Eating your Spiritual Vegetables

So I have become aware that I am an excitement addict.  I need things to be exciting.  In fact, I come from a generation of excitement addicts.  We basically have continuous entertainment opportunities all the time.  We are raised from the beginning on this excitement diet.  Whether it be video games, sex, food, or even things in the church the bottom line is that we want it to be exciting.  This is because we were raised to chase a high.

This concept has recently been ported over into the Christian world as “Christian Hedonism” most notably promoted by John Piper and to a lesser extent Mike Bickle and Sam Storms.  It’s a great revelation that the joy of knowing God surpasses the pleasures of the world.  On the other hand the pleasure of the world and the pleasures of God work in fundamentally different ways.  The pleasure of the world feeds the self and reinforces the self.  The pleasure of the world comes with an intense kick right up front.  That’s designed to get you hooked.  The other thing though is that the pleasure of the world always comes with a “hangover.”  It comes with the negative consequences of what you did.  These may be in your heart, in your body, in your relationships, in your finances or all of the above.

Look at physical intimacy.   Sinful physical intimacy may come with a huge rush right up front, but in the end you have total destruction.  There may be an abortion, an STD, and a broken heart coming just to name a few possibilities.  If you are married, it may include divorce, devastated children, and child support payments.   These are life long “consequences.”   Physical intimacy in marriage may not always have the same “rush” but it is part of building a lifelong relationship and has the potential to develop dimensions that sinful intimacy can never have because it is part of reinforcing a lifelong trust relationship.

God’s pleasures come with time.  A lot like vegetables.  You get no “high” from eating vegetables, but if you eat a lot of them, and cut out the sugar and caffeine, you’ll have a lot more energy.  Now God is certainly a lot better than vegetables.  But it’s a similar flow.  When we pack into a service looking for the spiritual “high” we’re treating God like our worldly idols.  When we come to him looking for a “high” we’re treating him like a worldly idol.

How do we exit the cycle of looking for the next “high” of some kind.  Well of course there is dying to self, but dying to self is not denying yourself something you really really want.  It is learning to stop wanting what will kill you and start wanting what will save you.  It is learning to stop eating of the forbidden fruit and to start eating of the tree of life.

Look, this even applies to learning.  For me it is easier to feed my mind than to feed my spirit.  But feeding my mind makes me just smart, it doesn’t make me effective.   If you fathom all mysteries but have not love….  But when you get in God’s presence and stay there you actually become something different.  You don’t just know something different.  Eating of the tree of life of the presence of Jesus is the gift that keeps on giving, a lot like a good vegetable diet J   It can even be very exciting, but if excitement is your goal you’re going to burn out.

What I am starting to learn (very slowly) is the “simple pleasure” of the unexciting things in life.  Working hard during the work day, going to bed on time, eat right, etc, are all the “less exciting options” but they pay off major dividends over time.   As your life gets in order, there is more room for God.   The devil works hard to keep your life out of order so you can’t stay in the flow with God.   The bait he uses is excitement.  That first rush of the forbidden fruit masks its deadly nature.   But every time you walk in what is right, you sow a harvest of good things to come.   And there is a joy of the good harvest that is much richer than the guilty and temporal pleasure of the exciting whirlwind.   I never heard anyone say “man I wish had eaten more fatty foods yesterday.”   That’s because later on you are in harvest time.  Do you get a harvest of corruption after a short high, or do you get a harvest of joy after “eating your vegetables?”

What the Devil Says

We continue to wade deeper into the waters of demonic deliverance.  And I certainly don’t have “the answers” as it comes to this topic, but I learn more and more all the time.   Talking to other people about how their bondage works has definitely been eye opening about how to get more freedom myself, and even others who are “healthy.”

Jesus says that “my sheep hear my voice.”  This is a great promise, but the problem is that we also hear the devil’s voice, and we have to learn to totally reject and disfellowship from it.  How do we do that?  A lot has been written in Charismatic movement about hearing God’s voice, but none of that stuff has really worked for me.  I think it is because I need to do more “eviction” of the devil.

Of course the devil has basic tricks like making good things seem evil, and evil seem good.  He “speaks” by giving you negative emotions about Godly things and euphoric emotions about sin.  This feeling is followed by him giving you a script like “I really want that.”  So you will come into agreement with him and he’ll have power.   These feeling have power because you believe the lies.  When you see a pretty girl and you have all of these emotions and you want to act on it, that’s because you are letting the devil play his script in your head.   The devil always lies about the consequences.  He likes you to think that there are no negative consequences of your action, but of course that’s dead wrong.

While those things are tricky, they are more obvious because we know they are obviously wrong.    The hard ones really are the “religious lies” like the ones that Jesus had to face in the wilderness.  Most demons are very well versed in the religious.   I had a friend the other day start praying for a guy on the phone who didn’t believe in demons.  That was until my friend started casting one out of him and he was screaming and choking on the phone.  The devil loves the theology that he doesn’t exist.

The first thing you need to know about the devil’s voice is that it is demanding and “loud”. The devil is glad to talk all the time.  He wants to talk about everything because anything you listen to will lead you into bondage.   God by contrast is not loud and demanding.    One of the keys to knowing God’s voice is that there is grace released when you hear it.   You hear the word and there is something within you desiring to do it.  Now there is often conflict between your flesh and carrying out God’s will, but one of the signs of God speaking is this sense of “yes” and being carried along in that direction.   God’s voice is speaking “in” you as much as he speaks “to” you – after all Christ and the Holy Spirit are living inside of you.  We know someone whose constantly chattering demon says “ask God to speak to you like this.” I believe that is taunt because God doesn’t speak like that.   God doesn’t speak with lots of constant “conversational” dos and don’ts.

