much about the Bible, since the emphasis was placed instead on relying on the sacraments for one's salvation. I'm Catholic, therefore I'm a Christian and saved, end of story. A few cracks appeared in my self-assured logic and spread very quickly once I moved from my native Northeastern US to Nashville, TN, known to some as the "buckle of the Bible belt" since it is the home of several major evangelical Protestant church fellowships and denominations. On the one hand, as I stated in my last post, it was an eyeopener to me to try to pull myself off as a Christian in contrast with other, real, born-again Christians. On the other, I was very put off by several insensitive remarks about Catholics not being Christians, which at one point almost pushed me back into the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church and away from my eventual rebirth in Christ.

I was actually attending a Catholic church at the time I was saved (I was a quintessential NPC before I moved to Nashville), but then I started reading the Bible, and soon found that Roman Catholicism and true Christianity were diametrically opposed on several points. But there was a short period in which I was truly a born-again Christian, and I was still going to a Catholic church. I think under some circumstances it is possible to identify as a Catholic and be a true Christian, especially since it's possible to not have a clue what the Roman Catholic church truly teaches, but I also believe that a Christian (including a Catholic Christian) who, led by the Holy Spirit, takes a close look at what the Roman Catholic church teaches in comparison to what Scripture teaches would soon discover that it promotes a false gospel of works and sacramentalism rather than salvation through belief in the risen Jesus Christ alone, and misleads a flock consisting of a good percentage of the world's population into a false assurance of salvation. Someone who claims to be a Christian but who relies on the sacraments, on praying to dead saints, on their baptism into the Roman Catholic church, on Mary's intercession on their behalf, etc. rather than on Jesus Christ's atoning work alone has unfortunately been led into a false salvation. And but for the grace of God, I would have remained been one of them.

I've been back and forth as to whether I can continue to identify myself as charismatic or not. I think I've decided not. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the work and gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today, because I do. But the charismatic label, as connected with the Charismatic movement, also potentially identifies me as being in a movement which includes the Roman Catholic church, and all it teaches and represents. I've been there done that for the first 33 years of my life... and I'm not going back, not even for the sake of so-called "Christian unity," unless of course if by some miracle of God the Roman Catholic church fully repents of every single one of its false doctrines and comes to the true Gospel. But as of right now people like me are considered "separated brethren" or part of the "Church of Mary," just waiting to come back into joint celebration of the Eucharist, either directly or through covenants with top Protestant leaders. Thanks, but no thanks. Any unity that does not fully uphold the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, even with the best of intentions, is not the unity that Jesus prayed for in the Garden of Gethsemene, but is instead falling in line behind the false teachers and prophets He warned us against in Matthew 24. It becomes communion with darkness.

2 John 1:9-11 states,

Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

As a result, I cannot and will not re-covenant with the Roman Catholic church or with anyone else who does not continue in the teaching of Christ; whether it be directly or vicariously through those who do so.

PS. A tidbit for those who might be interested... best-selling author and prominent Every Nation member Stephen Mansfield wrote the cover article for the above-referenced Charisma issue. He's also since written a biography of current Pope Benedict XVI, which I've just purchased but have only skimmed through enough to notice he made mention of the Malachy Prophecy with regards the current pope.

Whose Disciples?

2005-12-18T07:50:00.000-08:00

I suppose if I'm going to write about shepherding-style discipleship, I should also probably give some examples of what I think Biblical discipleship is in contrast to "shepherding." This entry is going to be short today, but I'll give a few tidbits to get started.

Jesus in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) states:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So, a "disciple" is one who obeys everything that Jesus commanded, and "discipleship" is simply teaching disciples to obey everything He commanded His disciples to do. However, the last sentence is key to this. Jesus Christ is with us in the Counselor He sent, who would be with us until the end of the age... the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. So we are not merely making copies of copies of copies of disciples; by the power of the Holy Spirit disciples of Jesus Christ Himself are made. Jesus Himself is really our teacher, and will be until the very end of the age.

