Showing posts sorted by date for query Jesus calling. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Jesus calling. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Mark Driscoll Repents? Not So Fast, Say Phil Johnson and Chris Rosebrough

Post by Christine Pack

"I wish (Driscoll) would step out of ministry, at least for a time, for a long time, and really try to get the issues---,  really seriously reboot his life. I don't think that's gonna happen. I think what we're actually gonna see -- because he's hanging on to all of his authority and all of his influence and all of the things that really seem to matter the most to him -- I don't see him making the sort of changes that are needed." (Phil Johnson - Executive Director, Grace To You, beginning at 27:20 mark in his 3-18-14 interview with Chris Rosebrough)
In the wake of recent scandals that have rocked the Mars Hill empire of celebrity pastor Mark Driscoll, Driscoll has written an open letter of apology which was recently posted by Renue Magazine. Driscoll's apology (A Letter Of Apology From Mark Driscoll) reads in part:
"(A) marketing company called ResultSource was used in conjunction with the book Real Marriage, which was released in January 2012. My understanding of the ResultSource marketing strategy was to maximize book sales, so that we could reach more people with the message and help grow our church. In retrospect, I no longer see it that way. Instead, I now see it as manipulating a book sales reporting system, which is wrong. I am sorry that I used this strategy, and will never use it again. I have also asked my publisher to not use the '#1 New York Times bestseller' status in future publications, and am working to remove this from past publications as well." (online source)
Driscoll wrote that, in conjunction with what he termed a "Board of Advisors and Accountability," he has decided he will "be doing much less travel and speaking" and "will not be on social media for at least the remainder of the year."

While many Christians (fans?) have rushed to accept this letter from Mark Driscoll as a genuine offering of true repentance in keeping with biblical mandates, a few are not so sure. For instance, Phil Johnson (Executive Director of Grace To You) and Christian talk show host Chris Rosebrough (of Fighting For the Faith radio) recently discussed Driscoll's repentance letter, and are publicly questioning the sincerity of it. On the 3-18-14 FFTF show, Phil Johnson made the following statement:
"Even the confession, if you call it that, was a bit weak because (Driscoll) manages to make himself sound like kind of a victim. He does this throughout the letter. He talks about the crushing weight of the responsibility, and his lack of a personal pastor, but when he gets to that part about the New York Times (bestseller) list, he makes it sound like he was sort of duped into doing that, that it was unwise, it was a bad decision and all of that. He doesn't really address the heart of what it is that makes (what he did) so wrong. And that it's a) dishonest, and b) he used church funds to do it."
And later in the discussion:
Phil Johnson: "When it comes to that letter (Driscoll) is the one calling all the shots when it comes to defining both what his sin was and what his consequences are going to be. That's not genuine repentance. Real repentance lets Scripture define the nature of the sin, and somebody else needs to define what the consequences are."
Chris Rosebrough: "Right. The way I read it is, Jesus supposedly is the pastor of Mars Hill, and Jesus and Mark Driscoll decided Driscoll's punishment, and then it was rubberstamped 'Approved' by their Board of Accountability.' I've never heard of or even seen a scheme like that run in any organization even remotely calling itself 'Christian.'" 
Phil Johnson: "No, but you have to see that that is the inevitable result of the notion that God speaks directly to (Driscoll). He's a prophet, he thinks of himself as a prophet. I think he even calls himself a prophet in that letter. He sees himself as a prophet, and therefore, he's in control of what is said about this, what is going to be done about it, because he and Jesus worked it out, just the two of them together. And they have this (Board of Advisors and Accountability)--- whatever they call it, it's hard not to see that as a total sham, because it was set up in the wake of several moves that so changed the leadership at Mars Hill, where (Driscoll) actually got rid of anyone who had any inkling of trying to hold him accountable." 
Also discussed in the Johnson/Rosebrough FFTF interview:
- That Driscoll has made public mea culpas in the past which don't seem to bear the biblical marks of genuine, biblical sorrow for the sins being apologized for 
- That Driscoll has yet to apologize for the lies he told in his gate-crashing publicity stunt at the Strange Fire conference 
- That Driscoll has claimed to receive what can only be termed as "pornographic visions," and which Driscoll has blasphemously ascribed to the Holy Spirit.  
- That Driscoll continues to engage in coarse/off-color language 
-  That Driscoll delivered sexually explicit content during a sermon (the infamous Song of Solomon incident), and when the inappropriateness of that sermon was pointed out by John MacArthur, Driscoll scrubbed the record of that sermon from the internet and told a series of lies to cover himself
- That, perhaps most alarmingly, Driscoll has extended the hand of Christian fellowship to modalist heretic TD Jakes
Rosebrough also commented that Driscoll has never publicly apologized to Janet Mefferd of The Janet Mefferd Show for saying on-air that she was just "having.....a grumpy day" for questioning him over his several incidents of plagiarism she had uncovered. (Incidentally, it is to Janet Mefferd that many Christians owe a great debt for being willing to publicly confront Driscoll over his plagiarism in a show some months back, for which she was severely criticized and forced to make a public apology. So kudos to Janet for being the first across the battlefield and being willing to be bloodied for that. It seems God has vindicated her in this matter.)