This leads to my second observation about the devil’s voice.  He loves to “pile it on.”  Whatever you are doing is not enough.  He loves to find something he knows you won’t do and then condemn you for it.  “Sell all you have and give it to the poor” and then when you don’t do it, you feel guilty.   It’s not God.   If God wants you to sell all, it won’t feel like that.   If God wants you to do it, you’ll have a deep desire to do it, even if it is a struggle.   There is no condemnation in Christ, but the devil’s goal is to find something to condemn you for.  This is because if you are condemned you are in works, and that means he’s in control.  Basically you have to know that you are forgiven and free whether or not you pray, read your Bible, or anything else.  If I worship God tonight, that’s great for me, and great for God, but it has nothing to do with my “rightness” with God.  No “rules” can add or subtract from that because Jesus paid it all.  And if I sin, I repent and am forgiven.   God takes it off, he doesn’t pile it on.

John G. Lake once said that “hell is distraction” and that is the next observation about the devil: he is distraction.  He has all kinds of things you need to do and worry about all the time.  Basically anything to keep you from dealing with your real self, and getting in contact with God.  You’ll know this when you get down to pray and you become worried about all kinds of random things.  That’s the devil.   God is when you get to that place of layer after layer of focus, to the point where you are “lost in the Spirit” and you don’t even know you’re in the room.   You’re caught up in focus on God.   You are carried there by His presence in you which is calling out to His presence in heaven.

And of course we must remember that the devil used Scripture in the temptation of Jesus.   Even if the devil says something that is “true” — such as a Scripture verse — it’s still really a lie designed to bring death.  It’s a lie because of context, and a lie because of intent.   You know it’s a lie because of where it came from.   The devil can only lie and only destroy.  We have to proactively evict the devil’s voice from each of our lives.  We have to evict the voice of guilt and condemnation.  We have to evict the voice that demands we do this and that and this.   Kick it out, and listen to God’s voice of perfect love coming from the Holy Spirit within you.

Faith and The Word of Faith

A recent commenter was trying to understand why Charismatics seem to be particularly open to the Word of Faith movement and assume that if you are anti-Word of Faith you are anti-Charismatic.   When I was in high school, before I became Charismatic, I remember staying up late with my brother and watching one of the TV ministries with my brother.  It was completely ridiculous.  I had a hard time even recognizing it as Christian.   Yet these guys are raising enough money to stay on the air.   It was several more years before I was introduced to the Faith teaching in the church where I came into the Charismatic movement.   At the time it seemed that the pastors of that church were more interested in the Holy Spirit than the money and I saw the Faith teaching as something separate from what I had rejected on TV.  I saw it as part of believing God.  I was believing Him to be a supernatural and victorious person and that entailed an attitude of victory, overcoming and faith.   Declaring Scriptures over myself made sense and I was glad to do it.   It never got me the breakthrough from lifelong sin patterns, but it gave me a much more victorious mindset.   I later found out that the church pastors were in fact not much different from the TV preachers and were making incredible salaries while expecting very high sums out of the congregation in many different ways.

Which leads to my first observation:  it’s funny how “faith” always gets tied in with money.    I do not think it is supposed to be.   When you start going after the money, you end up with “name it and claim it” and a very selfish version of Christianity.   That was never what I wanted — perhaps because I had never lacked money or status, or perhaps because I had already put it all on the altar when I accepted Christ.    Yet, these faith teachings about money always end up in “give to get.”   Instead of giving to speed the gospel, you are now giving to increase your bank account.   Count me out.  I’m trying to build a heavenly bank account.

My second observation is that the Word-Faith teaching quickly becomes a kind of Gnosticism, much like Christian Science.  You are declaring yourself healed even though you are sick.   You are declaring yourself free even though you are in bondage.  You end up starting by denying reality.  This is a fundamental problem that keeps it from “working.”   Instead of exposing and confronting you end up denying.

But does that mean I am completely anti-Faith?  Actually it doesn’t.   After a number of years of not listening to that kind of teaching, I’ve realized that I’ve lost an important part of my Christian identity that I need to bring back in a healthy way.   I don’t think that I could listen to the main teachers on this subject for the two reasons above, yet I think that the “Attitude of Faith” is absolutely critical.   What would a “Faith” teaching look like without the money stuff and the denying of reality?   Hard to imagine isn’t it??

Well for starters, I think it would become focused on victory over sin, demons, and disease, which are the things that I think I remember Jesus focusing on.   I think it would also focus on confidence in the face of danger and intimidation.   It would focus on bold proclamation of the truth and walking in the full stature of Christ.    Secondly, I think that it would begin by recognition of a problem and THEN asserting the will of Christ over it.   You are sick but — Jesus makes you well.   Instead of Gnosticism we have declarations of victory on behalf of an almighty God.   Real Faith is about stepping into the attitude and position of Jesus on the Earth.  Hebrews 11 does truly paint a fabulous picture of the “man of faith” that God wants us to be.  Is the money really that exciting?  Can’t you get hyped about that on a late night infomercial?

Which leaves a question — where do the “confessions” that form the heart of the WoF teaching come in?  Actually these Scriptural confessions were part of why it was attractive to me in the first place.   The idea of quoting a Scripture to take authority over my problem made a lot of sense to my evangelical-fundamentalist ears.   I moved away from them because I felt that they weren’t really getting the job done and because of the “Gnosticism” issue of denial of reality.  I am thinking about bringing them back, but with a different focus — expose the issue, and assert God’s dominion over it.

A Christian Counseling Model

The basic task of pastoring people is helping them to grow.  A major component of this then is counseling.  And both counseling and pastoring are tied closely to our view of sanctification, and our view of the human person.  There are several major schools of thought today that provide us an approach to helping people to grow:

“Christian Counseling.” The Christian Counseling movement is very integrationist in its philosophy.  The basic idea is to build on secular counseling insights and just insert Christian values without addressing the fundamental models. This school is best represented by Gary Collins and his book “Christian Counseling” There are several problems with this.  First  Secular Psychology and Christian psychology are based on very different premises. Starting with the existence of God, and working through the various facets of the human personality, traditional psychological models differ greatly from a Biblical view.   Secular counseling for example has no concept of “sin” and therefore no idea of “correction.”   Secondly, secular models are not static.  Contemporary psychology has great diversity and the reigning paradigms change every decade or two.

