Are We Hypocrits?

-->At times the "opposition" has some cogent points to make about us Christians. Perhaps we had better listen.

Here are synopses of two op/ed pieces by extremely liberal, mostly Bush-hating NY Times columnists. The first is by Maureen Dowd, written
on November 14, 2004.

She begins by saying,
You'd think the one good thing about merging church and state would be that politics would be suffused with glistening Christian sentiments like "love thy neighbor," "turn the other cheek," "good will toward men," "blessed be the peacemakers" and "judge not lest you be judged."

Yet somehow I'm not getting a peace, charity, tolerance and forgiveness vibe from the conservatives and evangelicals who claim to have put their prodigal son back in office.

-->I think you get the drift. It seems as if we are giving the secular world too many opportunities to see us Christians as hypocrits.

She continues,
I'm getting more the feel of a vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels.
One fiery Southern senator actually accused a nice Catholic columnist of having horns coming up out of her head!

The Christian avengers and inquisitors, hearts hard as marble, are chasing poor 74-year-old Arlen Specter through the Capitol's marble halls, determined to flagellate him and deny him his cherished goal of taking over the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"He is a problem, and he must be derailed," Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, told George Stephanopoulos.

Sounding more like the head of a mob family than a ministry, Dr. Dobson told Mr. Stephanopoulos about a warning he issued a White House staffer after the election
that the president and Republicans had better deliver on issues like abortion, gay marriage and conservative judges or "I believe they'll pay a price in the next election."

-->Then she gets around to Dr. James Dobson and quotes the interview he gave to George Stephanopoulos, the same interview I blogged about in horror a few weeks ago.

Ms. Dowd writes,
Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Dr. Dobson about his comment to The Daily Oklahoman that "Patrick Leahy is a 'God's people-hater.' I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people," noting that it was not a particularly Christian thing to say about the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. (Especially after that vulgar un-Christian thing Dick Cheney spat at Mr. Leahy last summer.)

"George," Dr. Dobson haughtily snapped back, "do you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about?" Why not? The TV host is the son of a Greek Orthodox priest.

-->The second column is by Frank Rich , The Times arts observer.
It was written on November 28, 2004

He starts by describing the Monday night Football commercial.

If we are to believe the outcry of the past two weeks, America's youth have been defiled en masse - again. This time the dirty deed was done by the actress Nicollette Sheridan, who dropped her towel in the cheesy promotional spot for the runaway hit "Desperate Housewives" that kicked off "Monday Night Football" on ABC. "I wonder if Walt Disney would be proud," said Michael Powell, the Federal Communications Commission chairman who increasingly fashions himself a commissar of all things cultural, from nipple rings to "Son of Flubber."

The mainstream press, itself in love with the "moral values" story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties. It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).

To see how the hucksters of the right work their scam, there could be no more illustrative example than the "Monday Night Football" episode in which Ms. Sheridan leaped into the arms of the Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens in order to give the declining weekly game (viewership is down 3 percent from 2003) a shot of Viagra. From the get-go, it was a manufactured scandal, as over-the-top as a dinner theater production of "The Crucible."

-->Now listen to the real statistics of "outrage" that Mr. Rich presents:

Though seen nationwide, and as early as 6 p.m. on the West Coast, the spot initially caused so little stir that the next morning only two newspapers in the country, both in Philadelphia, reported on it. ABC's switchboards were not swamped by shocked viewers on Monday night. A spokesman for ABC Sports told The Philadelphia Inquirer that he hadn't received a single phone call or e-mail in the immediate aftermath of the broadcast.


--> Mr. Rich now goes into the sad attempts of so many Christians and other conservatives to convince authorities of their views by bogus email campaigns.

Mr. Owens's agent, David Joseph, says that the flood of complaints at his office and Mr. Owens's Web site also didn't start until more than 24 hours after the incident - late Tuesday and early Wednesday. Were any of these complainants actual victims (or even viewers) of "Monday Night Football" or were they just a mob assembled after the fact by "family" groups, emboldened by their triumph in smiting "Saving Private Ryan" from 66 ABC stations the week before? Though the F.C.C. said on Wednesday that it had received 50,000 complaints about the N.F.L. affair, it couldn't determine how many of them were duplicates - the kind generated by e-mail campaigns run by political organizations posting form letters ready to be clicked into cyberspace ad infinitum by anyone who has an index finger and two seconds of idle time.

But there's another, more insidious game being played as well. The F.C.C. and the family values crusaders alike are cooking their numbers. The first empirical evidence was provided this month by Jeff Jarvis, a former TV Guide critic turned blogger. He had the ingenious idea of filing a Freedom of Information Act request to see the actual viewer complaints that drove the F.C.C. to threaten Fox and its affiliates with the largest indecency fine to date - $1.2 million for the sins of a now-defunct reality program called "Married by America." Though the F.C.C. had cited 159 public complaints in its legal case against Fox, the documents obtained by Mr. Jarvis showed that there were actually only 90 complaints, written by 23 individuals. Of those 23, all but 2 were identical repetitions of a form letter posted by the Parents Television Council. In other words, the total of actual, discrete complaints about "Married by America" was 3.

Such letter-writing factories as the American Family Association's OneMillionMoms.com also exaggerate their clout in intimidating advertisers. They brag, for instance, that the retail chain Lowe's dropped its commercials on "Desperate Housewives" in response to their protests. But Lowe's was not an advertiser on the show; the advertiser who actually bought the commercial was Whirlpool, which plugged Lowe's as a retail outlet for its products under a co-branding arrangement. Another advertiser that the family-values mafia takes credit for chasing away, Tyson Foods, had only bought in for one episode of "Desperate Housewives" in the first place. It had long since been replaced by such Fortune 500 advertisers as Ford and McDonald's, each clamoring to pay three times as much for a 30-second spot ($450,000) as those early advertisers who bought time before the show had its debut and became an instant smash.

"Desperate Housewives" is hardly a blue-state phenomenon. A hit everywhere, it is even a bigger hit in Oklahoma City than it is in Los Angeles, bigger in Kansas City than it is in New York. All those public moralists who wail about all the kids watching Ms. Sheridan on "Monday Night Football" would probably have apoplexy if they actually watched what Ms. Sheridan was up to in her own series - and then looked closely at its Nielsen numbers. Though children ages 2 to 11 make up a small percentage of the audience of either show, there are actually more in that age group tuning into Mr. Cherry's marital brawls (870,000) than into the N.F.L.'s fisticuffs (540,000). "Desperate Housewives" also ranks No. 5 among all prime-time shows for ages 12-17. ("Monday Night Football" is No. 18.) This may explain in part why its current advertisers include products like Fisher-Price toys, the DVD of "Elf" and the forthcoming Tim Allen holiday vehicle, "Christmas With the Kranks."