Quite a laundry list of known sin issues with Driscoll, isn't it? And yet, Driscoll's fanbase (there's no other term I can think of that more accurately describes them), continue to come out en masse whenever Driscoll gets into hot water and vigorously defend him against the charges made, no matter how heinous the charges might be. So in closing, I'd like to publicly give a big "thank you" to Chris Rosebrough and Phil Johnson for having the willingness and the boldness to publicly state that the problems with Mark Driscoll have reached enough of a critical mass for Driscoll to be disqualified from holding the office of pastor (see biblical qualifications listed below). May other Christian leaders come to understand how grievously harmful Driscoll has been to the body of Christ, and follow suit in calling Driscoll to step down from pastoral office.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1 Timothy 3:1-13 - Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. 
In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. 
In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. 
A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Titus 1:5-10 - Qualifications for Elders
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.

 Additional Resources 

How to Identify True Repentance (Fighting For The Faith)

Documenting the Problems with Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll [UPDATED]

True Repentance, The Ministry and What (Really) Just Happened (Janet Mefferd)

Mark Driscoll's Problems and Ours: The Crisis of Leadership in American Evangelicalism (Carl Trueman)

Documenting The Problems With Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll

Mark Driscoll's Failed Publicity Stunt That Ended With Him Lying About What Really Happened

Mefferd/Driscoll Interview

Mark Driscoll bought his way onto the NY Times bestseller list through anonymous 3rd parties


Chris Rosebrough interviews Janet Mefferd about Driscoll's latest scandal

Mark Driscoll and His Rated R Sermon in Scotland (Warning: Explicit Content)

Mark Driscoll: "Shut Up and Do What You're Told."


Mark Driscoll Brags About Pile Of Bodies Behind Mars Hill's Bus

Monday, November 18, 2013

Former New Ager Warren Smith Explains That The "Jesus" of Bestseller Jesus Calling Is Not The Jesus of the Bible

Posted by Christine Pack


Warren Smith, former New Ager,
author of "Another Jesus" Calling
Ladies, do you have friends who have been taken in by the über popular book Jesus Calling? You almost can't miss this book, which has been a bestseller on Christian book lists for several months now, and has spawned many derivatives: devotionals, teen and children's versions, even a study Bible. But is it a biblically sound book?

Former New Ager Former New Ager Warren Smith says "no," it's not a biblically sound book, and explains in an interview on Stand Up For The Truth radio that the channeled entity in Jesus Calling is NOT the Jesus of the Bible, but a demonic counterfeit instead. Warren Smith is also the author of the just released book entitled "Another Jesus" Calling, which explores the problems with Sarah Young's book in greater detail. The title of Smith's book is taken from 2 Corinthians 11:4:
"For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully." (my emphasis)
If you have friends who have been taken in by this book, you will want to forward this interview with Warren Smith to them.


 Additional Resources 

"Another Jesus" Calling

Beth Moore Recommends Jesus Calling Book Claiming Direct Divine Revelation

Jesus Calling By Sarah Young: W.U.I. (Writing Under the Influence)

Warning About Popular Jesus Calling Book

Tim Challies Reviews Jesus Calling


False Teachings About Hearing Audible Words From God Taking Even Deeper Root in Today's Church

Bestseller Experiencing God Misleading Christians With "Soft" Mysticism?

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Jesus Calling By Sarah Young: W.U.I. (Writing Under the Influence)

A Commentary by Marcia Montenegro (Christian Answers For The New Age)
The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb.” Psalm 19: 8, 10
Jesus Calling by Sarah Young, and other similar books by her, have multiplied themselves into a publishing empire with offerings of Jesus Calling books for teens and for children, calendars, special editions, accompanying journals, a Jesus Calling Bible Storybook, and even a Jesus Calling Devotional Bible.

This is not a conventional review of the book or her story, nor is the purpose to analyze the whole content. Although several troubling areas are addressed, this paper is a response primarily to two issues:

1) The claims made by Young regarding what she wrote and the alleged words spoken to her by Jesus; and 

2) Young’s admission that a primary influence on her was the book, God Calling, by “Two Listeners.” Due to Young’s admiration for and admitted inspiration from this latter book, it will also be examined.

 EARLY RED FLAGS 

God’s Word – Enough Nourishment?
Jesus Calling offers daily devotions composed of words as though spoken by Jesus, with accompanying citation of verses. Before looking at the content, it is crucial to examine what claims Young is making about the source of these words: why she wrote this and how she wrote it.

In the introduction to her first book, Jesus Calling, Young writes, “I knew that God communicated with me in the Bible, but I yearned for more.”i Why would God’s word be seen as insufficient in delivering the spiritual nourishment God Himself claims it offers?

Contrast Young’s yearning “for more” with how the Bible portrays God’s word. In response to one of Satan’s temptations, we have Jesus quoting Deut. 8:3:

But He answered, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."

In First Peter, we read, As newborn babes, long for the guileless milk of the word in order that by it you may grow unto salvation” (1 Pet 2:2; also see 1 Cor. 3:2, Heb.5:14). Paul exhorted Timothy to be nourished with the words of the faith and of the good teaching which you have closely followed” (1 Tim 4:6).