“Biblical Counseling” Also called “Nouthetic Counseling.” This is the movement started by Jay Adams with his seminal work “Competent to Counsel.”  Adams is a strong correction to integrationist approaches.  Looking at examples from his books, you could almost caricature his model as “Scriptural Rebuke.”   Basically this is the no nonsense, in your face, why didn’t you do the right thing approach, salted with a some Scripture verses.  Now, this is certainly better than secular counseling for sure, because you are getting responsibility back on the person instead of just validating them.

“Deliverance.” In the Charismatic church, if you have a problem you can’t beat we say that you have a demon.  The idea is that if we cast it out, you will be able to break the cycle.  This traditionally involves repentance of past sins, naming the spirit and commanding it to leave.  A new movement of “Inner Healing” has rounded out the deliverance approach   This has meant a greater focus on the “Father’s Heart,” and healing of past wounds.   Deliverance methods are great if the person you are working with has the anointing to just blast the devil off of you, but a lot of people end up frustrated trying to get free from their problems when the focus is on the devil alone.

“Discipleship Counseling” This is the name that Neal Anderson has chosen for his model, but I think a more descriptive name would be Christian Identity Counseling . Anderson’s model is kind of like Deliverance gone mainstream. He’s taken the concepts made them more palatable and consistent and give it his own twist, which has evolved over time. Anderson’s basic idea is that when you are not doing well it is because you are failing to recognize your identity in Christ. In addition, you may have demonic activity, which mainstream models essentially ignore.   I am most familiar with Anderson’s model because I have tried, used it, and built on its insights.   With time this has led me to identify what I see as flaws in the approach and move toward our own FCF approach.

Anderson, whether consciously or not, has much similarity with the “Word of Faith” movement.  He leans toward a once saved always saved model of salvation and with it an approach that if things are going wrong it is because you are not walking in your already fully established identity in Christ.    One sign of this is his use of the word “renounce” in several places where it would be natural to say “repent.”   This seems to stem from the idea that if you are already perfect in Christ, you are simply needing to “renounce” the problem rather than take ownership of it and repent.   The idea being that your spirit is perfect, but your flesh is not.   Your flesh sinned.   This can lead to the thinking that “it really wasn’t me it was my flesh.”

“Reality Counseling“  For now this is what I’m going to call our method.   It is NOT to be confused with secular “Reality Therapy.” First, we see “exposure” as a major facet of freedom.  Talking and bringing the problem fully out into the light is critical.   What are the roots?  How does it function?  What is your pattern?  Related to this, we see that most people  work very hard to “put up a front” for others to see.  It is critical that you tear down this idol of pleasing others and get real in order to be free.  As long as you are trying to be someone you are not, you are in works, and God’s grace will not function for you.   When you bring your real sins and real self before God only then through the blood of Christ can you be secure and accepted in his presence. If you are hiding like Adam and Eve were in the garden, you cannot experience the cleansing power of that blood.   This is the reality about yourself.

Second, in response to Anderson, we believe very much that you may not be saved, and that can lose your salvation.   In addition, we see “In Christ” as an important reality which applies subsequent to repentance, not as a proxy for repentance.   You must take full responsibility for having committed the sin, whether or not there was demonic involvement.  You must then repent and turn away from it at the point that if it were offered to you again, you would not take it because you would rather have Christ.     Then you can assert your identity in Christ, because you are now “in Christ” in this area.  Being in Christ is something that happens by faith, and happens progressively.   As you repent and excercise faith, you are more “in Christ.”   This is not from a perspective of your salvation, but it is from a perspetive of your ongoing experience of God and victory over sin.   This is the reality of your sin.

Connected with this is the issue of faith and works.   If you try to fight your sin without really repenting, or fight the devil without really removing, you will be in works.  You will be trying to please God by doing good things instead of accepting that God loves you regardless of your inability to do good things.  It is by abiding in this unconditional love, and by receiving forgiviness for your sins that results from repentance that you will have the power of God living inside of you.   When you try to get God to love you more by human effort, you are in works.   This is the Reality of God’s love.

After exposing, and taking real ownership of the issue including repentance, you can deal with the demonic power that is reinforcing the pattern.   We really see this as the devil’s role.  He’s like the iron padlock on the door of your sin.   He keeps reinforcing it by making it hard to do the right thing, and easy to the wrong thing.   He supercharges the evil, and fights you on the good.   He plays tapes in your head and until you accept them.  He’s an evil bully.    We will command him to go, but you must be ready to take back the ground one piece at a time.   We look for “total disfellowship” as the condition of his removal.  Every thing that causes you to “like” him being there must be gone.   But I don’t like the devil being there?   You like what he offers you on the front end, just not what you get on the back end.  You like the drinking but not the hangover.   When you stop liking the drinking, the devil’s days are numbered.   This is the reality about the devil.

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

The basic task of pasturing people is helping them to grow. A major component of this then is counseling. And both counseling and pastoring are tied closely to our view of sanctification, and our view of the human person. There are several major schools of thought today that provide us an approach to helping people to grow:

“Christian Counseling.” The Christian Counseling movement is very integrationist in its philosophy. The basic idea is to build on secular counseling insights and just insert Christian values without addressing the fundamental models. This school is best represented by Gary Collins and his book “Christian Counseling” There are several problems with this. First Secular Psychology and Christian psychology are based on very different premises. Starting with the existence of God, and working through the various facets of the human personality, traditional psychological models differ greatly from a Biblical view. Secular counseling for example has no concept of “sin” and therefore no idea of “correction.” Secondly, secular models are not static. Contemporary psychology has great diversity and the reigning paradigms change every decade or two.

“Biblical Counseling” Also called “Nouthetic Counseling.” This is the movement started by Jay Adams with his seminal work “Competent to Counsel.” Adams is a strong correction to integrationist approaches. Looking at examples from his books, you could almost caricature his model as “Scriptural Rebuke.” Basically this is the no nonsense, in your face, why didn’t you do the right thing approach, salted with a some Scripture verses. Now, this is certainly better than secular counseling for sure, because you are getting responsibility back on the person instead of just validating them.