Those who cherish the First Amendment can only hope that the Traditional Values Coalition, OneMillionMoms.com, OneMillionDads .com and all the rest send every e-mail they can to the F.C.C. demanding punitive action against the stations that broadcast "Desperate Housewives." A "moral values" crusade that stands between a TV show this popular and its audience will quickly learn the limits of its power in a country where entertainment is god.

-->It isn't that we don't have the right ideas. It's the fact that we so often use bogus means to accomplish and communicate them. And, so often we come across arrogantly (are you listening Dr. Dobson?). So, thank goodness we have these liberals to keep us on our toes...that is if we really want to listen.

Basketbrawl

I tweaked this into a formula from a column that appeared yesterday in my local paper, The Los Angeles Times. It was written by Todd Boyd, professor of critical studies in the School of Cinema-Television at my alma mater, USC (that ISN'T the University of South Carolina. Look at the BCS standings for a clue...please!).

The column was called Did Race Play a Role in Basketbrawl?
Here is the formula I derived:

Hugely wealthy black athletes vs. not too wealthy white fans who pay lots of dollars for good seats at sports events.

White fans having history of seeing black males as subservient vs. definitely NOT subservient wealthy famous black athletes.

Former inner city black athletes where soft is seen as weak and not real vs. white fans who "don't get it."

White intoxicatd fans paying huge amounts for tickets believing then they can do anything, even inappropriate stuff to athletes vs. hugely wealthy black athletes who demand respect because of their historical and often life backgrounds.

Movies-II

In this issue (Nov. 2004) of Christianity Today magazine, there's an interesting interview with Ted Baehr, the editor-in-chief of Movieguide. Here are some of his comments:

CT: In September the Rand Corporation released a study that showed teens who view the most sexually related materials on televison are twice as likely to engage in intercourse as those who watch the least.

Baehr: The rising concern today is the rise of sexually transmitted diseases. Another study showed that 50% of sexually active kids have a sexually transmitted disease by the time they are 24 or 25.

CT:How does the incidence of watching more sex-oriented scenes relate to the difference between cable programming and traditional broadcast?

Baehr:Dr. Victor Kline found that prisoners who had committed sex crimes were turned off by explicit depictions of sex, and I would imagine that the same is true for youth. They wanted innuendo, jokes, and the "come hither" [look and dress] that suggests the other person wanted the sex.

My comment:Boy could I write a book on why the majority of female rape victims could AVOID it. Yes I know you feminists are mad at me now.

And...yes I know Christian guys just ask girls out to watch the scenery in the picture.
Yeah....right.

Oops.....that was when I was dating eons ago.

Today I think this is how it goes for Christian guys.
"It's important in this postmodern period to understand the culture and so going to significant movies will help us evangelize the youth more."

Yeah ...right.

Thanksgiving...at least for now

Today I am thankful that the persecution isn't full blown here in the United States.

But it has begun both here and in Europe.......

Item #1
1 Million Christians sign EU religion plea

More than a million people from all over Europe are to deliver a petition to Tony Blair and fellow EU leaders calling for changes to the constitution recognising Europe's Christian heritage.
Refusing to accept a secular "fait accompli" from Brussels, a Christian coalition is demanding that each EU state publish its version of the constitution's preamble, with references to God if desired.
Already armed with 1,149,000 signatures and with thousands more pouring in from Holland since the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh, the group claims that most states want some reference to Christianity but were blocked by France.

The move is keenly backed by Pope John Paul II, who has repeatedly condemned the "moral drift" of Brussels. "One does not cut the roots to one's birthright," he told pilgrims this summer. Euro-MPs voted this week to back the calls for a change in the text. Petitioners, led by Italy's International Mission Centre, will now take their case to EU governments. The current version of the preamble eschews Christianity, talking vaguely of "the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe".
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, deliberately left the issue open when he wrote the document, inviting a petition.

"I have chosen not to insert the reference to the Christian heritage in the constitution,"he said. "Rather I appeal to you to persuade me of its necessity."

A British official said it was too late to change the preamble, although national parliaments could add a "rider" stressing their country's Christian roots.
An EU official said: "These Christians could at least have the good grace to accept that they lost the argument."

Item#2
A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.
Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.

"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.

"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

NOTE:[The reason for this according his lawyer, whom I heard on the radio yesterday, is because Mr. Williams is a dedicated Christian although he never has violated this in the classroom. No other teacher in the school is required to submit their lesson plans.]

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."
"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

Happy Thanksgiving everyone:::)

Diane

Drugs--I Was Right

In many past posts at the blog here I've warned about the long-term effects and the poor testing of drugs, both psychiatric ones (read that anti-depressants) and those for specific physical ailments. I also predicted that we would be hearing about these effects more and more. I didn't realize that only weeks after each post new revelations would be made about many drugs.

Here are the ones I've read about so far:
*Vioxx
It was taken off shelves because it was found poor results of tests were not made public. In some of the test subjects, as well as those buying Vioxx, heart attacks and other related problems occurred.

*Anti-Depressants-
They are shown to have suicidal effects on some children and teens. And as I have said before, one day, they will be forced to admit that these anti-depressants have this effect on the entire population no matter what the age.

*RU-486 (Mifeprex)
Also known as the French abortion pill, it was announced by the FDA on Nov. 15 that some were dying after taking this pill; four Americans, one Canadian, two Britons and one Swede are the known dead after taking RU-486. Donna J. Harrison, an
obstetrician-gynecologist and chairman of the subcommittee on Mifeprex of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in the NY Times on Nov. 19 that this was known as far back as the Clinton administration.

How was this drug approved by the FDA? Here is what Ms. Harrison writes,
"Investigations of the records have shown that five standard
procedural and scientific requirements to prove safety and
effectiveness were circumvented to get RU-486 onto the
market quickly.

The most serious was the FDA.'s approval of the drug
solely on the basis of uncontrolled clinical trials,
contrary to the agency's standard requirement of two
randomized, blinded and controlled tests for new drug
applications.