Shepherding-style discipleship gets the part about the need to make disciples right, but tends to forget that last sentence. Without the Holy Spirit, the only way to make a disciple of Christ is to make copies of copies of copies, and this is assuming that with time the copies wouldn't fade. So instead of making disciples of Christ, a disciple of a disciple of Christ is made. Multiply that by the number of generations since Christ's ascension and you get something akin to apostolic succession.

Here are some examples of shepherding-style discipleship (emphases mine):

God not only drew you to Himself through someone (the person who led you to Christ), but he gave you to others (to those you lead to Christ).
In discipleship, you reproduce in others only what you are yourself.
Your ability to give correction, instruction, reproof, and rebuke may well determine the quality of your disciples.
Our willingness to speak the truth in love proves your authority over and love for those you disciple.
Your ability to receive correction will determine the kind of disciples you will produce.

Note the emphases on "you" and "your." This is classic shepherding. However, in Biblical context, these aren't supposed to be "your" disciples, they are CHRIST'S disciples!

I also have a little issue with the first point, because of John 6:44-45, as well as my own personal experience. I was saved on the first Saturday of January, 1998, on my way home from the laundromat. I was alone, though not really alone. That is when I finally surrendered to Him after years of pretending to be a Christian, but knowing in my heart of hearts that my inner life was very different from the real born-again Christians I had met during my time in Nashville. They were alive and I was dead - that simple. And I wanted to live, and faced with the fact that the only door to eternal life was Jesus I knew that standing in front of the door while merely acknowledging that the door existed wasn't going to cut it. I had to surrender to Him and walk through. The Lord can draw us to the truth in Christ through other Christians, but also through the Word, directly, or even by a combination of these. The Holy Spirit is sovereign and has the ability to move outside of the disciple-to-disciple relationship.

I was going to post a really good counter-example of what I consider Biblical discipleship, but I went back to the church website where I originally found it, and now they have stuff about accountability, being disciplined by church leadership and submitting to Jesus's lordship by submitting to the "discipleship process." Boo-hoo.

Now, I don't at all discount the need to teach people all that He commanded. I didn't automatically know how to live as a Christian after I got home from the laundromat that day. But we must remember that those we teach are His disciples, not ours.

blessings, ulyankee

Derek Prince: A Biography

2005-12-17T07:46:00.000-08:00

Last night I finally bought Stephen Mansfield's Derek Prince: A Biography. I primarily got it for the same reason I get most books lately... research. For those who do not know, Derek Prince was one of the original "Fort Lauderdale Five" who started what became known as the Shepherding Movement. And Stephen Mansfield is now affiliated with the group I was once a part of, Every Nation Churches and Ministries, formerly Morning Star International, which is descended from one of the more well-known (and some might say notorious) groups that put the Fort Lauderdale Five's teachings into practice, Maranatha Campus Ministries. So it's probably obvious now why I say I "finally" got it even though the book has only been out a couple months.

I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised at the depth of the book. There's a lot here I have questions about, theologically and otherwise, but as someone who has read several of Mansfield's other books it's apparent to me that he put quite a bit of extra time and love into this one that is not nearly as evident in some of his others, including the one for which he is best known, The Faith of George W. Bush. I personally think that some of his other books tend to be on the shallow side, which is a danger of writing a lot of books in short succession, but not this one. Mansfield includes several long excerpts from his interviews with Prince which add significantly to the depth and humanity of his subject. I'm aware that it's very easy for me as a so-called "victim" of shepherding to paint the entire movement and those involved with it as completely evil (and for several reasons I agree with Prince's first wife that the "spirit attached to it" probably was), but the reality is that regardless of what kind of spirit was behind it, there were also real flesh-and-blood human beings there too who were just as prone to error and deception as anyone else. So even though I continue to be an unabashed critic of shepherding-style discipleship, I also have to remember that Jesus' warning, "Because of the increase of evil in the world, the hearts of many will grow cold," especially applies to me. Let not my heart grow cold, Lord Jesus, even when face-to-face with the false teachings you warned us about.