“Deliverance.” In the Charismatic church, if you have a problem you can’t beat we say that you have a demon. The idea is that if we cast it out, you will be able to break the cycle. This traditionally involves repentance of past sins, naming the spirit and commanding it to leave. A new movement of “Inner Healing” has rounded out the deliverance approach This has meant a greater focus on the “Father’s Heart,” and healing of past wounds.

“Discipleship Counseling” This is the name that Neal Anderson has chosen for his model, but I think a more descriptive name would be Christian Identity Counseling . Anderson’s model is kind of like Deliverance gone mainstream. He’s taken the concepts made them more palatable and consistent and give it his own twist, which has evolved over time. Anderson’s basic idea is that when you are not doing well it is because you are failing to recognize your identity in Christ. In addition, you may have demonic activity, which the other two models essentially ignore. Overall, Anderson’s I am most familiar with Anderson’s model because I have used it, and I see several weaknesses

Pentecostal or Reformed?

With the rise of contemporary Reformed thought, a number of Charismatic groups have also arisen which embrace Calvinism.  Perhaps the most important of these is “New Frontiers” a major church planting network from England.    A major concept for Charismatics in the 20th century was a dream of unifying the “Word and the Spirit.”  Ern Baxter, one of the major leaders of the Shepherding Movement, was one who held to this concept.    So was R.T. Kendall, who wrote a book by the same title with Paul Cain.   Smith Wigglesworth gave a major prophecy on this topic near the end of his life.   Baxter and Kendall saw this as a union between Calvinism and the Charismatic.  And there are many heirs of the Shepherding Movement today who hold to Calvinism.  C.J. Mahaney is perhaps the one with the highest profile.   So there has been, and continues to be a shift toward Calvinism among Charismatics.

This partly because of the logical connection between Charismatic ideas like hearing God speak, being refined by fire,  and waiting on God with the concept of a God who controls the details of our lives.   If you doubt that these ideas create problems or go together, look no father than the recent book written by the young Reformed pastor titled: Just Do Something

Now the reality is that few people hold a truly consistent theology.  Instead we tend to get our ideas out of a buffet of the current ideas of the time.   At the same time, even those who are expert in theology are not always consistent, because the consistency leads to uncomfortable conclusions.  Now to a certain extent, such tensions are inevitable – since the creator of the universe could never be reduced to a single idea.   On the other hand the recognition of tension does not mean that we have to live in confusion, contradiction or denial.   Every theology has a “center” that really determines the direction it will ultimately go, regardless of what beliefs specific individuals hold.

So for example, if you are a Calvinist and belief that God predestines people to salvation, you can of course be a very evangelistic person and belief in the urgency of mission.  However this is logically inconsistent.   If God has already predestined them, it takes a lot of the urgency of mission away.  Therefore with time – perhaps a couple of generations, the theology will tend toward it’s logical “center”  This is about where things stood in the days of William Carey, when he launched the missions movement almost singlehandedly against the Calvinistic bent of his day.   This idea of a God who is in control is the logical center of Calvinism.  Therefore I believe that a truly consistent Calvinism will ultimately always tend to be more focused on government of this world than evangelism.  There will also always be more Calvinist intellectuals than Arminian ones, because the logic focus on the need for man to “do” is decreased, and the logical need for him know the correct theology is increased.   Only when you look into history and trace what happens to an idea after it has been living in a church culture for a few generations do you really get the flavor of where it leads.

Arminian theology seems to thrive best as a response to Calvinism because it does not have as good of a theological “center” as Calvinism does.   A theology of “free will” alone can too easily lead to liberalism or humanism.   People crop up to call themselves “Arminian” basically only when the Calvinists start telling us that God is damning people.  Aside from that most Christians are glad to ignore the “systems” and just say that God wants people saved.    If Calvinism and Reformed though are not healthy centers, and Arminianism alone is not a viable center, long term, what is?

The reason I feel the need to address this topic is because I was listening to the Introductory lectures of the brilliant instructor Richard Pratt, on the RTS Itunes U.   His explanation of Reformed/Calvinistic thought as a tradition was compelling, and it led me to ask, do we have a tradition that can be as logically compelling as Reformed thought or are we just a protest movement?

In my last post I talked about a unifying idea for a truly Pentecostal/Charismatic theology:  Possibility in God.   This is a truly Arminian concept, yet it is also a God-centered concept.  I propose this as an alternative “theological center”   For Wesley this manifested in the sanctification idea.  He believe that holiness was possible in God.  150 years later, the holiness people were putting this into practice and seeing dramatic miracles (and yes, a good deal of legalism).   The Pentecostals took the holiness ideal to its logical conclusion and became a movement based around the possibility of walking as Jesus walked.   As long as we are reaching toward God as a people, we as a people will continue to move theologically and eschatologically toward Him.  As soon as we stop, we are off into error.

The Theology of the Possible

After years of study, I feel that I am finally starting to get a hold of an idea that has eluded me.  I did a long paper in Seminary so that I could clearly understand eschatology.  Separately, I’ve been trying to understand how Charismatic preaching and Bible interpretation works.   This leads ultimately to an examination of our Charismatic practice to find the “way forward.”

There are a lot of groups offering us a false “way forward” in the church right now.  The whole “Emergent” movement is capturing a generation with pseudo-Christianity.  The seeker friendly church is watering down the Gospel.  The New Perpsective on Paul is deceiving the scholars.  The Charismatic church is rife with abuse of money and power, and chasing after signs.   Meanwhile our culture is going down so fast we can’t keep up.  It’s discouraging out there.  We need revival.

Now this is not a post about revival, but it is a post about having a theology that can undergird a revival.   This is the theology fo the possible.

First, our view of the end times.   I have come to the conclusoin that although almost no Charismatic/Pentecostals who embrace amillennialism as a system, we are in fact amillennial by  nature!  Just to review, in a nutshell, the postmillennial view looks for taking over of institutions.  The premillennial view looks for Christ to return and take over.  The amillennial view says that we are in a spiritual millennium now.   This is why some theologians prefer the term “present millennialism” or “inaugurated millennialism.”  The reason why we are present millennial in nature is because we fundamentally are a movement about believing that you can have “more of God” than you have.   We are a movement that says you can “be like Jesus.” You can actually do the things he did, think like he thought.  You can have a ministry like the apostles had.   This is a basic hermeneutic of bringing a spiritual reality from heaven into earth.    This is present millennialism.