Second, the agency approved the drug using its "accelerated
approval regulations," which were created by Congress for
drugs with higher risks that are justified only because the
drugs are better than current therapies for
life-threatening illnesses like AIDS and cancer. Pregnancy,
needless to say, isn't an illness, serious or
life-threatening.

Third, the agency mandated a previously unapproved use for
misoprostol, the second drug in the chemical abortion
process, over the objections of its manufacturer, Searle.
The company had created and marketed the drug to treat
gastric ulcers.

Fourth, the FDA approved RU-486 for use without the
safeguards observed in the original clinical tests. For
example, the agency did not require those who write
prescriptions for RU-486 to order an ultrasound, which is
necessary to both date pregnancies (ensuring the 49-day
limit) and to rule out ectopic pregnancies, in which the
fetus develops outside the uterus. Because RU-486 cannot
end an ectopic pregnancy and in some cases mimics the
symptoms of one, it is extremely difficult to diagnosis one
after the drug is taken. If untreated, ectopic pregnancy
can be fatal.

Last, the agency approved the drug for use on women of any
age, yet it had no clinical data on the impact on those
under 18. This was contrary to the agency's 1996 written
directive to the manufacturer that such data would be
required for approval.

Safety has been further undermined since the drug's
approval. The FDA has effectively stopped enforcing the
49-day limit by doing nothing about abortion providers who
prescribe RU-486 beyond that point. Some providers even
advertise on their Web sites that they administer the drug
beyond 49 days. To insulate themselves if anything goes
wrong, some providers require women to sign a patient
agreement that authorizes the provider to use misoprostol
off label and beyond the 49-day limit."

*****************************************************************************
We must face that the FDA is riddled with people who either previously worked with the drug companies or have some type of ties with them (read that "paid consultants"). The drug companies feel they cannot lose money by having a drug that costs so much to research to not make the FDA approval. I posted on that topic weeks ago and now this week some Congressmen want to start an agency to check on the FDA to be sure they're not authorizing medications that should not be sold to the public.

"Government drug reviewer, David Graham, said Thursday that the country is "virtually defenseless" against another Vioxx-like debacle. Senate Finance Committee chairman, Sen. Charles Grassley, suggested that to ensure the safety of medications after FDA approval, an independent board of drug safety may be needed. On Friday, Dr. Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, said "we categorically reject" accusations the agency has done a poor job of protecting the public against dangerous drugs."

In the past two days I learned of two more drug problems. In my local paper was a report that a certain allergy medication can harm fetuses when used by pregnant women OR women who get pregnant WHILE using it.

And in my email yesterday I received this:
Written by Dr. Imanuel Morenings,this article appeared in The Morenings Edition, October 2004, Bristol, Virginia.

“How many flu viruses are there? Between October 1, 2003
and April 9, 2004, the CDC identified 863 DIFFERENT
influenza viruses. Even if one assumes that the flu
vaccines "work" for the three chosen strains, what about
the other 860 influenza viruses in circulation?

“What's In a Flu Shot? The flu shot is filled with very
toxic chemicals: ethylene glycol (antifreeze), triton X-100
(a detergent); polysorbate 80 (a potential carcinogen),
gelatin, phenol/carbolic acid (disinfectant and dye),
formaldehyde (cancer-causing agent), aluminum and mercury
(associated with Alzheimer's disease, cancer, brain injury
and autoimmune disease), plus other chemicals and animal
products in addition to three strains of virus. Do you
really want this injected into your blood with access to
your internal organs?

This season's flu vaccine did little or nothing to
prevent such flu symptoms as fever, cough or sore throat
says the first preliminary study of the vaccine's
effectiveness. Researchers at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention say a survey of healthcare workers
at The Children's Hospital of Denver revealed the flu
vaccine had "no" or "low effectiveness" against flu-like
illnesses, which can be caused by a host of viruses."

The article goes on to say that flu shots are beginning to be suspected of causing Alzheimers; and that children and preganant women should be careful about getting them.

Christians have been too trusting when their
doctor/psychologist/psychiatrist tells them to pop a pill.

In the future I believe strongly we will see more of these occurences along with more hospital closures and/or emergency room closures; the
exodus of doctors from their practice; a more acute shortage of competent nurses; decreased or no health insurance for a huge number of the populace; decreased or even a bankrupt Social Security-Medicare system for
the elderly; and so on.

So what is the answer for Christians? What is the answer that the church SHOULD be offering rather than palming people off to the government and the secular scientific community?

Perhaps it is time to go back and read my href="http://fcov.blogspot.com/2004/11/word-faith-faith-teaching.html"> Word of Faith
Series.

Good Blogs for Today

Recently there have been some outstanding posts in the Christian blog world. Here are a few from this week:

First, you will always be challenged, entertained and sometimes just plain astonished at Ambra Nykola's blog. Today's is a must read. She goes into what morality really is. You can find it at The New Morality.

Over at Yes, But there a is quote by a man named Richard Sibbes. It's about what happens to us in Christ because of what He did at the cross. This is a very good and succinct description. You can find it at
Sweetest Contemplation.

JollyBlogger is continuing his posts on the five points of Calvinism, popularly known by the acronym TULIP. Today he talks about what sin really is. Horray! Please do read this definition, as much of the church IMO has missed it by a mile and people are suffering because of the poor theology of sin.
You can find it at
Sin, Sins and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I knew many were fleeing from the Third Wave Charismatic cultic "revival" movement, but what I didn't realize was that some were giving up the faith altogether. Here is a sobering reality from Michael Spencer about some who emailed him about this.
You can read it at Better to be an Honest Unbeliever than Pretending it's Easy to Believe: Spencer's Ten Point Argument for Faith Revisited.

Tithing

In reading The Midas Touch by the late Kenneth Hagin, Sr. one will find surprisingly a very right-on book about prosperity as well as financial ethics in the ministry which takes up the last 1/4 of the book.

There are two items in the book that I disagree with. One is the nonsensical teaching of the WOF'ers that Jesus was rich while on earth. If they would read II Cor. 8:9 (in it's context) they would see plainly that it says HE WAS MADE POOR. These words signify what He had while on the earth--not much. BUT, He did get His needs met and the WOF'ers are confusing that for prosperity which isn't even their own definition of prosperity.

The second item is NT tithing. Not there folks. Nowhere to be found or even intimated in the NT. In fact, I Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 IMO completely refute the tithing LAW with a spirit-led replacement of giving.