Now despite this, my humble opinion is that even to the end of Prince's life, at least according to the quotes and excerpts Mansfield provides, that he never fully saw the error in shepherding, even though he was the first of the original Fort Lauderdale elders to formally leave the movement in 1983. Even under Mansfield's questioning, he continued to assert that the idea of shepherding was of God and had merit, and was necessary in order to channel and contain excesses found in the early days of the Charismatic movement. The problems weren't because shepherding was wrong in the first place, but because it went too far, and in Prince's words, "carnality" and "personal ambition" crept into the movement, which caused all the damage.

This is similar to what some of the other Fort Lauderdale Five said when the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement very publicly trainwrecked in the '70s and '80s, as well as what was said about Maranatha Campus Ministries when it broke up in 1989-1990. That is one area though in which I completely disagree with even modified shepherding-discipleship proponents. I believe that the entire premise of shepherding is wrong at the very root, and that it will always go too far. Those who are familiar with the next generation of shepherding-discipleship movements, including the one I was involved with, may, even if they don't agree, at least understand how and why I believe this since the same excesses often crop up again and again and again even years later. I recently heard a second-generation leader in one of these movements say, "I thought we cut the head off this monster 15 years ago," but I contend that it's more like weed-whacking. If you cut the top off the weed, it will look ok for a while, but it will eventually grow back because it's still very much alive below the surface. Pull it up at the root though and it's gone for good. And in order to do this, one first has to acknowledge that the root is there in the first place and that it won't just magically grow into a cultivar next time instead of the same old ugly weed.

The book also adds to my hypothesis that women and men tend to see shepherding very differently, and how shepherding-discipleship movements often start out as men's movements (like Promise Keepers). Some of the most poignant sections of Prince's biography are where he reveals how he personally was hurt himself, through how it damaged his relationship with his first wife, Lydia, and after her death, how his covenant brothers then rejected his decision to remarry:

Later that evening, Derek explained that he now had to check his feelings for Ruth with his brothers in Ft. Lauderdale. "We've agreed not to make major personal decisions without consulting one another," he explained. "For that reason I'm not free to go any further with my commitment to you until I've spoken to my brothers. [. . .]"

It did not go well. When Derek explained to Basham, Simpson, Baxter, and Mumford what seemed so obviously God's will to him, they saw only problems. [. . .] The men would not approve the marriage.

[. . .] He thought seriously of casting aside the counsel of his fellow leaders and pressing ahead with what he believed was God's will. Yet to do so violated all that he had taught and all that their movement was built on. He relented. He called Ruth and told her what had happened. Later in Jerusalem again, he sat with her and explained all the objections the other men had. "I feel we need to break off all contact with one another," he explained, "except the contact we can have by prayer." Ruth agreed, and when Derek saw her drive off in a taxi, he felt a bit of winter return to his soul.

[. . .] Unable to let the matter rest, Derek continued to press the men to reconsider. Some of Derek's friends took this as a godly appeal. Others thought it was arm-twisting, an unrighteous attempt to wrest consent where it had not been given. (243-244)

People who were hurt by shepherding, particularly those who were required to submit marriage partners for prior approval or those who are in marriages initially arranged despite their wishes will certainly find this scenario painfully familiar. Yet, Prince concluded, "I must say that I believe that God ordained the Discipleship Movement, but that the response of some people to it was very carnal. It was right in its original motivation, though. Ultimately, selfish ambition destroyed it" (223).

In sharp contrast, Prince's first wife, Lydia, outright called it a "cult" among other things (223). Reflecting on when I left my former church, knowing that it was very possible my husband might be convinced to choose loyalty to our church's leaders over me and stay behind, Lydia's words struck my heart at the core...

"They've got my Derek" (223).

"They've got my Derek." That says it all.

RE-COVER-y and More Covering Doctrine

2005-12-16T07:06:00.000-08:00

I went back and reread the Chuck Pierce prophecy I referred to in yesterday's blog in more detail, and this jumped out at me (emphases mine):

There is a way to advance to the “fullness of the pool,” for this hour is uncovered. Keep moving until everything that needs to be recovered is recovered at this time. This is a time of reversal and recovery. Remember that Constantinople/Istanbul maintained the religious structure and a false unity that resulted in the power of the church being lost—it’s time for a reversal of that. [. . .] Raise up those leaders. [. . .] Raise up the healing movement. Raise up the apostolic movement. Raise up that which is necessary to overthrow the religious structure that is watered down and stopping the power of the church from being seen.