However, Charismatic/Penteocstal groups have been everything but present millennial.  This is at least partly because the he Reformed/Calvinist guys who developed Amillennialism have a very boring conception of a spritual millennlum.  They would go bonkers if they heard we had adopted their view (and made it more optimistic), but the basic features of their system, how it reads the Bible, and where it puts events, is really the one that “fits” with Charismatic/ Pentecostalism.  It’s not just a “good option” for us.  It fits with our “more of God” view life.

You see, postmillennialism, which is popular in some Charismatic circles, like Bill Johnson or Bill Hamon, involves us ultimately “taking over.”  It’s definitely an attitude of the “possible” but it is not an attitude of the spiritually possible.  The more you get into taking over this world, the more you end up moving away from the Pentecostal/Charismatic idenity of having “more of God.”    Same thing with premillennialism.   When you get into this, you stop believe God about what you are and can become, and you start focusing on what is coming, and how you have a “last days” ministry.   Now that I see this, I would call John G. Lake a present millennialist.   His life passion was bringing the spiritual dominion of God into the Earth.   He rejected the premillennial dispensationalism that all of the Pentecostals of his day accepted, and although he had a “dominion” mindset, it was not about taking over governments.   His passion was the God kind of life.  That is my passion too.  And that is the same thing that George Warnock lays out in the Feast of Tabernacles.

Connect to this, The Latter Rain brought in a view of “Restored Truth” showing that the Church was moving progressively in a direction looking more like the early church.   The early rain had come, and now the “latter rain” is coming.   One step at a time, first Luther bringing back salvation by faith, then Wesley bringing back responsibility of man, then the Pentecostals bringing back the dynamic experience of the Holy Spirit, etc.   The church itself is on a trajectory of spiritual upward movement.   Each move of God takes us closer to be a glorious end time church.     This concept also fits with both the Charismatic worldview, and the present millennial system.

This leads to my third, related, observation.   The Charismatic hermeneutic is different from the traditional Reformed hermeneutic.  They believe all doctrine must originate from the Bible.  We believe that God is speaking now to highlight things in the Bible that we never corporately saw or practiced before.  Of course no one explicitly believes that, but in practice that is exactly what Charismatics believe.    For the Reformed people God “spoke.”  For us he “is speaking.”   It is a way of saying we believe in revelation.   We do not believe that prophets or a revival can create new doctrine, but because we believe God is restoring the church, we believe revival can reveal Biblical doctrine that has not been emphasized before — such as the 5 fold ministry.   It’s been there for 2 thousand years, but only since 1948 has anyone actually “tried” it.    That’s because we believe in the possible.  We believe that the church and the individual have the possibility to be more like God than they are and that is what God is taking us to, one step at a time.  Therefore when a “new revelation” is released, we instinctively receive it as part of taking us there.   This is actually not always good, but do you see how it ties together?   The “more of God” worldview means a present millennium, a view of the progressive restoration of the church,  and an openness to what God is saying “now” through the church.

This has been a missing piece — connecting our theory of what we are dong to what we are actually doing.   Normally we just dip into the evangelical bucket for “doctrine” add on a few Charismatic distinctives and keep doing our Charismatic thing.   It is inconsistent.   Part of what we’re missing is how you “validate” when God is bringing something forth, versus when it just sounds exciting, but isn’t a revelation.   Charismatics are very succeptible to hype.  If you hype it up, we might think the Spirit is moving.  And the Spirit moving is the hermeneutic of now.   If you are bringing more of God, you must be right, and you must have the doctrine we need.    No need to validate.   But if you wanted to validate, would you have the tools?  No.   That’s because evangelical hermeneutics do not provide the tools.   They just tell you how to be “safe” and avoid any possibility of error — which of course doesn’t work anyway.   But now things are changing.   Redemptive-Historical preaching and Biblical Theology are on the rise, and they are unlocking how the Bible itself works.  My theory is that this method of reading the Bible is more conducive to revelation.  It recognizes that how the Apostles themselves interpreted Scripture is how we should interpret it.  As Pentecostals, we go one step farther — they way they interpreted the OT, is the way we should interpret the NT and evaluate revelation.    Use of the apostolic method of hermeneutics is how we should validate what God is speaking to the church “now.”

For me this leads to a tight theology of the possible.   We are Arminian because we believe that the way things are is NOT the way things have to be.  We embrace a view of “Restored Truth” and are present millennial because we believe in greater possibilities for the church itself in history.    We use Apostolic Hermeneutics because we believe that we can do the same things that the apostles did,  including the way they interpreted the Bible, and even receiving revelation directly from God.   These are all deeply rooted in and connected by the single belief that we can and will have “more of God”!

Deliverance versus Repentance

Since coming to Cincinnati we have been working with guys who are in recovery from various serious serious issues including substance abuse.   Our initial approach centered on having a deliverance “encounter” with each person when they arrive.   This would last for at least 4 hours.  These sessions have been very effective in breaking the “first wave” of issues that people bring.  This includes deep wounds from the past, unconfessed sins, anger with God, etc.  Exposing these things has enabled people to receive healing for the issues that underlie their actual problems.

What we noticed however, is that after that initial session, the follow-on sessions were not as effective.  This is not because every demonic influence in a person’s life has been removed.  It is because the ones that remain are deeply enmeshed in their personality.   How do you address these?   Can you cast them out?  Mainstream deliverance ministries would have you think so.    I believe that you can cast out any Spirit, but you can’t cast out a person’s character — and usually with this “second level” of issues, you’re talking about the two things working together.   In fact, what we have begun to see is that people who have been floating around the charismatic community will tend to do things which are actually counter-productive:

1. Blame their character problems on the devil.

2. Talk about problems being in their “soul.”

In both cases, you end up with the problem being somewhere else other than with you.   “Yeah, that spirit of accusation came on me,” is a convenient way of blaming the devil for you accusing someone.  In this sense, the devil doesn’t mind being blamed.   As long as you keep blaming him, you’ll never get rid of him! You are responsible to repent when a demonic spirit comes on you, you are also responsible not to obey it.  So it is you we need to talk about, not the devil.   When you are no longer friends with him, he’s easy to remove.

