MISTAKE '08: What will we do now?

(originator of this graphic unknown - apologies)

All movements, when their demographic is graphically displayed, fit a bell shaped curve few are normally distributed ... that is, they're always skewed one way or the other.

Any movement organized to correct Mistake '08 must recognize the very elements which precipitated the mistake will be present in the new organization - i.e., elements from the movement's left and elements from the movement's right relative to the group's core philosophy.

Display their data graphically and the curve will lean in the direction which predominates.

I challenge you to name one political, social or cultural movement on the right which, once it moved left, was ever able to return to its original core principles, other than the Christian Church.

I also challenge you to name one movement on the left which ever moved strategically to the right.

A couple of decades ago, a portion of the conservative movement in American (aka - social conservatives or compassionate conservatives) moved to the left in order to appease liberal complaints that conservatives were too strident, too shrill, too racist, too authoritarian, and too fascist [pdf].

They believed a preemptive and voluntary move to the left would prompt the left to respond with an equal lean to the right. Wrong!

What the conservative right does not understand is that, for the left, moving right is contrary to their core philosophy, as moving to the left ought to be for a true conservative.

Thus, the lesson to be gleaned from Mistake '08 for true conservatives is gleaned from their ability to fixate on their core philosophy ... even to the point of deceit and duplicity in order to maintain that focus ... even to the point of lying to new recruits.

Immediately a weakness is revealed: it is contrary to the core philosophy of a true conservative to allow ends to justify means ... the liberal-left has no such qualms.

Therefore, conservatives can't and won't reverse Mistake '08 until they learn to focus on their historic core philosophy to the exclusion of the whining of their own leftists and the table pounding of their own extremists on the right, all while maintaining personal and corporate integrity. Ouch!

And, IMO, religious leaders need to be excluded or marginalized; simply because they're predisposed to polarization and can't help but skew the curve to the right.

Bell curve, Conservatism, Election 2012,
Post-election 2008, Leftists, Liberalism,
Mistake '08, Movements, Politics, Religion

| | | |

PENTACOSTALISM: Good intentions; labored results!

J. Lee Grady writes Charisma Magazine's excellent and informative column, "Fire In My Bones"; his 8 January piece is entitled "Eight Prophetic Directives for 2008." Not his best work.

The article is basically a report on the "Charismatic Leadership Summit"; CLS was a two day gathering of the 61 shakers and movers of the movement. What follows is an analysis of the article's content.

The past few years have confronted our Spirit-filled brethren with one embarrassment after the other; these embarrassments are "alluded" to in the piece. In general we should be pleased they devoted most of the two days to the problems which manifested themselves during 2007. But they go back much farther.

But, if Grady's wording is indicative of the meeting itself, we shouldn't expect a change to take place anytime soon. He opens with this phrase, "2007 was a difficult year." Wow, now that is an understatement.

I could think of several words more descriptive of that disastrous year ... see here, here, and here for example. On a similar note - the article's title is not some of the magazine's best word-smithing; Grady's eight offerings provided are hardly prophetic (there is little genuinely prophetic voice in them) or directive (in the sense of ultimatums). What is more final than a truly prophetic word.

On a personal level, I was offended when the author reported this august group of believers knelt in prayer before our God Most High ...

"on the first night and repented of the pride that has tainted the American church."

Excuse me, but the body of believers I shepherd and the denomination I call home have not participated in any of the embarrassments alluded to; nor have many other well-disciplined members of "the American church" ... these have been almost wholly the purview of our Pentecostal brethren (except perhaps Lonnie Latham and Catholicism's gay priesthood).

Let me add this: if Grady meant "the American [Pentecostal/Charismatic] church" rather than the American church in general, I retract my criticism and apologize (however, a good editor should have captured that faux pas).

Also, I suspect "the holy hush" my brother mentions was more a moment of corporate conviction and shame, rather than a movement of God's Spirit ... but this is not a hill I want to die on!