Going back to the Old Testament, we see God’s words likened to food:

When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart's delight. Jeremiah 15:16a.

How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Ps. 119:103

Then he said to me, "Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it." So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth. Ezekiel 3:3 (see also Rev. 10:9, 10)

One of the Bible’s themes is the power of God’s word to comfort, exhort, encourage, and nourish those who have believed. One can never come to an end of studying or knowing the Bible because, reflecting God’s nature, his word is infinitely profound and wise.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; see also Ps. 19:8;10; Matt. 22:29; John 10:35; Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12; 2 Pet. 1:19-21).

If someone is not satisfied with God’s word as the way to grow closer to Christ and to grow as a Christian, that opens the door for extra-biblical avenues of deception. While it is true that prayer, fellowship with other Christians, and worship are necessary for maturing in the Christian life, these are additional and different venues, never substitutes for God’s word. Dissatisfaction with God’s word from a professing Christian should be a warning, and it did indeed lead Young into an avenue of communication fraught with spiritual peril.

 Hearing Jesus or Channeling Jesus? 

Following the pattern in God Calling, and seeking something beyond Scripture, Young decided “to listen to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever I believed He was saying.”ii She determined that this message was “short, biblical, and appropriate,” so she wrote it in her journal.iii Declaring that her journaling “had changed from monologue to dialogue,” she writes that “messages began to flow more freely” and she bought a special notebook in which to record these words.iv

Aware that she might be charged with equating these messages with the Bible, she notes, “I knew that these writings were not inspired as Scripture is.”v One is compelled to ask, why not? Are these words from Jesus or not? (Young uses the term “God” but the book titles use the word “Jesus” and the messages are made to sound like they are from Jesus). In her book, Dear Jesus, she claims she wrote

[I]n the same listening-to-God mode that I used with Jesus Calling. I’ve continued to write with the help of Christs’s Spirit, who guides my thinking while I listen in His Presence. I believe the Bible is the only infallible Word of God. My writings are based on that absolute standard, and I try to ensure they are consistent with Scripture.vi

Young is blatantly asserting that the Holy Spirit is “helping” her and guiding her thinking in writing these messages from Jesus. So why does she need to “ensure they are consistent with Scripture?” If the writings need to be checked, why does she think it is Jesus who is speaking, and if there is doubt, why record the words, especially in books to sell? Moreover, if they are from Jesus, which is how they are presented, then, by definition, they are inspired.

You can’t have it both ways or halfway or every which-way, saying these words are from Jesus but need to be checked; they are from Jesus but are not inspired; or the messages are written with Holy Spirit guidance but not on a par with Scripture. Does Young not see the incredible claims being made and the resulting insoluble contradictory problem? Apparently not.

As someone formerly involved in the New Age, I am bound to say that listening for a message from a supernatural being in order to write down words heard from or dictated by this being is a form of automatic writing, an occult practice. There is no other fitting term for this. If Young had confined this method to herself, it would be a matter between her and God. However, marketing these messages, which are written as though spoken by Jesus, places the book(s) in a public forum, and obligates Christians to examine Young’s claims and the purported messages from Jesus.

Another major red flag is Young’s positive acknowledgement of the book God Calling, which she asserts became a “treasure” to her. Writing about the two women who authored this work, Young states, “These women practiced waiting quietly in God’s Presence, pencils and papers in hand, recording the messages they received from Him.”vii Young’s fondness for this book and use of it as inspiration for her communication mode with God is deeply disconcerting when one examines the history, method, and content of this “treasure.”

 GOD CALLING: A CALL FOR DISCERNMENT 

 The Two Listeners 

I first encountered God Calling as a very new believer while browsing in a Christian bookstore. Curious, I picked it up and saw it was a devotional for each day of the year. Reading through several of these, I was alarmed at some of the concepts and ideas because many were reminiscent of New Age views. Although at that point I did not know the Bible very well, I recognized statements I knew were not compatible with what I had read in the Bible and knew of God. I almost went to the clerk about my concerns, but being such a new Christian, I was not confident enough to say anything.

The daily devotions in God Calling, written as though God/Jesus is speaking, came about in 1932 when two anonymous women decided to sit down with pencils and paper and wait to hear words from God.viii The claim is made in the foreword by editor A. J. Russell that these two women received messages “from the Living Christ Himself.”ix

One listener, writing in the introduction, declares how grateful they were to receive this direct communication “when millions of souls, far worthier, had to be content with guidance from the Bible, sermons, their churches, books, and other sources.”x Here again, as with Young, is the dissatisfaction with God’s word and the normal channels of guidance for a Christian. The listener states that this book “is no ordinary book,” thereby claiming a special status for it. In fact, the Jesus of this book affirms it in the May 15 reading:

You are very privileged, both of you. I share My plans and secrets with you and make known to you My Purposes, while so many have to grope on.

So the rest of the Christian world is left to “grope on” with the implied paucity of God’s revelation in the Bible? This is alarming.