There is much talk in the modern-day apostolic/prophetic movement (what I prefer to call the "resurgent Latter Rain") about "recovery" and "restoration." The premise is that the church lost the foundational gifts of apostle and prophet, but now they are being restored to their rightful places as government of the church. However, what is also clear here is that all that are not under this so-called "apostolic authority" are not considered "covered." "Watered down religious structures" are to be overthrown and (re) covered with a new, non-watered down authority.

RE-COVER-y.

I'm not going to defend religious structures for the sake of religious structures. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, both targeted in this prophecy, also base their governmental structures upon the notion of "apostolic succession" in an unbroken line going back to the apostle Peter. I'm a former Catholic myself and could go on all day about my issues with the Roman Catholic church's governmental premises and theology. However, for all its supposed "newness" what is being proposed here is really replacing the old with more of the same, but since it won't be watered down anymore it will be a whole lot more of the same. It's a "new" covering authority that proposes to act in proxy for Christ just like the old one did, but back in its un-watered down days like, hmm, during the Middle Ages?

Whatsoever happened to, "So shall it not be among you" (Matthew 20:25-26, Mark 10:42-44, Luke 22:25-26)?

Rice Broocks, leader of Every Nation Churches and Ministries, identifies this as "recovering the apostolic mandate." What it turns out Every Nation in Our Generation: Recovering the Apostolic Mandate REALLY means, can be read here. Nothing less than literal world domination.

Perhaps the Spanish Inquisition will be RE-COVERed as well and "transformed" back into something more than a Monty Python skit.

My Thoughts on the "Covering" Doctrine

2005-12-15T08:56:00.000-08:00

Ok, so it's been many, many months since I started this blog... let's try again, shall we? :-)

The "Covering" Doctrine:

Integral to the authority and control Shepherding/Discipleship leaders have over their flocks is the notion of "covering" - that in order to receive the blessings and protection of God, believers need to be "plugged in" to a "spiritual family" and demonstrate their submissiveness to God's authority by submitting to their local church leaders, who are in turn "covered" on up the line to the top of the network, with the assumption that a person or persons at the top of the pyramid are themselves directly submitted to Jesus Christ, having been divinely chosen or "anointed" to apostolically "cover" those underneath them.

According to the church network with which I was once affiliated, this kind of submission to "covering" and concomitant accountability gives adherents "security in God's order" (Morning Star International Policies, Procedures and Guidelines for Convention Membership, 19). This is done through submitting to apostolic governmental oversight, since God is supposedly restoring the foundational "apostolic gift" to the church today (5).

Security, perhaps, but is this kind of security Biblical? Are we to be "covered" by church government? And what if we leave? Are we no longer under God's protection and blessing?

Cheryl McGrath does an excellent job of uncovering the covering doctrine, as she puts it, even though I would exercise discernment with some of her other writings regarding the apostolic/prophetic which tend to get into Latter Rain/Sonship doctrines. Frank Viola and Steve Coleman are very helpful on the "covering" issue as well, imho.

A while back I was reading 1 Corinthians 11: 3-10 and realized there might be yet another way of looking at the covering doctrine:

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

(Scripture quoted from www.biblegateway.com; emphases mine)

Now, most of the time this passage is referred to in order to reinforce women's (wives') submission to their husbands, particularly in authoritarian churches like the one I was once involved with, but what is this passage saying about men? I reflected upon my growing up in the Northeast US which has a significant Jewish population, and about the practice of men wearing yarmulkes (or kippah)... and wondered if there might be a connection.

Well, it turns out there probably is, as Jewish men both during the time of Acts and today wear head coverings to symbolize their being covered by God as well as by Jewish Law. It is required in Talmud, although there is debate over whether it is required Biblically (by Torah) or not.

In addition, in ancient Rome, servants were required to cover their heads while free men did not; thus, Jews covered their heads to show that they were servants of G-d (from http://kippahdesign.tripod.com/history.html).