The two days included ...

three sessions that focused on these questions: (1) Where is the charismatic movement headed? (2) Is the charismatic movement healthy? and (3) Is the charismatic movement making a difference?

I wonder if any of the many faithful readers of Charisma will notice the CLS's failure to answer well even one of these questions as reported by Charisma?

The following are some random thoughts on the magazine's "directives" (bold emphasis via The CRIB) ...

1. We must have personal revival. Marcus Lamb ... fought back tears as he lamented how far leaders have fallen in this day of Christian superstar scandals. “When was the last time we fasted?” he asked. “When was the last time we studied the Word just to hear from God?” Lamb believes “an alarm was sounded in 2007” that is calling each of us back to the simplicity of devotion to Jesus.

Amen! This opening salvo is one of a couple of worthwhile contributions; the following is another.

2. We must embrace humility. This was the overarching theme of the Orlando event. Robert Morris ... said we must “go overboard in humility” by being genuine, touchable and accessible. Naomi Dowdy ... noted that too many leaders today are enamored with their image or their frequent flyer status. ... .

I thought the "overarching theme" was to deal with the three questions listed above? Overall a good contribution, and one that seems to answer the three questions in this way - 1.) the movement is going in the wrong direction! 2.) No, we are not healthy! and 3.) Only in the most negative sense!

3. We are experiencing gracious judgment. Many leaders alluded to recent theological and moral scandals involving charismatic ministers. ... .

Forgive me if I seem harsh, but a meeting of this kind should be naming names and specifically labeling "scandals," so that they are held up in the light for all to acknowledge, not allude to.

4. We must balance the prosperity message. Although not everyone in the room was in agreement about the recent U.S. Senate investigation of six charismatic ministers, many called for restraint and a new attitude toward money. Several leaders, including Hispanic apostle Héctor Torres, emphasized that God is calling us to a higher standard of ethics, integrity and corporate governance. A prophetic warning was also issued: Leaders should either adopt a policy of “full disclosure” in the financial area, or they can expect “full exposure” of financial misdeeds.

Neither am I, but if my Pentecostal/Charismatic brethren would just publicly investigate their own, guys like Grassly wouldn't be tempted to call them out!

Robert Morris used the term “hyper-prosperity” to describe a theology that emphasizes wealth and personal blessing. He urged leaders to teach people “to give extravagantly, not expecting anything in return” instead of suggesting that people should “give to get.” Revivalist Rodney Howard-Browne bluntly suggested that the prosperity movement has “gone off the tracks.” ... .

Ha-ha-ha! Again, forgive me for my harshness, but this Rodney is part of the problem not part of the solution and you guys should reveal him for what he is ... a wolf in sheep's clothing, etc. [Toronto blessing, holy laughter, gold fillings, falling gold dust; good grief he shouldn't have even been there]

5. It’s time to get back to evangelism. The phrase “get back to the basics” was repeated numerous times over the course of our 24-hour session. ... .

I am intentionally avoiding the issue of women in the pulpit.

Other leaders ... cautioned against an inordinate emphasis on manifestations of the Holy Spirit. “We must get back to the core doctrines of the Bible, and test all things,” said prophetic minister Cindy Jacobs of Dallas, noting that our focus must not be on manifestations but on souls.

Define "inordinate" for me, please! How can anything truly associated with the Holy Spirit be inordinate? What you mean, then, is this: a false emphasis on the manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding Cindy's comment, I would ask: you mean like the rest of us have been trying to do for decades?

Rice Broocks, pastor of Bethel World Outreach Center in Nashville Tenn., said he believes our mandate for 2008 is simple: “Don’t get cute. Don’t get fancy. Go and make disciples.” He urged leaders to stop majoring in minors when evangelism has been neglected. ... .

Cute? Fancy? You mean like the name of your "church"? Now that's cute and fancy!

Notice the name is in blue and emboldened; as have been several other words in the eight quotes. This was done to highlight the number of times titillating titles are used by our more zealous brethren. Aren't they cute and fancy?