 Roots of “Listening” 

Andrew James Russell, editor of God Calling, became a follower of Dr. Frank Buchman, who founded the Oxford Group, first started under another name in 1921, but taking the name of Oxford Group in 1931.xi Meeting in groups, this movement emphasized fellowship and receiving direct guidance from God.xii

Russell writes that “I learned that it was a practice of the Group to keep a guidance-book and record in it those thoughts which came in periods of quiet listening to God,” and

The Guidance must come in all those who surrender to God’s will. As Ken Twitchell announced the Quiet Time the undergraduates fumbled for pencils and guidance-books and began to “listen in” to God. This was not simple meditation, which may be concentration on some aspect of Christ or the Gospel, but something more.xiii

Although Russell writes that criteria were used to measure this “guidance,” some of the criteria were quite subjective. Continually seeking guidance in this fashion, which is no different from automatic writing, is opening the door to false doctrine.

Apparently, the “two listeners” were followers of this method and undoubtedly part of the Oxford Group. So it is not surprising that so many unbiblical statements are made. For example, one that is repeated a few times and is one of the most egregious is this:

Truly I said to My Disciples, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." But to you, and the twos who gather to hear Me as you do, I can declare those things now, that then I left unsaid. (April 14)

This statement is being used as though Jesus was referring to people later on, like the two listeners and others, who would receive further revelation. However, Jesus is not saying that. Jesus is speaking to his disciples and makes it clear in the next verse what this means:

I still have many things to tell you, but you can't bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak whatever He hears. He will also declare to you what is to come. John 16: 12, 13

This was referring to when the disciples would receive the indwelling Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the further teachings through Scripture.xiv To turn this into an endorsement of listening and writing down what one senses coming from God is mangling the text. This is the type of Scripture twisting done by cults. Other examples of Scripture twisting pepper the book.xv

 New Thought Philosophy 

I noted New Thought concepts embedded in God Calling, although I did not find anything online that critiques the book from this viewpoint. This explains why the book struck me as New Age when I first looked through it.

New Thought, a movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, claimed to be Christianity but actually taught that all men are innately divine, Jesus was just another man who realized this, and that the way to true wisdom was to realize this truth and change one’s perceptions. Man is naturally connected to God, and by affirming these new truths, one’s thinking is changed, thereby bringing one’s spiritual status (consciousness) to an alleged “higher level.”xvi While referring to Jesus and acknowledging the biblical story, New Thought imbues the biblical text with entirely different meanings. The New Age adopted the core of New Thought as yet another facet of its massive corpus and so the two often overlap.

Terms noticed in entries for (but not limited to) Feb. 27, March 10 and 13, June 19, July 29, Aug. 18, and Nov. 17 include “material manifestation,” “Spirit-life,” “Spirit-communication,” “Spirit-Kingdom,” “the material plane,” “Sprit Sounds,” “spirit understanding,” and “Spirit-world.” This language is used in New Thought and the New Age, denoting a Gnostic-based spirit-material duality. Even taking into account when this book was written, these terms are not Christian and never have been, and some are used in Spiritualism (although one reading ironically condemns Spiritualism).xvii

At least one blatant Spiritualist reading is found:

How often mortals rush to earthly friends who can serve them in so limited a way, when the friends who are freed from the limitations of humanity can serve them so much better, understand better, protect better, plan better, and even plead better their cause with Me.xviii

The “friends freed from the limitation of humanity” are the dead. This piercing glint of Spiritualism is further suggestion of New Thought influence, since the two were so intertwined at the time.

The God Calling God is a servant to men, a tool for manifesting their joy and happiness, as it is in New Thought. The April 3rd devotion has God saying, “I, who could command a universe – I await the commands of my children.” This idea is also in the Jan. 28 piece.

For March 16, God declares,

I am actually at the center of every man’s being, but distracted with the things of the sense-life, he finds Me not.

This concept, emphasizing the innate divinity of man as well as the spirit-material duality, is New Thought. It is more apparent in the Jan.20 entry:

If you realize your high privilege, you have only to think and immediately the object of your thought is called into being.

and similarly,

To dwell in thought on the material, when once you live in Me – is to call it into being.”

In other words, once your mind is turned onto the New Thought wavelength, which is awareness of one’s divine nature, you can manifest into reality that which you are thinking. This is exactly the same message given by the bestselling book and DVD, The Secret.xix This popular work teaches that one can produce what one thinks through certain techniques and is derived directly from New Thought teachings. (Many early New Thought teachers are quoted, and author Rhonda Byrne crafted this work as a result of reading New Thought teacher Wallace Wattles.)

Furthermore, this New Thought ability to manifest applies to “the spiritual plane” as well, so one must take care in how one thinks. This is the concept that gave rise to the “positive thinking” craze (“spiritual plane” is an authentic Spiritualist and New Thought term):

So you must be careful only to think of and desire that which will help, not hinder, your spiritual growth. The same law operates too on the spiritual plane.

New Thought terms for God, such as “Divine Mind” (used more than once; this is a term used in Christian Science for God), “Divine Force,” “Divine Voice,” and “Divine Spirit” are found throughout the book, including Jan. 31, Feb. 9, Feb. 15, Aug. 17, Sept. 29, Dec. 18 and elsewhere. “Divine alchemy” is found in the Sept. 5 entry – would Jesus even use such a word, which describes a form of sorcery? The Feb. 9th reading is brief and has a striking New Thought ring:

The Divine Voice is not always expressed in words. It is made known as a heart-consciousness.