Then there is also the talit, or prayer shawl, which is used to cover one's head during prayer (I have recently seen charismatic leaders promote and sell these on their TV shows and websites, btw. I was appalled to see last year that my brother-in-law even had one!).

But what is Paul telling the Corinthians? That a man who prays with his head covered dishonors his head/covering, which is CHRIST! In historic, cultural, and religious context, this is an extremely radical statement, much more than the statements about women which would have been more widely accepted at least by the Jews. Men are not covered by the Law, but are now covered by Jesus Christ, the Messiah, directly! A talit or kippah signifies to both the wearer and to others the wearer's submission to the Lord under the Law's "covering," but Jesus Christ has fulfilled the law, so now it is a disgrace for a man to adopt any other covering... for to do so implies that Christ's covering is insufficient. There is no longer a need for an intermediary covering between the believer and God, whether it be cloth, priest, or otherwise, for Jesus Christ alone is that intermediary for us, allowing us to have direct communion with the Lord.

Concurrently, if a believing man is convinced to adopt another covering that is not directly Christ, then he is leading his household under another "covering" which again, is not Christ! This was a conflict we had in our own home when I was "covered" by a female discipler, and my husband was "covered" by his discipler, and we were "covered" separately by church leadership even as I was additionally "covered" by my husband... of course, the rest of this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 was conveniently used to get women to "submit" to their husbands, but what was also happening was that their husbands were being covered not by Christ, but by men, which potentially leads the entire household out from Christ's direct covering and contradicts the entire spirit of that passage. And when women do wake up and realize what is going on, a commonly offered solution (as was presented to me) is to be quiet, get in line, and submit.

My heartwrenching decision to reject and leave this false covering, even though my husband was being convinced otherwise (see blog #1), WAS Biblical, because it was the only way I could come back under our REAL and ONLY covering as believers, which is Christ. I had no choice but to leave whether my husband decided to leave "covering" or not (he did, praise God!!!!).

"Covering" is just another word for LEGALISM, imho.

In light of this, note how many times the words "talith" or "mantle" are used to symbolize authority in this Chuck Pierce prophecy from earlier this year... it is a call for believers to come under (another) covering... in direct opposition to 1 Corinthians 11! Pierce states:

And as we release this I want you to decree that everything that is in your family that is not in line will begin to line up! Everything in your house that is not in line! Everything that is in your church that is not in line!

My question to Pierce is, "In line with WHAT?"

I am going to take this talith out, this new mantle, but I want some of you to hold it up [. . .]. Mantle means authority. You have the ultimate authority in this land.

So the answer is, get in line with a NEW COVERING, a NEW AUTHORITY, which is not directly Jesus Christ, but MEN who have the audacity to claim to act on His behalf! If putting on this "new mantle" doesn't dishonor the one, true Head of the Body of Christ, Jesus Christ Himself, I don't know what does!

If the head of the household comes under this "new mantle," then his house will follow. If a pastor comes under another covering, his church will follow. Everyone is to get in line... OR ELSE. This is typical of the rhetoric of the resurgent Latter Rain movement. That is why, in my opinion, men especially are so vulnerable - because they are being led away from Christ with these very attractive promises of power and authority over their homes, cities, and countries, sometimes never knowing that what is really happening is that they are being offered the same temptation Jesus withstood in the wilderness.

Do not be fooled, my friends in Christ. Do not let anyone convince you to trade your birthright in Christ for another covering... for Jesus Christ's covering, grace, blessing and protection are all-sufficient.

blessings, ulyankee

PS. You can read another similar perspective on this issue here - very long and indepth.

Introduction... 6/26/2005

2005-06-26T08:09:00.000-07:00

Colossians 2:19

and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

Ephesians 4:7-16

7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men." 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

(Scripture quotations taken from www.biblegateway.com)

I am a survivor of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement, which despite a flurry of recantations, renouncements, and legal dissolutions back in the 1980s, still very much exists today. I don’t technically come out of one of those older Shepherding churches but out from a movement which is legally and spiritually descended from one. Nobody really calls it “shepherding” – in fact, most of these churches never really did, even back during Shepherding’s heyday in the 70s and 80s – but instead use terms like “discipleship,” “accountability,” “mentoring,” “submission,” “lordship,” and other benign sounding names that other non-shepherding churches in the Body of Christ have been using all along but with markedly different meanings.