6. We must root out racism in the church. The tensest moment in the discussion came after California-based church leader Samuel Rodriguez, president for the National Association of Hispanic Evangelicals, called on the group to challenge racist attitudes toward Hispanics. He warned that unless we develop a true “kingdom DNA” in our churches—by welcoming and celebrating all ethnic groups—we will not successfully impact our culture or enact biblical justice on issues such as immigration policy. Charismatic prophet Rick Joyner also challenged what he called “spiritual bigotry” that is caused by “our prideful attitude about the groups we are associated with.”

Many of us don't think "immigration policy" is any of our business, since it's in Caesar's domain.

But more importantly, there is neither Hispanic nor non-hispanic in God's house. Brother Sam having an organization for a special ethnic group, while the NAE exists, is racist, divisive, and wasteful of God's resources!

How is your NAHE "welcoming and celebrating all ethnic groups"? How is it relating to blacks and orientals? How does a Native American join as a native American? How are your efforts helping to "develop a true 'kingdom DNA"?

These activities are a manifestation of our preoccupation with works (like this blog) and rooted in a desire to civilize mankind. That's neither the Way nor the mission!

7. Holiness is not an option. The leaders had a lively discussion on the need for proper accountability so that leaders who have moral failures can be properly restored. Mike Bickle, founder of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, Kan. decried the “greasy grace” that quickly forgives a fallen brother but does not offer tough love and discipline. “That is no grace at all,” he said. ... .

Restoration is fine, if it follows biblical accountability, chastisement, and discipline! I agree with Bickle who obviously agrees with Bonhoeffer's concept of cheap grace.

8. God is calling us to transform society. Several leaders, including Harry Jackson of Washington, D.C., noted that American culture—and our government—is becoming increasingly hostile to the Christian faith. He and others challenged the group to become active politically, in the current presidential contest and on every level. If we run from our calling to transform culture, we may end up in a fish’s mouth like Jonah. We must engage in a kingdom mission rather than hide behind an escapist Left Behind eschatology. Barbara Wentroble, an apostolic leader from Dallas, noted that Christians for too long have viewed politics, education and the financial realm as evil when we must see those arenas as mountains to claim for Christ.

God warned us that this would happen, didn't He? But He is not calling us to "transform society"! Where is that in the Scriptures! Were're to be salt and light, yes! But in order to bring men to His throne of Grace, so that God can transform them!

We are not of this world! The things of this world are passing away, and that includes "society." My, listen to yourself!

All eight of the "prophetic directives," taken collectively, indicate a broad or general admission of a problem, several address specifics (e.g., absence of humility vs. abundance of pride; lack of fasting and prayer), several encourage direction but, on the whole, I felt they were so far from addressing the questions supposedly "on the table" that it might have been better not to waste the ink and bandwidth.

BLOGGERS BLOGGING:

Accidental Missionary
Charismatica
Ministry Today
Soul Pants

Apostasy, Charisma Magazine,
Christianity, Pentecostalism, Religion, Scandals

FREEMASONRY: A timely reminder of a real threat from a day gone by!

Christianity Today's offering on Freemasonry is pertinent and timely for this blogger/observer ... ironically, I just put up a copy of a hundred-year-old address on the subject by the son of the Johnathon Blanchard mentioned below, Charles A. Blanchard.

Click over to The SHEEP'S CRIB - Inspiration to read the most pointed refutation of Freemasonry I've come across ... and that by a former 33rd degree Mason.

In CT's TIDINGS column they bring us ...

"The Freemasonry Threat - Faint echoes remind evangelicals of a nearly forgotten foe" by Ted Olsen; a timely reminder of things past ...
Family Life Church loves their new building ... except for one thing: The walls still bear symbols of its past as a Masonic temple. The suburban Chicago Daily Herald reported that Elgin officials barred the markings' removal because they "contribute to the overall character of the building, its history." The church argued the symbols conflict with Christian belief, but the government said the church can only cover them up, not remove them.