Most chillingly, an unsound view of the atonement is found in the Jan. 14 devotion:

When I died on the Cross, I died embodying all the human self……As you too kill self, you gain the overwhelming power I released for a wearying world….it is not life and its difficulties you have to conquer, only the self in you.

The self in New Thought is the false self springing from the false perception that man is separate from God. The New Thought Jesus came and died so that this false perception could be destroyed, enabling man to have the correct perception of his True Self, which is divine. Salvation comes not from faith in Christ, but as you “kill self,” the false self. Note that this Jesus says his death “released” a power. This is a New Thought metaphysical view of Jesus’ death, which released a power (similar to Agnes Sanford’s belief, who exhibited New Thought thinking throughout her life).xx

An odd command (though not odd for New Thought) is given for Sept. 5 in words reminiscent of New Age bestseller Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch:
Higher, ever higher, rise to Life and Beauty, Knowledge and Power. Higher and higher.
A. J. Russell was deeply involved with the Oxford Group at a time when New Thought influence was strong. What I read in the book, in my view, echoes New Thought beliefs in the tone, language, and ideas.

 FROM GOD CALLING TO JESUS CALLING 

There is much more material that indicts God Calling, but enough has been given to make a point. The point is that since this book inspired Young and gave Young her method of “hearing” from Jesus, and because Young considers this book to be such a “treasure,” then Young’s discernment must be questioned. She used the same method and model for her other books.

The content of Jesus Calling is almost numbingly repetitive, boring even. The term “My Presence” saturates almost every page. “Jesus” also says some strange things, like this:

Ask Me to open your eyes so that you can find me everywhere…[…]...this is not some sort of escape from reality; it is tuning into the ultimate reality. I am far more Real than the world you can see, hear and touch. (July 18)

If Jesus is real, does he need to be “more Real?” Is there such a thing as “more Real?” Does He need to be the “ultimate reality?” Is not being the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Lamb slain for our sins enough?

Elsewhere, Jesus says, according to Young:

Your part is to be attentive to my messages, in whatever form they come. When you set out to find Me in a day, you discover that the world is vibrantly alive with My Presence. You can find Me not only in beauty and birdcalls, but also in tragedy and faces filled with grief. (July 25)

What “messages” are meant here, and what kind of “form” might they take? “Whatever form” raises troubling questions: does Jesus give messages in multiple venues that we need to watch for and then figure out somehow? More crucially, how do we know the messages are from Jesus?

The other part is similar to panentheism – finding Jesus as part of creation. I do not find Jesus in birdcalls or in tragedy. Beauty may point one to Jesus and tragedy may cause one to turn to Him, but He is not in those things.xxi

There are numerous passages where Young’s Jesus tells the reader to go within to hear and know Jesus, such as:

I am central to your innermost being. Your mind goes off in tangents from its holy Center from time to time….the quickest way to redirect your mind to me is to whisper My Name. (Aug. 25)

The above is similar to Eastern meditation concepts, especially the “holy Center” comment. This is not a biblical concept. Equally alarmingly we read:

Let Me control your mind. The mind is the most restless, unruly part of mankind..[…]…I risked all by granting you freedom to think for yourself. (April 21)

Downgrading thinking and the mind is a tactic of the New Age and Eastern spiritualities, about which I steadily warn. While it is true we can think evil thoughts and it is true our minds can lead us astray, this statement goes further than anything in Scripture. Our mind and ability to think, unlike animals, is part of how we are made in the image of God. Moreover, many scriptural passages exhort people to think and reason.

And does God/Jesus ever take a risk? This would imply that God does not know the future and/or has no control over things. To risk is to take action without being sure of the results. This stunningly leads to the conclusion that God is not omniscient.

The term “high road” is used at least three times (Jan. 18, Jan. 27, June 16). This is a curious phrase since it has many secular meanings but no real biblical one.

Dare to walk on the high road with Me, for it is the most direct route to heaven. The low road is circuitous: twisting and turning in agonizing knots. (Jan. 27)

The point is to trust, but how is trust (assuming that this is what the “high road” refers to) the “most direct route to heaven?” Even if a Christian is on the “low road,” will she not get to heaven as well? If a road is the “most direct,” it means there are other roads to heaven that are less direct. This ambiguous term and rather confusing statement is not an idea found in scripture.

There is an excessive focus on silence and stillness found in so many readings that it would be impossible to list them all, implying that these are superior spiritual practices. As in numerous other texts, sermons, and online websites, Psalm 46:10 is misused. Psalm 46:10, translated as “Be still” in some versions is “Cease striving” in the New American Standard, and is actually a rebuke to the nations fighting against God’s people. When read in context, it is quite clear that this has nothing to do with being physically still in order to meditate or contemplate.xxii

 THE QUESTION 

The most important question to ask about this book is: Is this Jesus speaking, as Young claims it is? Aside from the troubling issues mentioned, a few more are worth considering.

Many of the entries resemble bad greeting card messages with sappy language. For instance, “Let the dew of My Presence refresh your mind and heart” (Sept. 3; this one also misuses the “Be still” words); “Feel you face tingle as you bask in My Love-Light” (Sept. 7); and “Like a luminous veil of light, I hover over you and everything around you” (Dec. 3). Considering who Jesus is and the rich language of Scripture, why would He use such maudlin phrases?