To the WOF claim that tithing started before the law, I would ask where? They drag one section of the OT out to prove this. They say Abraham tithed. But there is no record in the OT of Abraham tithing a tenth of everything he had year after year. That one reference (Gen. 14) is to a tenth of the spoils of war; a war he had just successfully won. Hebrews chapter 7 explains this further.

But let's say for sake of argument that someone did happen to tithe before the law was given. Some of the law was done before the giving of the law---sacrifices for example.

But here is the really egregious omission of the WOF teachers. They "forget" to tell you that there were actually three tithes in the OT. But they teach only one--the one that goes to them. And what are the other two?

One was taken for the poor and the other was not given at all, but was kept by the tithing family for themselves. So translated today, that would mean that at least once a year, all money for that month (at least the operating fund) would go to the poor IN THE CHURCH. And another tithe during the year would not be taken for a whole month but kept by the tithers.

I have never seen this done anywhere and I certainly have never heard any tithing teacher or WOF pastor say it. But that is just plain dishonest...to teach tithing in this incorrect manner. Remember, that if one is going to follow the law, then they must keep the whole law.
But to avoid this, the tithing teachers try to drag the tithe out of the OT and into the NT. They do this primarily through something Jesus said to the Jewish leadership in Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42,

Matt. 23:23 says,
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Luke11:42 says,
But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Jesus wasn't teaching a tithing law for the New Testament church here, but rather telling the Jewish leaders that tithing was correct under the current law of the OT covenant. But then Jesus goes on to say something extraordinaire and the WOF people miss this by a mile. In fact, many of them are doing what Jesus told the Jewish leaders NOT to do. What Jesus is saying here indicates a principle that mercy, judgement and faith were not considered by them, but every ounce of whatever they received or they grew themselves was tithed to the leaf--very nitpicky and legalistic.

Note that Jesus talks about mercy and judgement being in short supply by the Jewish leaders. If we look at the OT where God says this same thing over and over, we will see that He talks a lot about neglecting the widow and poor and/or bringing wrong financial judgements against them. I believe strongly that is what Jesus is referring to here.

And this is exactly what the tithing teachers do too. They tell us that by golly if a widow gets a 1/2% raise in her or his barely-livable Social Security, they had better tithe that raise. It is not only ridiculous and non-Biblical, but it is cruel to the poor and the elderly. In other words, it is a wrong judgement and shows no mercy to them. In fact, James tells us in James 1:27 that it is pure and undefiled religion to take care of (continuously in the Greek tense here) the widow and the orphan. The church today, as the Jewish leaders then, have failed miserably in this. I don't know any church taking care of a widow or an orphan (complete care), do you? They pawn their responsibility off on the government and social service agencies. If you were an orphan would you want the county taking care of you? How ashamed they should be! God is not mocked and what these sow, they too will reap, perhaps in their old age.

The NT system is being led in faith by the Spirit. This would then translate into one giving any percentage of their income they wanted as long as their heart was right. I believe that is what I am reading in I Cor. 8 and 9 is it not? Ten percent shouldn't even be the guide. We should by faith strive to further the percentage as we grow in our faith. Fred Price, one of the faith pastors (who unfortunately does believe in tithing, but on the net, not the gross) says something most interesting...and valuable. He is believing to give God 90% of his [net] income and live on the remaining 10%. Of course He wants to live quite well. That may be where it disintegrates but I do think he is presenting an interesting concept of faith. He isn't allowing 10% to hem him in. He believes it is normal to go much further.

The reason to believe for finances by the way is to help the poor and finance the gospel and evangelism.

It is not to buy a 3 million dollar home for oneself or a seven-mansion compound for one's extended family. (Are you listening Benny and Joyce???)

Here are the links to other posts in this Word of Faith series:

1. Word of Faith Teaching: Introduction
2. Faith
3. Healing
4. Meditation and Confession
5. Prosperity

Prosperity

In my estimation this is the topic that has gotten the Word of Faith teaching into hot water. It probably is at least one of the main reason for the rest of the church to laugh at these people, hold them in derision and to basically ignore anything else they have to say.

And I agree. However, as I've pointed out in this series, my hope is that the church will no longer ignore some of the centralities of their teaching--the ones which are vital for today.

First of all, the term prosperity really isn't the right word to use for their teaching. Opulence probably would be a better term and there is no opulence teaching in the Bible. One saving grace is the book written in 2000 by the late Kenneth Hagin Sr. which basically refutes most of the so-called "prosperity teaching" that many of his disciples latched on to. The book is entitled The Midas Touch and for the most part is excellent and Biblical. There are only two items in that book which with I disagree and I will address those tomorrow.

The problem here is whether or not prosperity is in the Atonement. The prosperity teachers do have some ground for their assertion. First, they note that the covenant by faith (and thorugh the sin covering of the yearly sacrificail lamb) in the OT provided prosperity in every avenue of life including freedom from eneby attack, poverty, pestilence, infirmity, etc. They get this mostly from Deut. 28. However, what the WOF'ers fail to see and they often fail to see this, much of the Bible is written to a group of people, NOT individuals. Not all of Israel was prospering. Many of the widows were not and that is why God had so much to say about taking care of them both in the OT and the NT. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, His people then and sadly today don't wish to take care of the widows and orphans. And that makes God an unhappy camper.
The second clue that it might be in the Atonement is II Cor. 8:9 where it says,

For you know the grace of our ord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich. (NIV)

Most pastors outside of WOF say that means spiritual and emotional richness. However, there are two problems with that interpretation. First, and again we see here as we did in Matt. 8:17 with healing, the whole context is financial. Second, the word for rich here in the Greek is plutos. Second, if you studied classical mythology you might recognize that name. Yes, it is a name, not a thing. Plutos was a god, the son of Demeter, the grain and harvest goddess. When those in the Greek-Roman world wanted a good harvest they prayed to Demeter. Her son plutos was the god of earthly material wealth, so when a financial need was wanted, plutos was prayed to. Remember, this passage was written to the Corinthians who had just come out of this god-goddess system. Considering the context of chapter 8 here, there is little doubt that they would think this word would mean spiritual wealth. So perhaps a case could be made that prosperity is in the Atonement.