Family Life Church's effort echoes a long fight in Kenya's Presbyterian Church of East Africa over eradicating Masonic symbols in colonial-era churches and government buildings. "These symbols and artifacts must be removed and destroyed," PCEA head David Githii explained to The Nation as at least 30 stained-glass windows and other items were removed from Nairobi's St. Andrews Church. "They are anti-Christ." Githii sent demolition squads to other PCEA churches around the country ... .

Yes, there are still Freemasons, including a reported 1.8 million members in the United States. And if the unconfirmed anecdotes ct editors hear regularly are to believed, Masonic cliques still wield power in several places.

But membership is half what it was 50 years ago. It's hard to believe that Freemasons and similar secret societies were one of the top three social ills targeted by evangelicals of the mid-1800s, along with slavery and alcohol. In 1868, several prominent evangelicals, including revivalist Charles Grandison Finney and Wheaton College founder Jonathan Blanchard, created the National Christian Association (NCA) to warn believers that "all secret societies [are] deistical, antagonistic to Christianity, [and] tend to loosen moral ties."

Now Freemasonry is nearly forgotten, and the Christian campaign against "secretism" had little to do with the decline. ... The tough question is when to listen to William Wilberforce and when to listen to Gamaliel (Acts 5:38): "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail."

Once you read Blanchard's charges you might want to reread Wilberforce.

Christianity, Christianity Today,
Cults, Freemasons, PCEA, Wheaton

KING JAMES ONLY: Still Rearing It's Ugly Head!

I've been blessed many times in the 27 years I've known the Lord; one recent and really memorable time was my calling to pastor here at San Carlos Community Church, another was my time at Talbot Theological Seminary where I met men like Bob Thomas, who now profs at The Master's Seminary.

About a week ago these two ships tied up to the same dock: on the one hand, an aberrant and dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing, called The King James Only Movement, reared its salivating muzzle in the midst of the people of SCCC. On the other hand, men like Dr. Thomas have laid down a solid, bible-based apologetic to help men like me.

I pulled the following article from Masterpiece (January / February 1990 ,pp.16-19), the Master's Seminary periodic journal. I've asked for permission to put it up; if I don't get it, this post will have to come down.

The King James Controversy
by Robert L. Thomas

As Christians, we are united in our belief that the Bible is the word of God, how sad it is that division occurs over which version of the Bible is best. Some say there is only one. Dr. Thomas greatly clarifies [this] confusing issue.

HE KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible has had a profound impact on the English-speaking world over the last three-and-a-half centuries. Its positive qualities have earned it a lasting place in the literary hall of fame. In the last decades of this century, several new translations have arisen to compete for its place of preeminence, but many Christians still prefer using the KJV. Unfortunately, a small but vocal minority has gone beyond merely using it. Claiming that the KJV is the best and only true English version available, they make the use of it a test of theological orthodoxy— and strongly criticize anyone who disagrees.

The Background
From shortly after its publication in 1611 until the late nineteenth century, the KJV was practically the only English Bible in use among Protestants. In 1881, however, things began to change. The English Revised version of the New Testament was published. It was a revision of the KJV, based on a revised Greek text.

Two scholars were chiefly responsible for establishing the Greek text behind the English Revised Version: Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. They also published a Greek New Testament the same year the Revised Version made its debut Their Greek text laid the foundation for texts underlying most twentieth Century translations of the Bible. It took advantage of the wealth of manuscript evidence that had come to light since the original publication of the KJV.

Not all were pleased with Westcott and Hort's Greek text, however. The Anglican High Churchman John W. Burgon, whose works are still cited by defenders of the “KJV only” position, was a vocal defender of the traditional Greek text underlying the KJV known as the Textus Receptus.

Modern defenders of the KJV fall into two general categories. One group claims inspiration and inerrancy for its English text. Another argues that God has preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus (or the Byzantine text type on which the Textus Receptus is based).

The English Text: Is It Inspired?
One "KJV only" advocate sums up the view that God inspired the English text of the KJV in the title of his book, God Wrote Only One Bible. Those holding this view argue that inspiration and inerrancy are meaningless if they apply only to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. How can we be certain that any Bible is God's Word, they ask, since those manuscripts no longer exist.