In other places, Young’s Jesus displays a martyr complex with a sly tone of self-admiration. “Imagine,” He says, speaking of Himself, “the self-control required of a martyr who could free Himself at will!” (Dec. 20). For Dec. 25, this Jesus says,

I accepted the limitations of infancy under the most appalling conditions --- a filthy stable. That was a dark night for Me.

These statements do not reflect the character of Christ; Christ does not seek our sympathy or thanks via self-pitying remarks.

Despite the verses listed at the end of each day’s devotion, the words do not sound like the Jesus of the Bible. Those who promote this book will say that Young is not maintaining these words are from Jesus, but as I demonstrated earlier, she is indeed doing this very thing. There is no other reasonable way to interpret her claims. And when one reads each entry written so unmistakably as though Jesus is speaking, how else is one to take it? At the very least, it is misleading and puts words in people’s heads that some may come to believe are from Jesus.

My answer to the question is: No, this is not Jesus who is “calling.”

 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND RESEARCH 
(Does not imply an endorsement of nor agreement with websites listed)

Excellentarticle by Edmond C. Gruss on God Calling, A. J. Russell, and the Oxford Group/Moral Re-Armament


Chapter on Frank Buchman, founder of The Oxford Group, who found a devoted follower in A. J. Russell, from book The Religious Roots of Alcoholics Anonymous and the Twelve Steps by A. Orange

More information on the Oxford Group’s teachings, such as:

“In one sense Buchman did not care what a person believed, except for atheism, as long as he listened to God, aimed at adherence to moral standards, and thought his work was a good thing. The movement has always been quite sincere in asking people to believe more intensely in whatever religious convictions they already have and to be more faithful in whatever religious duties their own traditions urged…” (online source




i Sarah Young, Jesus Calling (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), XI.

ii Ibid., XII

iii Ibid.

iv Ibid.

v Ibid.

vi Quote from “Is Deception Calling?” (Steak and A Bible)

vii Ibid., XI.

viii God Calling, ed. A. J. Russell (Eversham, UK: Arthur James Ltd., 1989), “The Voice Divine” in Introduction (this edition has no page numbers).

ix Ibid., “The Two Listeners.”

x Ibid, “The Voice Divine.”

xii There are other serious problems with the teachings of the Oxford Group, which developed in 1938 into Moral Re-Armament (MRA), considered by some to be a cult; however, that is outside the scope of this article. See Resources for further information.

xv For more examples and an analysis of this book, see Edmond C. Gruss, “God Calling,” Christian Research Journal

xvii New Thought was heavily influenced by Spiritualism and many New Thought teachers openly spoke of communication with the “spirit world” (the dead). So although one of the entries denounces Spiritualism, that does not mean there is no influence from it.

xviii This quote, which I could not find in my copy, is cited by Edmond C. Gruss in his article “God Calling,” Christian Research Journal

xx See CANA article on Emmet Fox and Agnes Sanford (Emmet Fox and Agnes Sanford: Two Dangerous)

xxi See CANA article on Ann Voskamp’s book, One Thousand Gifts, (One Thousand Gifts, A Commentary)

xxii See CANA article on Ps. 46:10 (Meditation and Psalm 46:10)

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Nancy Leigh DeMoss Endorsing Chalk Circles? Mercy.

Posted by Christine Pack

I have never bothered to address the problems with the book The Circle Maker, because the whole concept of "circle making" was simply so patently pagan and ridiculous on the face of it that I assumed it would be obvious to any Christian how unbiblical this book was.  When Christian apologist Chris Rosebrough and Pastor Tim Challies both thoroughly exposed the theological issues with the book (links below), I continued to assume this was a "no-brainer" for most Christians. Sadly however, I am getting more and more emails from people saying that their church leaders are recommending The Circle Maker, doing a Bible study with it, passing it out, etc. So just in case you have not heard about this book, let me try to fill in the gaps: The Circle Maker is a book authored by Pastor Mark Batterson (Wash DC), in which Batterson teaches that we should literally draw circles (with chalk as the suggested implement) around our dreams and pray them into completion. From the Amazon website:
"According to Pastor Mark Batterson in his book, The Circle Maker, 'Drawing prayer circles around our dreams isn't just a mechanism whereby we accomplish great things for God. It's a mechanism whereby God accomplishes great things in us.' Do you ever sense that there's far more to prayer, and to God's vision for your life, than what you're experiencing? It's time you learned from the legend of Honi the Circle Maker---a man bold enough to draw a circle in the sand and not budge from inside it until God answered his prayers for his people. What impossibly big dream is God calling you to draw a prayer circle around? Sharing inspiring stories from his own experiences as a circle maker, Mark Batterson will help you uncover your heart's deepest desires and God-given dreams and unleash them through the kind of audacious prayer that God delights to answer."
Well, as a former pagan, I'm just telling all of you right now, if someone comes into my church and starts getting out the chalk and talking about drawing circles around things, I am not walking, I am RUNNING for the door. And yes, I know the argument is probably something along the lines of, Well this helps me underscore my prayers to God. My response: Really? And this is where, exactly, in Scripture? And why should a Christian feel the need for a ritual? Why can't we just pray, simply, with the faith of a child? My friends, spiritual rituals are for pagans, not Christians.