A year and a half ago, before I even knew that I was even “in” the Shepherding movement to begin with, the Lord started speaking to me about bringing a word to “a body that has forgotten that Christ is the Head.” I don’t consider myself a prophet and I don’t “hear” the Holy Spirit speaking to me every day (this was one of the first and few times I’ve heard from God in quite this way), so my first responses were (1) this must be really important for God to talk to me like this and (2) it has to be tested against Scripture. It was around this time that I first stumbled upon my former church movement’s history as well as its connections with something called the New Apostolic Reformation, which makes some amazing (and dubious, imho) claims about being the restored, foundational government of present-day apostles and prophets.

Of course, then I made the “mistake” of starting to ask questions. My spouse has told me numerous times that I’m “too submissive” (most recently, last week), but I’ve also been told by numerous others (mostly family) that I’m “too smart for my own good” and “too inquisitive.” You can take the Yankee out of the North but you can’t take the North out of the Yankee, I guess…

Not only that, but I started seeing more and more things come up that I had questions about.

Why was it that pastors didn’t ask us to do things but commanded us to?
What is “delegated authority” and why is it synonymous with God’s direct authority?
Why are all of us, but particularly husbands, taught to submit to a “covering” that is not Christ but man, and why are their wives required to submit to a chain of command that is outside that of her husband?
Why is asking questions considered the sign of a “rebellious” or “Jezebel” spirit?
How come my husband has been telling me for our entire marriage I’m “too submissive,” but now all of a sudden I’m not “submissive” enough because I’m hearing from the Lord directly and not through him or church leaders in “authority” over me?
Is it true that I can only hear from the Holy Spirit through others or that it must be confirmed by leaders as a sign of my “submission to authority?”
Do we really believe that we have all Christ’s authority now to literally take over the world’s governments and rule in His place, before He comes back, or in order to make Him come back?
Is it really true that “delayed obedience is really disobedience?” Where is it in the Bible? (Hint: it’s from a 1964 book by the Navigators.) Where does “testing the spirits” come in? Does the time it takes to do that indicate you’re instead just being rebellious and disobedient?
What’s the deal with “all Christians have demons?” Why do we all need to be delivered of demons and curses after salvation? Doesn’t this discount the cleansing power of Christ’s Blood and the completed work of the Cross by adding works unto salvation?

Oh, and the big ones… the ones that made others think I was really wacked…

Who is this C. Peter Wagner dude, what is his relationship to us, and why do we have anything to do with him in the first place?
How come we never knew we were descended from Maranatha Campus Ministries?

And the biggest big one… the one that finally pushed me over the edge and out of the church because it crossed the line into denying Christian essentials… how could this organization that preaches Christ’s lordship and the inerrancy of Scripture allow a top leader to come in to our local church to teach on “inner healing and deliverance” and state that Christ’s victory over sin and death came not at the cross but in the wilderness, and that we could be “men of God” just like Christ was a “man of God” after his baptism (I don’t exactly know where the wilderness vs. the cross thing came from, but the perfected “men of God” teaching is otherwise known as “Manifest Sons of God” and is descended from an old heresy called Dynamic Monarchianism). How could this person be responsible for training all the movement’s campus leaders in North America?

I will say that my questions were lovingly tolerated and considered especially at first, but as time went on tolerance began to wane and I was expected to submit and stay. I will also say to all reading this, including those who are sticklers for everything being done decently and in order, that yes, I’m a married woman, I did ask my husband at home about all these things first, he encouraged me in my searching and study, and that we approached our church together in these things at all times. I did not go around his back and did not subvert him or his role in our home. He was the one who spoke for us as a couple and as a family except when he asked me to speak.