But then, we need to define the word prosperity. There is no word for prosperity in the main English translations of the NT. The forms, prosper and prosperous, appear in Rom. 1:10 and III John 2. They mean in the Greek to succeed in reaching a place or goal successfully. they can also have the connotation of succeeding in business which of course would include financially. But succeeding how much? IMO the WOF'ers are reading way too much into the word and carrying it too far.
So then, here is my conception of prosperity which I've arrived at during a 24 year period of thought, reading, studying and prayer. And I think I've got it if I might be so bold to say that.

In most cases I believe that getting your needs met is a Christian's right within their covenant. This can be found in Phil. 4:19.
So, then what is prosperity? Perhaps it might be going on beyond the need ONLY to that which is appropriate for the situation. Remember in I Thes. 5:22 it says to abstain from all apearance of evil. (KJV) Does a minister owning mission dollar homes and the acroutements give the appearance of evil? I think it does and so do a lot of other people, both Christians and sadly, non-Christians.

A lot of this depends on what a person is called to do. Where the WOF teaching breaks down is that everyone is called to live with the upper/upper classes. Obviously that is a false assumption. Why would God want someone to have a mansion in Beverly Hills if they are working with the poor in the inner city of Los Angeles? Why would someone need a million dollar condo in Manhattan if they working with those in Harlem? It is called appropriateness and frankly, the WOF'ers (except for Hagin) have missed it by a mile.
I am going to be frank and say that I strongly believe a lot of this teaching comes from people who grew up in the rather poor/working class rural South. There seems to be an inferiority complex a mile wide in some of these "teachers" or else they wouldn't need the material trappings. People who know who they are just scoff at wealth. They find out where God wants them and then believe God for what is appropriate for their situation. How many of these teachers and their followers really want to live with the upper middle/upper classes. I know from going to these churches that they don't even like those people much less want to hobnob around with them. Do they have similar interests? Gourmet cooking, book reviews, going to art museums, the opera, classical music? Oh no? So then do they think God wants them to live there but never getting to know anyone there?

Uh..no.

I grew up in the upper middle class and believe me, they are the most unreached people in America and probably the Western World. The poor have heard the gospel so many times it is crazy. But the wealthy? No. They don't have evangelical churches in their communities for the most part--not the wealthiest communities in America..nope.

We need people with a heart for these people who could care less for material things but understand they have to have the money, honey, in order to live with these people. And, they must have some of the upper class interests too. And sorry--the majority of WOF'ers just do not qualify nor do they wish to. They like their folks and their casseroles and their Grand 'Ole Opry and going to Branson on vacation. And that is fine but then they need to live where those people live; the ones who like those things because they can reach them for Christ more effectively than living with people they do not like and feel uncomfortable with.

On another front, do missionaries in the Amazon need a Cadillac (do people really buy those anymore? They don't out here in CA) and a Rolex watch and Gucci shoes and clothes? Uh..no. What would they need? Perhaps warm clothes for themselves and the people to whom they are ministering. They might need food, a good boat, a projector, generator, teaching materials, tape recorder, lots of batteries and perhaps a plane at their disposal or even their own plane if they fly. My missionary friend to Kenya years ago needed a house and money for a servant because in their culture all white people were assumed to be rich. If they didn't hire household help that was seen as unforgivable because of the unemployment situation there. There was no way she wanted a servant--she came to be a servant--but she had to do it...it was the culture. So, she believed for enough support to cover the house, the household helper and a good vehicle that could travel over the roads and terrain of Kenya. She got all of those things. But she didn't need to shop at Saks Fifth Avenue or Bloomingdales for her clothes for her stay there. And, she didn't need to get her hair done in an upscale Nairobi salon.

So what then do we say to those especially inner city WOF pastors who would tell us they have all of those things to show God's love and His grace? Who are you kidding? The people there think you are pimpin' the people, excuse my lingo.

The most impressive thing to those people would be if one lived among them and had perhaps a decent car and house or apartment. THAT would not only be appropriate but show God in the little things such as money for fixing the car and the house/apartment.

I am making an appeal for the Body of Christ to STOP supporting these small insecure low self-image guys and gals who try to be SOMEBODY with all their "wealth" at the expense of the poor codependents who are fooled into supporting them. Look around for some real people in the ministry to support. Support people like the mission to the Philippines led by a husband and wife who live in a mobile home in a working class city on a small retirement income. They have a ministry that has built Bible schools and tons of churches in Mindaneo. This guy is in his 70's, has a heart condition and still goes over to the Philippines at least once a year to trek in the jungle in order to bring the gospel to unreached tribes there. Their operating budget is 2% for administrative costs (they take no salary from the ministry) and 98% for the actual ministry work. Compare that to some of the larger ministries with a 50% administrative budget. Or to the WOF'ers, who no one except their accountant, knows what is going on in their balance sheets.

Tomorrow we will talk about the two errors I believe are in Hagin's book, Tithing and Jesus being rich while He was on earth.

Here are the links to other posts in this Word of Faith series:

1. Word of Faith Teaching: Introduction
2. Faith
3. Healing
4. Meditation and Confession
5. Tithing

Meditation and Confession

These topics might well be the most misunderstood of Word of Faith teaching. At first glance, one might think they are talking about Eastern transcendental meditation. But the WOF teachers make it very clear that they are not. The verses that are their foundation are as follows:
Joshua 1:8,
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

Psalms 1:1-3,
1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, F1 nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; F2 and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

The WOF'ers have found that the Hebrew word for meditate is from a root word meaning "to mutter."
Therefore, they teach that to meditate the Scripture is simply to think about each verse and what it means. Then in order to understand it further as well as for faith to come, speak it out loud...or confess it.

The big problem is with the confession part and how it has disintegrated within WOF ranks. The WOF'ers themselves call it "name it and claim it," while their detractors call it "blab it and grab it."

Here is where I feel the confusion lies. It is one thing to be led by God as to what passages of Scripture to meditate on and confess. It is completely another to pick any verse the person wishes. One involves the leading of God and the other involves what very well could be fleshly choosing. And that is where the gross materialism comes in. The flesh chooses to believe and confess for things. The Spirit chooses to believe and confess for a continuation of the sanctification process. Once in a while that may include "things" IF God is leading for those things. The WOF teachers really do need to make this distinction VERY clear.

