As I have intimated before, there seems to be two main streams of Christian diversion...I'll be nice and call it that instead of using the word heresy...the Seeker-Sensitives (read that Willowcreek and Saddleback); and the Third Wave revivalists (read that Toronto, Brownsville, etc.). You may also throw in the WOF'ers (read that Hagin, Copeland et. al.) if you wish although I've already showed that there are many redeemable theological traits in that camp (see Answered Prayer).
There are some smaller streams of "diversion" such as universalism which now has reared its ugly head since Carleton Pearson's switcheroo. And the open view or open theism as it is also called which seems to be confined to a few seminaries and Bethel College. But most Christians have never heard of these views so they aren't that threatening.
Anyway, here is more craziness from the other two big ones..the seeker-sensitives and the Third Wavers.
First from Jill Austin, a Third Wave...well...I guess prophetess....I'm not sure what she calls herself. She is the one who used to come to churches doing the Potter's Clay presentation. She would make a pot in the church and tell us how God forms us in our character. It was interesting. But it seems that Jill has embraced the "revival."
She says in the recent email from the Elijah list,
"the ultimate goal in prayer is not to have our prayers answered but to encounter God Himself."
Really? Where is that in the NT? Oh it isn't there? It seems to me when people in the NT prayed, they prayed so they could have their prayers answered. You don't encounter God through prayers.....you encounter God through Christ, although prayer might be the vehicle. But then, there is that pesky word the Third Wavers just do not like to mention--Christ.
Why does Ms. Austin's statement sound so Roman Catholic? Why does the whole Third Wave seem so Roman Catholic?
I sure wish these people would read their Bibles.
OK..now for the seeker sensitive craziness. An Internet friend is hot on their trail as she researches what they are up to. To protect her identity, I won't tell you how she found this out, but let's say she heard it from many of the follower's mouths, especially those from one of the KEY seeker sensitive churches (see above). Here are some of the things they were saying:
"church is for the unchurched.."
Wow! In my Bible it seems to clearly indicate that church is for Christians. I'm not sure if this person meant the unsaved, or the saved who don't attend church..or what. But earlier there was another conversation where they indicated that scads of unsaved were attending.
I sure wish people would read their Bibles.
Here are some more:
"People don't need to bring their Bibles. The Scripture passages used are on the overhead projector screen."
Hmmm....maybe someone would like to read the whole chapter to see what the Bible is really saying.
I sure wish these people would bring their Bibles to church so they could READ them.
Steve Went Looking for Grace
1 day ago
4 comments:
Interesting that you equate the sentiment of encountering God with being more of a Catholic sentiment. Perhaps you are referring to the mystical traditions of the early Church as well as of the Catholic tradition? I am not Catholic myself, but grew up in the fundamentalist/evangelical tradition, and still attend an evangelical church. I daresay that us evangelicals, "Bible readers" have missed out at least part of the beauty of the God-encountering aspects of our faith, and our prayers are more of the "gimme God" kind that is more conducive to looking for answers, than the communion, sitting at the feet of Jesus kind of savoring who God. Perhaps, both you and the "prophetess" are right in your own ways. I actually posted something on this in my blog, http://intheouter.blogspot.com/2004/10/prayer-on-asking-god-to-intervene.html
bloke,
I read your blog and it was a very good post. I stand corrected in that probably there is a middle ground between Austin and my position. Your blog said that in praying God often changes us..or words to that effect. I thought that was an excellent observation and very true.
However, Ms. Austin's statement said "the ultimate goal of our prayers is NOT to have our prayers answered.." (capitalized emphasis mine). That kind of astonished me a bit. IMO it just is not true.
By the way, what do you mean by "early church?" If you mean the church of the first 150 years, I am not aware of much mysticism. This came much later...right?
I am basically reacting to the increasing mysticism of the Third Wave especially. That was essentially the nexus of my blog.
Again, thank you very much for your comments....:)
I am no church historian. You may be right that mystical traditions came later. Might be a good thing to research.
You might be interested in hearing what Cowan Lee, a true prophetess, in my opinion, said about this phenomemenon back in 1969. She was a Chinese American, and personally acquainted with Watchman Nee. It's a long quote, but very worth hearing out.
"....There is a horrific danger in taking prophesies intended for a small group, or even an individual, and disseminating them far and wide. A word of prophesy is for a local congregation for a specific time. Look at the letters to the seven churches in Asia Minor. There was a different word from God to each of these churches. God didn't fling a carbon copy at the whole lot. If I utter a prophesy to my home church, I am immediately accountable for that word. I am in a position where I can be stoned...though not literally, any more. But I know my fellowship, and my fellowship knows me. I can speak right to a situation, or correct a local error. But what happens if I speak a word to my fellowship, and it gets sent to another church where my message doesn't apply? I become a false prophetess, don't I? I am not so arrogant as to believe that everything I say has great importance to every church member in the country...or the world. No, not in a thousand years. God gives me a word for a small group, or maybe a person. I am immediately accountable to that group, or person. There is a trend I see, a dangerous one. We find a truth in some church, and because of facsimile machines and even telephones, we spread this all over creation. This can do such horrible damage to the credibility of the prophet or prophetess, can it not? Look at all of Paul's epistles. They were all very different, weren't they? His letters were custom made for each of his congregations, weren't they? Are we so much smarter today? I see this trend for larger and larger churches with less and less accountability upon the prophet or prophetess. I never want to be in a position where my words cannot be immediately verified by my group. I must be willing to be stoned. I step on poeples' toes at times, but at least I can feel the tops of their feet! These overgrown congregations just encourage hit-and-run prophesy, and I will have no part of that. But it's a two-way street. If you want a word from me, you'd better show up! I have no words for someone who's too lazy to come to my church...."
And it continues for quite a while. I think that crazy old Chinese lady hit the nail on the head.
Eric P. Nichols
P.O. Box 56235
North Pole, AK 99705
kl7aj@gci.net
Post a Comment