Secondly, the “soul realm” may be a nice apologetic to explain to Christians why they can have a demon, but it is not helpful in getting rid of them.   People start thinking that they have no responsibility becaues it is in their “soul realm,” while their spirit man is perfect.  I do not believe this is a Biblical teaching.  The Bible teaches that we are sinners, and we need to repent, not just to come to Christ, but to stay clean.  Don’t talk to me about the devil is operating in your soul realm, talk to me about how you sinned, and you are ready to repent.  In order to be free you need to take responsibility and you need to start rejecting your sin BEFORE the consequences come in, not just after they happen.

The process becomes not one primarily of “deliverance” but of teaching and repentance.   The devil likes us to dance around the problem when he is working through someone else.  He wants us to avoid the person with anger, and to lie to the person who is pressuring us, etc.  That way the person is never confronted with their own problem — and their demon is never confronted either.  He has a nice “perimeter” from which to operate and stay hidden.  The loving but firm confrontation is what actually helps to separate the person from the devil.   They need to see what they are doing, and then they can disfellowship with it.   After this correction, the “casting out” is not a big deal.

I’m back

After 6 months of good ministry here in Cincinnati, we’ve hit a little bit of a breather, and I have felt the call to begin thinking again.   More specifically, I am getting a sense of a definite call to use my life to develop certain “reformational messages” in the church.   This is because I believe I have discovered a basic principle of the world’s epistemology:  the truth is almost never what the mainstream believes, and it is almost never what those who are reacting against the mainstream believe.  It’s somewhere in the hard to find middle.   Some have called this the “radical middle.”   I find this to be true both in Christian theology/life as well as in secular life.   I believe it is a result of the devil’s tactics to hide the truth from humanity.

Ultimately it is about idolatry.   Men are prone to worship something.    Some idols are made of wood, some are other people,  some are images of ourselves.  Some idols are actually ideologies. They are beliefs which cause us to feel more significant or more secure or otherwise minister to us something that God Himself is the only true solution for.  This creates the phenomenon of people exalting an ideology that is false.   Some people who are succeptible to the same kind of idolatry will follow it.     Everyone else will experience a kind of “blackout” where they know that the idea idol is false, but they can not find a way to an alternative…. and every time they look for one they are punished by the conformers.   This leads some people to rebel, which creates the reactionairies who are usually equally wrong.   To find your way out of the maze you must refuse to believe the commonly held truth, but you must also refuse to become a reactionary.    You may end up walking a very lonely road idealogically speaking!

After years of study to find the truth with the basic rubric above, I find myself there in many areas.  First, I left the background of my youth in the mainline denominations, then I left the more mainstream evangelicals.  So simply being a charismatic/pentecostal is itself a choice to leave the mainstream.   But within that group I now find myself swimming against the tide.   I am an Arminian, which moves directly against the Calvinistic current of our time.  I am an Amillennial which moves against the prevailing premillennial and postmillennial movements of our time.   I am a Reformation traditionalist in an “Emergent” generation that is becoming enamored with the New Perspective on Paul.   I embrace canonical exegesis and typology in a sea of grammatico-historical Bible interpreters.    I believe in demonic deliverance, but not in casting out the “spirit of python.”   I believe that the Word of Faith movement has insights, but is largely in error.  I am a strong Charismatic, but I believe in using the mind.    I reject the Fundamentalist approach to life, but love Fundamentalist preachers.    I embrace the Latter Rain revival, but part with some key ideals.   The list could go on.

In all of this, I have a sense of mission — to light a new way.  Or if you will, relight an old way.  I don’t see anytihng particularly innovative in what I think.  It has just been a rediculously difficult process to find my way out of the maze of popular thinking and to something that “solves the puzzle.”  As I see the church moving in directions I think are counter-productive, I want to raise a standard for these truths.  But that is going to take a lot of work.    So I am repurposing this blog a little.   I am going to put more notes and things on here related to solving these puzzles.   Some of the posts may be less readable, but If you want to come along you’re welcomed.

Dynamics of Attraction

As mentioned in the previous post, there are several major things working against people getting married, those are trends that the church has to fight. What about at an individual level? I’d like to look at the dynamics of relationships and what the pitfalls are. There are many different kinds of men and women out there, so it’s impossible to cover every scenario, but let’s look at a few basic dynamics.

The most important issue is that of attraction. What causes one person to become attracted to another? I believe group dynamics are very important to the process. In general, I see a pyramid phenomenon at work in groups. In any group there is one person that is considered the most attractive person (MAP) by the corresponding group of the opposite sex, and vice versa. This leads to the phenomenon where 10 guys are after one girl, and 10 girls are after one guy. Because of this people do not naturally “pair off” that easily.

How do people end up getting together then? Well first, in many cases it’s not 10 to 1. It’s often more like 10 to 3. There are different personality types, so not everyone will find the most attractive person to be the most attractive to them. That improves things, but he problem still remains that it is a many to few scenario. Next, the “most attractive person” changes over time. Few people can stand the limelight indefinitely. Someone else will enter into the picture and change the dynamics. Also, if the most attractive person dates, they are usually taken because they are in high demand. This leads people to consider other options.

Now, I want to say that I do not consider the “most attractive person” phenomenon to be Godly. I believe it’s actually a kind of idolatry, but you need to see it to know what is going on. This “king of the mountain” phenomenon is damaging to the people on the top and on the bottom. The people on the top can think that the world revolves around them, and that everyone loves them. They may also get frustrated from attracting lots of people that they are not interested in. The people at the bottom get frustrated from not being seen by anyone, and frustrated from the long term and repeated rejection they experience.