OK..so here is an example of how this process works. Let's say one is reading Phil 4:6 where it exhorts not to worry but pray about things.
The reader could meditate on the word "worry" and what they are worrying about at that time. Then they could do a study of the word "prayer" and how they could pray about those worries. After this meditation, which they would continue perhaps for several days, they could begin the end of the meditating process by confession. Their confession might go like this:
"I refuse to worry about _______but instead take it to prayer and leave it at the feet of God."

So then, here is the process:
1. One is lead to notice a certain verse or verses.
2. One begins to meditate that verse(s). Study of the words, entire textual passage and culture behind the passage is part of the meditation process.
3. One begins to confess the verse(s). In doing this they also are memorizing it, but memorizing alone won't necessarily accomplish working faith.
4. One begins to pray the verse(s).

I would like to see Sunday School children being taught to meditate Scripture instead of just blanket memorization. I truly believe that process would impact their lives. I'm not sure memorization is changing their lives at all.

Where I disagree with the late Kenneth Hagin (as well as some of his followers) is how to select verses to meditate. He says to find a Scripture that fits your situation/problem. But IMO that is flesh trying to figure out what to do instead of being led by God.

On a personal note:
1.This process has really changed my life from a depressed negative person to a happier more positive person. For decades I was a depressed, thinking-about suicidal person. To be fair, I would say about 25-30% of my depression left because of meditation-confession and the other 70-75% was getting off the little caffeine I drank (I am very caffeine intolerant I found out).

2. It is vital that the Scripture confessed is as close to it's original as possible. I have seen some WOF'ers and others who are confessing things that may be nice concepts but are not the actual Scriptures. They are bordering IMO close to new age practices.

Healing

Angle #1.
The Word of Faith people (WOF'ers) read Matthew 8:17 which says,
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esias the prophet saying,
Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
And they really believe it.
By the way, for those who say they are taking that verse out of context, the entire chapter 8 of Matthew is about Jesus physically healing the sick. And for those who say that it means Jesus carried our sicknesses while He was on earth, then you will also need to believe that He took our sins upon Him while on the earth, and not at the cross, because in that passage sin and sickness are presented on an equal level.

Is. 53:4, 5 syas:
4. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted
5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes (bruise-note the singular) we are healed.

The words borne and carried found in both the Is. 53 and the Matt.8 passages carries the meaning of actual transference of sin and sicknesses upon Him. In other words, it is a substitutionary redemption from sin and sickness. In the Hebrew in Is. 53 here is what Alexander MacLaren says,
"Of these two words expressing the Servant's taking their burden on His shoulders (nasa and sabal) the former implies not only the taking of it, but the bearing it away; and, the latter emphasizes the weight of the load."

Delitzsch is a Hebraist respected and referred to by theologians and pastors outside of the WOF movement. Here is what he says about Is. 53 and Matt. 8:17:
"Freely but faithfully does the Gospel of Matthew translate this text, 'Himself took our infirmities and carried our sicknesses.' The help which Jesus rendered in all kinds of bodily sickness is taken in Matthew to be the fulfillment of what in Isaiah is prophesied of the Servant of Jehovah. The Hebrew verbs of the text, when used of sin, signify to assume as a heavy burden and bear the guilt of sin, as one's own; that is, to bear sin mediatorily in order to atone for it. But here. Where not our sins, but our sicknesses and pains are the object, the mediatorial sense remains the same.
It is not meant that the Servant of Jehovah merely entered into the fellowship of our sufferings, but that He took upon Himself the sufferings that we had to bear, and deserved to bear; and therefore, He not only bore them away, but also in His own person endured them in order to discharge (bold type mine) us from them. Now when one takes sufferings upon himself which another had to bear, and does this, not merely in fellowship with him, but in his stead, we call it Substitution."

In verse 5 of Isaiah 53 it says:
With His stripes we are healed.
This is transferred into the NT in I Peter 2:24. The Greek word for healed here is iaomai. It is found 28 times in the New Testament, always in reference to physical healing. The word for physician in the Greek is iatros, a relative of iaomai. Therefore, the first century Christian, upom hearing this, would not necessarily read this as "spiritual" healing.
However, I do realize that the context here implies spiritual healing. Can we not then believe that Jesus took our spiritual sicknesses, our emotional pain and also our physical infirmities and pain upon Himself in the Atonement (the cross)?

Angle #2
There are types in the OT that we can see relating to this. One type is in Numbers 21:8 where the children of Israel because of their sin began to die in the wilderness. Moses was told by God to put a serpent on a pole and hold it up to heal the people. Almost every theologian tells us this is a type of Christ on the cross taking away our sins. But sadly, most of them then refuse to go one step further and relate the actual event of the OT example to what Christ also did at the cross--physical healing.

Another type is found in the OT yearly sacrificial lamb.
Listen again to what Alexander Maclaren says,
"Hebrew thought drew no sharp line of distinction between diseases of the body and those of the soul, as we are accustomed to draw. All sickness was taken to be the consequence of sin."

So to the Hebrew mind, it seems that when the lamb was sacrificed it was to cover sin and to prevent sickness and other disasters. This is also seen in Deut. 28 where a litany of horrible things is promised to those who do not keep the law. And, in the first part of the chapter, a list of the nice things that will happen if they do. Since sin compromised the ability to keep the law, the lamb was the substitute. Faith in the sacrifice would cover, but not take away the sin for another year. Since in the Hebrew mind, sin and sickness were entertwined (and we certainly see this in the Is. 53 and Matt. 8 passages), it isn't a stretch that they might have seen that lamb as a cover for sickness also.
Jesus, the Unblemished Lamb of God did the same thing for those who believe in His sacrifice and the effectualness of it--He took way forever, not just covering them for another year.

Angle #3
In the OT, God reveals Himself fairly completely with what theologians call His seven redemptive names. One of those names is Jehovah Rapha.
Jehovah means "I Am." Rapha means "Healing." Therefore, God is saying "I Am Healing." One of the leading WOF teachers correctly points out that it doesn't mean God has healing (i.e. to dispense when He wants to), but He IS Healing. The implications of this are rather staggering.