That position is extreme and subject to several strong objections. If the King James Version is God's inspired Word, what was God's inspired Word before 1611? Is English the only language that has God's inspired Word? The nature of languages and the differences between them make it impossible for two or more languages to convey the same precise meaning. Either the original Hebrew and Greek texts were inspired, or the English is. Which is it? Those questions raise issues that the "English inspiration" position cannot reasonably answer.

It is certain that the translators of the KJV weren't under the impression that, they were working on an inspired English version in the margins of the KJV they included variant readings from different manuscripts, indicating their uncertainty about the correct reading. Some of the translators continued to use earlier English versions long after the publication of the KJV. They even quoted from one of those Bibles (the Geneva Bible) in the original preface to the KJV. The translators also included the Apocrypha, yet few if any who claim inspiration for the KJV’s English text would accept the Apocrypha as God's Word.

An inspired English text is not prerequisite to having an accurate Bible. We have more than 5000 Greek manuscripts of all or pan of the New Testament. No other book from ancient times has that much evidence supporting it. While there are thousands of variants in those manuscripts, the overwhelming majority involve minor details such as differences in spelling or word order, and do not substantially affect the meaning of various passages except in very rare cases. And no major doctrine of Scripture is affected by a variant reading.

God has chosen to preserve His Word in abundant manuscript evidence, which enables us to accurately reconstruct the original Greek and Hebrew texts—not by giving us an inspired translation in English.

Manuscripts: Should the Majority Rule?
Other defenders of the KJV’s primacy take a different approach. Realizing that no English translation is inspired, they claim that God has providentially preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus. Since the KJV New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus, they assume it is superior to versions based on other Greek texts. Before examining their arguments, we need to understand some basic facts about textual criticism.

We can divide all New Testament manuscripts into families or text-types based on similarities in readings of various Bible verses. The manuscripts within each family tend to support the same readings, whether right or wrong. There are four such text-types:

1. The Alexandrian
2. The Western
3. The Caesarean
4. The Byzantine

The Textus Receptus is derived from the Byzantine text-type (though it is based on only a handful of the thousands of manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition). The majority of Greek manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text-type. Proponents of the Textus Receptus assume that the readings represented by the majority of manuscripts must surely be the correct ones. There are a number of objections to that seemingly plausible argument. Those objections have convinced the majority of textual scholars that the Byzantine text-type is inferior to the other three.

One problem is the relatively late date of the Byzantine manuscripts. The vast majority of those manuscripts originated in the late centuries of the first millennium A.D. or later. Manuscripts from other families are five hundred or more years earlier. Another objection notes the great number of manuscripts that have been lost. In earlier periods of history it is quite possible and even probable that another of the families was the majority text. Several of the early church fathers attest that Alexandrian-type readings were in the majority in their day.

There is a convincing historical explanation for the numerical superiority of the Byzantine text-type. By the fourth century, the only area where Greek was still widely used was the eastern part of the Roman Empire, which later became the Byzantine Empire. Latin was the language of the western part of the Empire, and the church in that area used a Latin translation. It was based on the Western text-type, not the Byzantine.

During the Middle Ages, Greek was practically unknown in western Europe, and the copying of Greek manuscripts took place only in the Byzantine area. Since the majority of our surviving Greek manuscripts were produced at that time, it is not surprising that most of them are of the Byzantine text-type.

Defenders of KJV supremacy argue that God would not have allowed His Word to become corrupted. They claim He providentially guided the church in the selection of the proper Greek text. Since the Greek text used .by the majority of the church from the fourth to the nineteenth centuries was a Byzantine text, they assume that must be the one God preserved. There are a number of problems with that argument as well.

First, it is evident that God has preserved all four text types, not just the Byzantine. Also, as we have seen, there is a good historical explanation for its dominance. The majority of Greek manuscripts during those centuries were Byzantine, but the majority of Latin manuscripts, which were the guide for most of the church, were Western. Latin manuscripts far outnumber those in Greek.