Still unconvinced? How about this example straight from Scripture of a pagan spiritual ritual given a glossy biblical veneer: the incident of the golden calf whereby Aaron, who was leading the congregation into sin, made a verbal profession that this would be "a festival unto the Lord." In other words, he was attempting to Christianize his golden calf by claiming that he would be offering it up to the God of Israel. But then, as now, one's verbal profession or intention is not some sort of magical protection: when we do pagan things, we are in sin, and God is not pleased.
"Aaron answered them, 'Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.' So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, 'These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, 'Tomorrow there will be a festival unto the Lord.'" (Exo 32:2-5, my emphasis)
All right, Sola Sister, I hear some of you saying. You are preaching to the choir here. This is not happening in our circles. Oh really? Then I present Exhibit A for your consideration:



Yes, that is the theologically buttoned up Nancy Leigh DeMoss, host of the Revive Our Hearts radio ministry, in the above screenshot (which can be clicked on for better reading), and who must surely be counted among those who should know better than to endorse such pagan nonsense. Yet here is her quote in full, from her article, Draw A Circle:
"It's a challenge Life Action has issued repeatedly to men, women, teens, and even children. It's a simple expression of a heart prepared for God's work—and no matter how many times it's done, it keeps illustrating something critical about the revival we are praying and pleading for God to send. It involves a simple piece of chalk. This piece of chalk represents a turning point, a moment of surrender, a change of heart. It marks the difference between those who would pray, 'Lord, change them' and those with the humility to plead, 'Lord, change me!' It is a piece of chalk with which we kneel and draw a circle around ourselves and then look to heaven expectantly and pray, 'Lord God, send revival, and begin it right here in this circle!'" (online source)
In addition to the above article, Nancy Leigh DeMoss also spoke at a True Woman Conference in September 2012, and according to an article on the True Woman website, chalk circles were drawn throughout the conference room, and participants of the conference were encouraged to utilize these circles for prayer. And as a clever little marketing tie-in, the participants were sent home after the conference with little goody bags containing, that's right, chalk, so that they could all go home and perform their own pagan rituals, umm, prayer circles.

So if we are not meant to draw chalk circles around our big dreamy dreams and then ask God to rubberstamp our desires, how then are we to pray? Jesus taught us plainly in Matthew 6 that there is no ritual involved in prayer: we are simply to go to the Lord, and speak to Him plainly:
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” (Matthew 6:5-13)
My brothers and sisters, Nancy Leigh DeMoss's unexpected endorsement of the pagan ritual of circle making is simply more evidence that, just as in Moses' time, human hearts crave tangibility and ritual. And yet, we are meant to be a people who walk by faith, and not by sight.
"So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." (2 Cor 4:18) 
"For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Cor 5:7) 
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)
Let this serve as a cautionary tale for us: no matter one's pedigree or theology, any of us can be deceived and go astray. May we pray for ourselves and for each other that God might keep us pure and unpolluted from the increasing mysticism we find around us, not only in the culture at large but sadly, in the church as well.


 Additional Resources 

Chris Rosebrough Reviews The Circle Maker - Part 1 and Part 2

Comparing Chalk Circles to God's Word (Stand Up For the Truth)

The Lure of Paganism - Part 1 and Part 2 (Bob DeWaay, Critical Issues Commentary Radio Broadcast)

The Book of Hebrews: Our Firewall Against Paganism and The Desire For Tangibility (CIC Radio)

Tim Challies Reviews The Circle Maker

True Woman: We're In A State of Spiritual Emergency! (True Woman Conference article endorsing chalk circles)

More True Woman Conference Chalk Circles

Draw A Circle (Nancy Leigh DeMoss)

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Catholics, Physical Suffering and Doctrines of Demons

Posted by Christine Pack
"(Mother Teresa) was 'anything but a saint,' the Canadian study authors found.......In fact, she found beauty in watching people suffer, the authors say." (Washington Times article)
"Pope John Paul II used to beat himself with a belt and sleep on a bare floor to bring himself closer to Christ, a book published (in 2010) says." (CNN article
Mother Teresa
There is a commonly held view today among both Christians and the secular that the well known Roman Catholic nun Mother Teresa was good and loving, and that she devoted her life's energies to alleviating the suffering of others. This view has been summed up in the oft repeated response that Christians sometimes encounter from unbelievers when they are being pressed about goodness, morality, and one's standing before God. The response, from the lost person whose conscience has been pricked, goes something like this: "Hey, I'm no Mother Teresa but I'm no Hitler either." In that statement, one can see that Hitler has been cast in the role of a person universally regarded and known to embody evil, while Mother Teresa is the antithesis to that: the universal embodiment of goodness.

But is this the reality about Mother Teresa? Was she the essence of goodness and selfless giving of herself to those who were suffering?

 Christian View of Suffering 

First, let's discuss the biblical view of suffering as compared to the Catholic view of suffering. The biblical understanding of suffering is that God allows and uses suffering of every kind (physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual) to sanctify believers and conform them more and more to the image of Christ, and that in the midst of these trials, Christians can entrust themselves to God's wisdom, goodness, comfort, and eternal purposes.