Angle #4
Jesus never told anyone who came to Him for healing that it "wasn't God's will." As long as they seemed to have the requisite faith, they or their loved ones, servants, etc. received their healing, deliverance and so forth. The only place the Bible says He COULD not do great healing works was His home town of Nazareth because the text says "because of their unbelief" (see Mark 6:5). Now here is an interesting twist to bring that into reality today. There is a verse in Hebrews (13:8) that says this:
"Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever."
I hope you get the point. If Jesus healed at the point of faith then, why has He suddenly stopped today? Was healing ONLY a sign for the Jews? Well, we've already seen that God is Healing. That is WHO He is, for everyone. God doesn't change for one peoplel and then change back for another.
In John chapter 1 it talks a lot about Jesus being the Word. The Greek word for this is logos. Kittel in the THeolgoical Greek Dictionary of the New Testament points out that the accepted meaning of that word in the Roman-Greek world was character as expressed through speech and writing. In other words, the Logos' character was revealed through what he or she spoke and wrote.
If Jesus' character was to heal in the first century, because of the fact as we've already seen God is Healing, why would it suddenly change now? Why would Jesus the Son and God the Father be different in character today than They were then. So then to say that God doesn't heal today (classic cessationism which thankfully few follow today) or to even say God heals when He wants to (mostly followed today) is absurd and totally in refutation of Their (the Father and Son and the Spirit) character.

Angle #5
James 5:14,15 says,
14-Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Notice what it doesn't say--MIGHT be healed
The WOF teachers point this out and I have never heard it pointed out anywhere else, to pastors' and theologians' shame IMO. Notice also that it is the elders that pray the prayer of faith, not necessarily the sick person (although I think their faith could be helpful). This is often where some WOF'ers miss it. But notice that the elders must pray the prayer of FAITH, NOT the prayer of unbelief. By the way, as I said in my previous post on faith, this is not a golly-gee-I-hope-so type of faith. It is a sure thing as the Greek meaning in James 1 states. If elders cannot pray that way, then IMO they shouldn't be praying for the sick.

In conclusion, people aren't getting healed very much in our churches today. Why? First, our leaders are not understanding the healing character of God and that He never changeth.
Second, faith seems to be a requisite both in the OT and the NT to receive healing. The faith however is not placed in the actual act or even GOD. And it certainly isn't placed in apostles, prophets, healers, pastors and other assorted ministers. It is placed on an historical event--the Atonement. When I said not in God, I understand that it is God from whom the healing power emanates. But we cannot leave what Jesus did on the cross out. That is exactly what the Third Wavers are doing. Straight from God to the hands of the healers, prophets, apostles and assorted others. Somewhere, Jesus gets lost in the shuffle. But if one reads the entire book of Hebrews, one will get the idea that God doesn't want Jesus and his work at the cross to get lost in the shuffle. That is why I like some of the things the WOF'ers say about healing because they are continually forcing us to look back at the cross.

If we can get these angles straight and pray in faith, we might see a lot of healing in the future. And if we don't? Have we lost anything? I think not. At least we will be forced to go back to the cross and its implications.

Now the BIG question that remains is:
Why don't some get healed? I've answered that in part today certainly. And, in future posts down the road, I will tackle that specifically.

Trading Spouses

I'm going to take a short break today from the WOF stuff but we will get back to it tomorrow with a post on Healing.

One of my favorite programs is Trading Spouses on the Fox Network. There is another clone program on ABC but IMO it is very contrived. I like Trading Spouses much better. Here is the premise of the program if you have never watched it. Two mothers (or in one program fathers) trade families for a few days. Each one travels to the others' house and is the mommy and wife to the other family.
At the end of the period each mommy writes to their "family" how she wants them to spend the $50,000 given to them by the program.
The fascination of this progrma for me is its sociological implications. In one program, a lady from the rural South traded places with an upper middle class lady from Orange County, CA. (like in "the O.C.").
Last night the program decided to trade two mommys from different religions. One was from a Jewish family in Maryland and the other was a born-again Christian family from California. To say the evangelical mommy was embarrassing would be an understatement. But then, I believe she came from central CA. which is basically a red state within the so-called blue state of California. Here is the rundown on California. It is like some other states that are not compeltely blue or red. From the top of CA down to the Napa Valley wine region (the Redding area--logging) is basically your red area. Then from Napa Valley down to just above Modesto is your blue San Francisco area. From Modesto to Bakersfield is another huge red agricultural-more rural-like area.
From below Bakersfield to the Mexican border (this includes Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties) is blue.

The blue areas are fairly educated and sophisticated although they may be thought of as being laid back since they are in CA. But it is a sophisticated laid back. I visited my friends in Nebraska a few year ago and was in culture shock. No fusion food, no Trader Joes, no Macy's or Robinson-Mays or Nordstroms (west coast upscale dept. stores), no Whole Foods or Bristol Farms markets. Just all of this Walmart stuff and gravy and meat and potatoes and more gravy and eggs and more gravy. I felt sick. No healthy salads--just chefs slads. No designer pizza. I was lost, although my visit to my friends' nieces' farm was interesting.

For the past 6 years I've been in a Christian chat room with mostly Southerners and a few Midwesterners..and almost no blue state people. I am a fish out of water. Oh I share the basic Conservative Republican things with them but when they start talking about Branson, the Grand 'Ole Opry, Walmart, Super Walmart, Wally's World, Blue Bell ice cream and Kohls store I get lost...majorly.

Some of my chat friends have encouraged me to move to Texas.....or Oklahoma...or Arkansas. Uh...no. I love Haagen-Daaz and Godiva ice cream, the Los Philharmonic Orchestra, book reviews, art museums, salons (no..not saloons..and not hair salons..maybe I will explain a salon in another post) and taking adult college classes for fun. I would love taking classes at nearby Fuller Theological Seminary and reading Berkhof's Systematic Theology. This world is a foreign one to my online chat friends.

Since many evangelicals in these blue areas out here seem to be red-area transplants I've had a difficult time socially in the evangelical chruch. Thus I was forced back into the Presbyterian church where people like me lurk. Fortunately I found a fairly evangelical one.

I hope I don't sound like a snob. I don't mean to be but this is how I grew up..in an upper-middle class Southern California community.

The thing that bugs me is that I ALWAYS must cater to the red people BUT they never cater to me.

By the way, Rob who has a great blog, wrote an article in one of our local papers on why he as a former Muslim had to have his family live in the conservative OC (that's Orange County for you who haven't heard of the TV program). As he points out, maybe the red states aren't as wonderful as they make out to be...especially for minorities, people with different opinions, or California-like "snobs" like me.

So what am I trying to say here? pehaps there is no "evangelical Christian culture," and perhaps there shouldn't be.

You can read Rob's article here.

Faith

One thing I really like about the Word of Faith (WOF) teaching is their strict Scriptural interpretation of the text..that is, most of the time.