I was told that…

It’s not like Shepherding anymore because now you can appeal decisions made by leadership. This is like the difference between Europe’s absolutist medieval kings and “enlightened” kings who occasionally entertained appeals from their subjects. Both are based on the “divine right of kings” theory. And what if your appeal is unsuccessful and you are not granted “grace” to not obey a command? You are expected to obey (even if it may violate your conscience)…
You are part of spiritual family and you can’t just leave spiritual family because now you carry our spiritual DNA. We did sign a covenant to our local church. I went back and looked at that covenant and it said nothing about never leaving the church. All those commitments were to the Body of Christ and about acting in a Christian, Biblical manner. I wasn’t leaving the Body of Christ; just one of the local expressions of it. (Yes, I am a member of a church today.) My former church did commit to teaching in accordance with Scripture and imho I wasn’t the one who broke that covenant just because I happened to speak up about those questionable or outright unbiblical teachings. Scripture does say that we are to mark and avoid false teachers, and that we are to have nothing to do with those who deny Christ. And sorry, but the “spritual DNA” teaching with the concomitant “impartation” and “activation” teachings taken from the Latter Rain movement is eerily close to something taught in the New Age movement.
C. Peter Wagner is not an issue. I didn’t buy that one, but I did mostly drop it as an issue. There were other issues at the time more pressing than C. Peter Wagner and the fact that we were part of the foundational government that will be poised to overthrow secular authorities by approximately the year 2010. (“It takes a government to overthrow a government.”) [12/15/05 update - I did find out that C. Peter Wagner absolutely was an issue, since our top leader/apostle considered him a "mentor" to our movement.]
What our church movement/international leadership teaches are not valid reasons to leave. Ok, other than that we’re expected to enroll in their bible school (this is a major way members are “equipped” and “discipled”), we are otherwise exposed to their teachings through their other teaching materials and visiting preachers? There are church movements where you can say that what goes on in one church doesn't reflect on them all, but I don’t see how it could not be an issue when my local pastor was personally “submitted” to one of the movement’s top leaders and we were considered to be “covered” by the movement’s International Apostolic Team… and when I personally was only a few steps removed from that authority within our pyramidical, one-on-one authority system?

Obviously, I believe in biblical separation… only as a last resort, but I do believe I had no choice but to separate from those preaching “another gospel” after exhausting all others.

In my humble opinion…

Shepherding/Discipleship preaches another gospel; that of salvation of works not grace.
Shepherding/Discipleship preaches another Christ; that of Christ by proxy through “delegated leadership” and “dominion.”
Shepherding/Disicipleship removes the headship of Christ over men, subverts the headship of a husband over his wife and family, and replaces the headship of the Body of Christ with that of self-appointed “foundational” apostles and prophets. It potentially divides families and churches, not unifies them. The only unity is in unquestioning obedience to leaders, not obedience to the Lord Jesus and to Scripture.
Shepherding/Discipleship replaces the sovereign role of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying and convicting believers with that of men receiving confessions (sometimes enforced confessions, and sometimes confessions through “informants”) and “speaking truth into” believers.
Shepherding/Discipleship isn’t just wrong when it goes too far and injures people (many proponents have repented when it has) but it is based upon erroneous theology to begin with, and unless and until the Latter Rain ROOTS of this doctrine are pulled up, it will ALWAYS go “too far” and become abusive at some point.

A month or two after the Lord began speaking to me of a “body that has forgotten that Christ is the Head” I was reading Colossians 2 when I realized that Colossians 2:19 was the verse the Lord was leading me to. This verse discusses someone who has lost hold of Christ who is the Head; we are to do the opposite. Hold on to Christ for our dear lives. Don’t trade his Headship for someone who promises a more secure “covering” or “protection.” This doesn’t mean disconnecting from the Body of Christ (I don’t advocate “lone ranger” Christianity) but it does mean that ALL members of the Body of Christ are directly connected to the Head which is Jesus Christ alone. Pastors, especially pastors of “troubled” churches, think twice (or thrice, or ten times!) before signing your church over to a “covering authority” even if you are offered a greater salary than you would have dreamed otherwise, or greater authority, or more secure spiritual protection and “accountability” for you and your flock; you may find out too late that it is closer to a corporate takeover of your church than you ever thought possible within the Body of Christ.

Thus this blog. It is my prayer that the Lord uses my voice for the purpose to which He has called me.

Everything here is humbly offered as the opinion of the writer.

Blessings, ulyankee