It is also a mistake to assume that the Eastern Church chose the Byzantine text-type over the others; they used the only text available to them. Nor did the Reformers consciously choose the Byzantine text-type over the others. They too used the only Greek text available to them, the one prepared by the Dutch Roman Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus shortly before the Reformation. It was Erasmus's Greek text, based on a handful of manuscripts from the late Middle Ages, that formed the basis of the Textus Receptus.

Aside from all those considerations, even if the Byzantine were the "majority" text in every sense of the word, both history and politics teach us that the majority is not always right.

An objection lodged against the non-Byzantine families is that they are theologically aberrant, especially regarding the deity of Christ. That is simply not true, as a check of recent English versions based on non-Byzantine texts verifies. The New American Standard Bible and even the less conservative Revised Standard Version both give dear testimony to the deity of Christ The only modem version that attempts to alter biblical passages clearly affirming our Lord's deity is the New World Translation, produced by the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses).

Perhaps the most convincing argument against the primacy of the Byzantine text-type is the evidence that it did not exist before the fourth century. There are no manuscripts reflecting a distinctly Byzantine text-type before that time. The earliest church father to use a Byzantine text in his quotations of Scripture was Chrysostom, who lived in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

None of the ancient versions, which are translations from Greek into other languages, contain Byzantine readings. The earliest one to do so (the Peshitta Syriac translation) dates from the fourth or fifth century. The Byzantine text-type does not appear in the Old Syriac version, which dates from the second century and was in use in the very region where those who support Byzantine supremacy allege that the Byzantine family prevailed.

The Byzantine text-type tends to combine readings found in other families. For example, Mark 9:49 in the Western text reads. 'Every sacrifice will be salted with salt," while the Alexandrian text reads, "Everyone will be salted with fire." The Byzantine text combines the two: "Everyone shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." Since it is characterized by such a merging tendency, it must have originated later and been dependent on the other three text-types.

The lack of early evidence for the Byzantine family has led most textual scholars to conclude that it did not exist before the fourth century. Most likely it stemmed from an effort to bring the other text-types into complete agreement with each other. The greater length of the Byzantine text corroborates that. It attempted to include as much as possible from all three text-types.

In contrast, there is solid evidence in the writings of the church fathers and ancient translators that the Western, Caesarean, and Alexandrian families of manuscripts existed before the end of the second century. The writings of Clement of Alexandria and the earliest Coptic (Egyptian) translation, from the second and early third centuries, reflect the Alexandrian text-type. Evidence for the second-century existence of the Western text-type comes from the writings of Tatian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, as well as the earliest Latin translation that the Caesarean family was in existence by the beginning of the third century is clear from the writings of Origen and the Old Syriac translation.

What Bible Can I Trust?
As we have seen, the KJV lags behind recent translations because of its inferior textual basis. Does that mean we should abandon it in favor of the New American Standard Bible or some other version? Certainly not! Neither the King James Version not the Byzantine text underlying it will lead anyone astray wither doctrinally or in living the Christian life. The variations between text-types are simply not that significant.

There is no reason for people to stop using their King James Bibles–if that’s the version they are comfortable with. It’s unfortunate, however, that some have made the use of the KJV a test of faith. God has been pleased to sue translations based on all the text-types and will doubtless continue to do so.

Dr. Robert L. Thomas is a professor of New Testament studies at The Master’s Seminary.

In my opinion this movement is fueled by ignorance and self-righteousness. However, there are a number of good, scholarly committed people supporting this it.

What scares me the most is the gateway for this teaching opens directly into the pews, and the teaching sounds so appealing and reasonable.

Go to Alpha & Omega Ministries for some reference material and resources; they have an excellent 50 slide Power Point download that I'm really grateful for ... free!.

Bible, Bible Versions, Christianity, False teaching, King James Only,
Movements, Religion, Text-types, Textual Criticism