You have to break this idolatrous “crowd” phenomenon.  In reality once you stop chasing the “most attractive person” you will find that there are actually a lot of people of the opposite sex that are not only available but who have wonderful qualities and are attractive to boot.   It is rarely the case that there are not enough people of the opposite sex and right age, unless we’re in a prison camp.  It is usually the case that we have ignored or otherwise weeded out everyone who could be a potential mate from contention.

Those are some of the hidden group dynamics, what about the individual dynamics? Mystery and unattainability are actually major factors in attraction. You want what do not know about, or what you can not have. This is why siblings are naturally not attracted. There is no mystery. So we want someone we do not know about, but generally only the ones that we see as “above” us or at least roughly equal. We do not naturally consider those who we do not see as less attractive than ourselves.

Additionally, men and women tend to have different psychologies of rejection that develop.  Men basically are the pursuers.  So if you are not a proactive man it may feel like life literally passes you by as it regards women.  Regardless if you are the man you have to go after the girl you want and face rejection.    So the phenomenon of being a man can be an exercise in repeated rejection.   If you are a woman, the rejection is usually a little more passive.   You are waiting for someone to “pick you”  and you have to do a lot of things in order to get picked.   This is very rejecting because the message is that you have to be someone you can’t be.  You have to be better looking, but you just are what you are, how do you change that?   So I think the standard psychology that women develop is that they are not likable enough.   It’s permanent rejection.

In addition, because of the “mysterious” phenomenon, deception can play an important part in attraction.   In Genesis 6:2, the “sons of God saw that the daughters of men were good” and so they took them.   This is the same language as the tree in the garden of Eden.  She saw that the fruit was good and she took it.   The issue was that the fruit was not actually good!   Lust is essentially when we believe the lie about someone.   Normally a woman or a man that inspires a strong lustful attraction it is because there is something unhealthy about them.   Now, please do not get me wrong, a lustful person can lust after anything and anyone, but it doesn’t just cut one way.  I’m pointing out that there are people who can stir up lust in an otherwise “normal” person.   It’s not because that person is actually physically more attractive, it is because there is a spirit associated with their own lust that presents itself as “good” to others.    When you believe in your heart that the person is “really hot” or likewise, it’s because you are believing that spirit.    We get pulled in by this spirit and this person, and then we get consumed.  In essence, you are attracted to the person who spiritually speaking is LEAST attractive.

The first part of developing Godly attraction is repenting of this.    You see it’s not even an issue of inner versus outer beauty.  It is an issue of you assigning beauty to someone because of something unhealthy.   If there were identical twins dressed identically, and one was pure but one was not, the one who was not would appeal to you if you’re not healthy.  You have to develop an attraction to what God finds attractive, and then you will ascribe beauty to what God finds beautiful.   In addition, you have to be able to see potential in people, the way God see potential in you.

But how do you go about finding someone if you have already crossed these bridges?  Can a singles group do the trick?   Usually the answer is “no.”    Singles ministers often set these groups up intentionally to keep people from meeting someone there.  They say “we’re not a meat market.”    So the people who want to meet people aren’t there!   Can you do online?  The problem with online is that it bypasses the natural process of attraction.   You learn all about someone’s vital statistics first and eliminate the mystery!   You end up with someone who looks great on paper but who you are not really attracted to.    I’m not saying it can’t work, I’m just saying it is harder than it sounds.   Also because of the stigma with “online” dating the people who are there are sometimes there because they are a difficult match for some reason or another.

You need to meet people in a natural setting.  Where can you do this?   Ask yourself, where would I be if I were my potential mate?   Don’t look for him or her at the singles meeting, she/he’s not there for the same reason you’re not.    He or she is serving at the soup kitchen, or on a mission trip, or taking classes.    That natural setting allows for you to have a natural attraction.   For guys, once you meet a potential, you need to take your big step.  For girls,  you may need to do more than “send signals.”  Some guys don’t get them.  You may need to engage an older woman at the church who can help you asses the situation and figure out if there is a way to make it happen.

The Trinity

The Trinity is one of the most foundational doctrines of Christianity and yet one of the hardest. It seems to involve a paradox: one God, three Persons. How can that be? How do we escape tritheism without nullifying the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit?

The paradox is ancient. The Early Christians had many heretics who professed doctrines which either avowed tritheism or stole deity from the Second and Third persons of the Trinity. Even before the Early Christians, Neo-Platonists had grappled with the philosophical problem of The One and The Many… How can human beings, who are many, have a portion of the Divine Mind, which is only One? Plotinus and others proposed all kinds of strange solutions which you can see in Hinduism, Buddhism, Monism, and New Age today.

And yet, the Trinity is woven throughout Scripture. It is first hinted at in the OT and then more specifically revealed in the NT.

TEXTUAL SUPPORT

There are great websites that give all the Scriptures for proof of the Trinity and go into the nature (role) of the Holy Spirit, who is probably least understood. So I will not go into all that here. I’ll just say that In the OT, the Trinity can be put together empirically but it is not altogether obvious because of the limited yet progressive revelation of who God is. He is not “Father” yet, and revelation of who He is is increasingly needed by the post-Babel era. By the time Moses is delivering the Israelites, he seems to be introducing Yahweh all over again to the common man. With this in mind, we have to take the clues wherever we can find them. The first clue, however, is fortunately found in Genesis 1 where God is creating but so is the Spirit hovering over the waters. Clearly two separate agents. If you add in the NT counsel on the subject, Jesus was actually the Living Word that mediated the heavenly becoming physical in the beginning (John 1). We already know that before the foundation of the world, Jesus was slain. And that all things were made “by Him and for Him.” So clearly His agency is present at Genesis as well.

Assuming that you don’t need proof of the Father’s persona in the OT, other appearances of the Holy Spirit’s divinity and separate agency in OT include each time that “the Spirit” comes upon someone. The Spirit falls on Saul, causing him to prophesy so that everyone asks if he is among the Prophets. The Spirit falls on Samson, causing him to knock down the Philistine’s temple. The Spirit fills Isaiah’s mouth when he is burned by the coal, to prophesy. And Ezekiel acknowledges the Spirit’s filling when he sees his visions. These are all explicit mentions in the Scripture of the Spirit. Other implicit mentions are David’s psalm and worship, Solomon’s supreme wisdom, and the prophecies of the other Major and Minor Prophets.