There are many, many Bible passages that speak to this, but here are just a few:
"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Rom 8:28-29) 
"Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." (Rom 5:3-5) 
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4) 
"But He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest on me. That is why, for the sake of Christ, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Cor 12:9-10)
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: 'For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.' No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 8:35-39) 
"I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength." (Phil 4:12-13) 
"Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings." (1 Peter 5:8-9) 
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble." (2 Cor 1:3-4) 
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me." (Psalm 23:4) 
"Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.' So we can confidently say, 'The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?'" (Heb 13:5-6)
(And of course.... the entire book of Job.)
So that is the Christian view of suffering: God providentially allows suffering, and uses it to sanctify us, to conform us to the image of Christ, to teach us perseverance, to grow us in compassion, and to cause us to love Him more, and learn to entrust ourselves to Him more and more. These are wonderful promises and blessings that the believer can hold fast to in trials.

 Catholic View of Suffering 

So what is the Catholic view of physical suffering? Roman Catholics sometimes go beyond the biblical concept of entrusting themselves into God's sovereign care during physical suffering, to the point of (1) actually inflicting physical pain upon themselves (as documented in this CNN article about Pope John Paul II) or (2) through not alleviating the physical suffering of others in their care (as documented about Mother Teresa in this recent article). From the French study that raised concerns about how Mother Teresa cared for those in her missions:
"At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries. The missions have been described as 'homes for the dying' by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta. Two-thirds of the people coming to these missions hoped to a find a doctor to treat them, while the other third lay dying without receiving appropriate care. The doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers. The problem is not a lack of money--the Foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundreds of millions of dollars--but rather a particular conception of suffering and death: 'There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,' was her reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens. Nevertheless, when Mother Teresa required palliative care, she received it in a modern American hospital."
Many Catholic monks (and some devout layperson Catholics) follow in Mother Teresa's view of intentional-physical-suffering-brings-holiness, and self flagellate (i.e., cause physical harm to themselves on purpose), fast for days on end, sleep in the freezing cold exposed to the elements, wear painful metal implements attached to their own bodies that inflict physical pain, etc. They do this under the delusion that purposefully bringing about physical pain will bring them more holiness, and bring them closer to God, in much the same way that they believe the elements of the Catholic Mass give them little injections of holiness every time they partake.

Is this not the essence of demonic deception? I can imagine Satan laughing in glee at this wicked deception he's gotten people to buy into that causes them to create physical torment in themselves or refuse to alleviate it in others. After all, we must remember that Satan hates all humans because we are made in the image of God, and is like a roaring lion, prowling the earth seeking whom he can devour (1 Peter 5:8).
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons." (1 Tim 4:1)
This is probably hard for most Christians to comprehend, but please, if you have Catholic friends or neighbors in your life that you care about, take some time to familiarize yourself with some of their beliefs, and what Paul called "doctrines of demons" (1 Tim 4:1). Catholics need the life giving truth of the gospel, the true gospel, and to understand that there is nothing they can add to Christ's finished work on the Cross.

photo credit: TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ via photopin cc


 Additional Resources 

French Study Claims Mother Teresa Wasn't So Saintly (Washington Times)

Book: Pope John Paul II Self-Flagellated to Get Closer to Jesus (CNN)

Rick Warren Endorses "Catholics Come Home" Campaign (Sola Sisters)

Catholicism Is Not Just Another Christian Denomination (Sola Sisters)

Why the Reformation Was Important (Sola Sisters)

After The Darkness, Light (Post Tenebras Lux) (Sola Sisters)

A Chart With Christian/Catholic Views Side-By-Side (Berean Beacon)

Testimony of a Former Roman Catholic Priest....From Darkness to Light
 (Berean Beacon)

Far From Rome Near To God (Amazon)

On The "Faith" of Mother Teresa: John Ortberg Strikes Out (Sola Sisters)

The Myth of Mother Teresa
 (Challies)

Mother Teresa in Her Own Words (Sola Sisters)

CNN Reports That Mother Teresa Underwent Exorcism (CNN Archives)

BBC Reports About Exorcism Performed on Mother Teresa (BBC Archives)


 Refuting ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) 

In this very important work, several Protestant pastors got together and presented a biblical response to the ECT document calling into question its purpose, which is that Christians and Catholics can go forth together in a united front to evangelize the lost. Obviously, given this, purpose, we can understand that the presupposition in the ECT document is that Christians and Catholics are both true believers, and both have a life-giving message to take to the lost. But the pastors who gave a rebuttal to ECT explain why the 2 camps cannot join forces together, and that, while Christians and Catholics share some common ground and terminology, they have fundamental, core and foundational differences in several significant areas, chiefly in their soteriological views (i.e., how it is that man is saved). And that's the hinge that swings the whole door of salvation.

The response to the ECT document was broken out into 6 parts entitled "Irreconcilable Differences." There are transcripts of the response, as well as 2 audio teaching sessions.

Parts 1-3 (approximately 1 hour in length)

Parts 4-6 (also approximately 1 hour in length)