So where, you ask, is Jesus? While Jews refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, the truth is that from a NT perspective, you can see Jesus throughout the OT. Remember that Jesus Himself walked with the disciples from Emmaus and told them where He could be found in the Scriptures (which were only OT Scriptures at that time, no NT yet!). So if Jesus found Himself there, we know He is there. Specifically, Jesus might have pointed out His being the fourth man in the fiery furnace with Daniel and his friends. He might have said He was the angel Jacob wrestled with who blessed Him. He might have said He was the commander of the army who came to Joshua and asked him to fight on the Lord’s side. He certainly was the suffering servant described by Isaiah.

So it is clear that these Three Persons of the Trinity do show up in the OT if you look carefully. It isn’t eisegeting the text, it is actually making sense of it. A great example of this is David’s psalm which begins, “The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” How is one to interpret this unless there is counsel in the Godhead? (see Mark 2:35-37 where Jesus interprets this passage.) More importantly, the Trinity is alluded to in one of the most foundational Jewish Scriptures, the Shm’ah… “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one.” While the verse professes God is one, the word for “God” is Elohim, which is plural. So in some sense it reads, “Hear O Israel, the Lord (singular) your Gods (plural) is One.” Interesting contradiction right in the Scripture, right? And this is no hand-waving verse.

When you get to the NT, the examples are more noticeable. First of all, Jesus is clearly on earth doing the will of His Father in heaven. He communes with Him, prays to Him, and confesses to Him all while He is ministering so we know the Father and Jesus are two separate agents coexisting at the same time. Moreover, God is clear that He has given all authority to His son, which is why we worship Him alone and confess He is Lord. So from the Father’s own mouth, we know Jesus is divine.

There are also several instances where Jesus and the Holy Spirit are seen together as agents, such as when Jesus blows on His disciples and says, Receive Ye the Holy Spirit. Also when the Holy Spirit impregnates Mary, begetting Jesus (Lk. 1:30). And when Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted of the devil. But perhaps one of the most startling acknowledgments of the Spirit’s divinity and personhood is Jesus’ warning that those who blaspheme Him will be forgiven but those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will not (Lk. 12:8).

Some instances acknowledge the pair of the Father and the Spirit, such as when the disciples are praying in the upper room (to the Father) and the Holy Spirit in response fills their room with the wind and tongues of fire. Another acknowledgment is where Jesus tells us that the Father gives good gifts and will give us the Holy Spirit if we ask Him. This is important because it specifically says the origin of the Holy Spirit is the Father himself. The Spirit is therefore both divine and separate (something He can give). There are other Scriptures where the Spirit falls, fills, or is given, proving this statement.

But several instances in the NT make all three divine agents clear… such as Jesus’ baptism. When Jesus is submerged in the Jordan by John the Baptist, heaven is opened and the Father’s voice is heard. Then the Spirit is visibly seen in the form of a dove descening from heaven down upon Jesus. Very clearly three divine agents all at the same moment, witnessed by onlookers. Another moment is where Jesus explains that it is better that He go so another may come. He says, “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me (Jn 15.26).” The agency of Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit is very distinct, very divine, and very personal. But perhaps the most prominent verse of Scripture that acknowledges the Trinity is the Great Commission where we are told to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is like the Christian’s Shm’ah… no handwaving Scripture.

STRUCTURAL SUPPORT

Besides compelling Scripture verses and narratives, there are structural reasons why Christianity reflects the Trinity. By structural, I mean aspects that are built into the way God sovereignly decided to design the universe. we don’t know why, He just did it that way.

For example, OT law makes it clear that three witnesses are God’s style.  A cord of three strands cannot be broken (Eccl. 4:12).   Three ancestors populate the post-Flood world.  Three angels visit Abraham to tell him he will have a son.  Three festivals are commanded by Moses for the Lord to meet with all the people, three times a year.  Three cities are established as places of refuge.  Two lampstands bear witness of the Lord’s presence (the third witness) outside the Temple.  Three men are thrown into the fiery furnace.  The NT corroborates by saying by the mouths of two or three witnesses will a matter be established (Mt. 18:16, 1 Tim 5:19).    Three wise men establish Jesus’ birth to the Gentile world.  Three disciples witness Jesus’ transfiguration.  Two witnesses testify of the Lord (the third witness) in the Last Days.  There is something about the triune nature of witnesses to an event that God has sovereignly decided will be built into the structure of the universe… probably as an apologetic that He actually exists and will verify His will to be done.  In other words, there are “legal” reasons why God develops a Trinity… before the world, there were no human witnesses, but the Holy Spirit and Jesus were with God before the foundations of the world and witnessed His will.  So by the “mouth” of Three Witnesses, the ultimate Matters were established.

Not only did the Trinity witness creation, but they actually counseled it.  Jesus and the Holy Spirit were present at creation, participating and counseling with the Father. This is important because the entire basis of Christianity is the understanding that we are being reconciled to God to participate with Him and His Kingdom.  Our part (in Christ) is analogous to His part in the beginning; we are supposed to be creating His Kingdom (in a second-hand sense) and counseling with Him, receiving Him like a Father.  The relational aspect of the Trinity then is the way we know it is ok (even God’s will) to have a relationship with the Father. Indeed, the relational worldview of Christians– to God and others– is probably the defining characteristic that separates Christianity from all other religions in the world.

Another “legal” thing written into God’s design is the idea of covenant. God’s covenants with His people were always in three parts: the words (promises, terms); the blood (sacrifice); and the seal (assurance). Every time covenantal language comes up in the Old Testament–Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David–there are the words, the blood, and the seal. Three things. And by the time we get to Jesus and His new covenant, it is still evident: the Father’s words/terms (promise of eternal life, our confession that Jesus is Lord and risen from the dead); His blood (spilled on the cross); and the seal of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity in action. The Trinity, in essence, makes the covenant work.