For example, the Bible says for elders to lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. The WOF people really believe every word of that verse. Yes, they really do; and they act like they believe it.

And when they read the definition of faith in Hebrews 11, they really believe that too. Hebrews 11:1 says,
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)

The New International Version says,
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
The Greek word for hoped for here means a sure hope, not a "golly gee I sure hope so."

So then, the WOF'ers tell us to believe what we pray for. However, can you really believe for anything you pray for? They have an answer for that too and it's No. They point out that you must pray in God's will and you can find much of God's will they say, in the Bible. So, often they will simply "pray the Word." Praying the Word means to pray a Scripture but making it personal for you. The best selling book Prayers That Avail Much was written by some WOF women to illustrate this. For example, under the topic, Freedom from Worry, in that book, they use 14 Scriptures in combination. Here is one combination:
"I thank you Father that You are able to keep that which I have committed to you. I think on (fix my mind on) those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and deserving of praise."
This is Phil. 4:6 and 4:8 combined in the prayer.

But how and from where do we get this faith? Just saying from God is too nebulous for the WOF'ers. They found Romans 10:17 which says that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." So, they surmise, if you hear the Word over and over, faith comes.

And that is essentially the basis for their faith teaching. Of course there will be some readers that will challenge this by saying that it is God who gives the faith. The amusing thing is so many Reformationists will be the ones saying this but when asked about preaching the Word by their pastors, they will tell you that the preaching of the Word is the effectual tool, no matter who it comes from. So, in essence, the WOF people are saying the same thing. But their position is that anyone including the pastor can say the Word and hear it. And faith will come that way.

The WOF'ers have also discovered Hebrews 11:6 which says that without faith it is impossible to please God. Since they take that seriously, you can see why faith is an important topic to them. They spend a lot of time researching the topic of faith; how to grow it; and how to make it work God's way.

Word of Faith Teaching

I have avoided this subject for weeks now since I know I will be excoriated for it. My readers may not take anything else I have to say in the future very seriously if I reveal my secret Word of Faith beliefs. You see, I am in the minority of evangelicals that actually believe some of the Word of Faith Teaching. I strongly believe that SOME (and I emphasize some, not all) of it MUST be incorporated in today's churches. I don't subscribe to everything they teach, but there are certain...what I call...centralities that I would like to present for consideration over the next few days. The reason I say they must be incorporated is because of what we face in the future. If we as Christians wish to get through the hard times ahead, as well as lead others through, we must understand faith and how it actually works. In past posts I've tried to help people see that doctors, drugs, psychotherapy, etc. may fail them. This is why churches must begin to teach faith accurately which I do not see the majority of churches doing today. This is why God gave this teaching to us, but because it has been mangled so badly by so many, it hasn't been taken too seriously. It is my hope that this post will perhaps be one of those vehicles that begin a serious dialog on this important subject.

For sake of brevity I will refer to the teachers and followers of that teaching as WOF'ers and the teaching itself as WOF teaching.

By Word Of Faith I mean the Hagin-Copeland type of teaching. Unfortunately, there are scads of others that are now called "faith teachers," but are even more way off than some of the aberrations of the original ones. For my purposes here I am going to talk about Hagin Sr.'s theology only, with the exception of Copeland when I want to point out errors.

First, I wish to be clear that much of WOF teaching especially from Hagin's disciples is in error and some is just plain goofy. I will point out some of these as we go along.

Second, it's important to distinguish WOF teaching from revival Third Wave teaching as there are major fundamental differences. The WOF theology is very covenantal and centers around the work of Christ at the cross, where the Third Wave centers around signs and wonders done at the hands of prophets and apostles. There are however, some points that overlap. And the funny thing is...recently I've seen more and more Third Wavers trying to get on the WOF teaching bandwagon. I am surmising that is because what they have been offering isn't working too well.

Third, WOF teaching puts Scripture and Christ at the center, while Third Wave, at least on the surface, doesn't seem to. However, in the WOF world, at times prophetic revelation does supercede Scripture. Therefore, it is incumbent upon other WOF leaders to offer correction when needed instead of the "good 'ole boy" attitudes that is too often the case.

Fourth, the WOF'ers would have little difficulty with the Five Solas (see my post for a description of these Reformational foundations), where I think the Third Wavers would have much of difficulty with them, at least in practice.

Fifth, Yes, I know about Hank Hanagraaff's book Christianity in Crisis. He makes some very improrant points in that book and I actually agree with 80% of it. But, there seem to be some thoughts in his book that suggests he might not completely understand some WOF principles. I hope to explain some of the misconceptions that have arisen in this WOF movement, basically because of what I perceive is poor communication on the part of many WOF leaders, and the actual poor practices, including too much control and abuse by many WOF pastors.

I have discovered that in the centrality of the WOF teaching there are at least four principles that IMO every church needs to incorporate. Many of you reading this will be tearing your hair out asking why I can't offer up other examples of these four theological principles instead of the Hagin model. Well, I would love to IF I could find churches outside the WOF ones that teach them. But I can't seem to find them.

So, here are the five and their links. I will spend time on each one for the next four days.

1. The Definition of Faith
2. Healing in the Atonement
3. Meditating and Confession of the Word
4. Prosperity
5. Tithing

Another Perspective on the Third Wave Prophets

Brad over at 21st Century Reformation has written an excellent post about his years in the Vineyard. It is the Nov. 11 one entitled Weird Or Winsome-My Experience with the KC Prophetic Movement. He was there when John Wimber brought in the Third Wave prophets. I have never read an analysis of this movement that is so right on. Together with Andrew Strom's latest post, I think you will be able to get a sense of what the real prophetic is and what the false is.

Strom, in his latest email post, says there are four keys to discernment. Briefly they are:
1. Know the Holy God intimately. Well, this is what the Third Wavers say all day long but Strom correctly keeps away from the mysticism of the Third Wave.

2. Be a lover of truth. IMO this is where most of the Third Wavers fall down. They accept too much false without questioning.

3.Humility. The Third Wavers say they are humble but talk is cheap.

4. The inner witness of the Holy Spirit.

The False Revival and the True One

OK...we really do need to talk about revival.

My friend Bob over at TotemtoTemple has written a really good article at his website Available Light Online. He writes about a term he coined calls "vival." He says that instead of revival which seems to come only once in a while, shouldn't we be in constant revival? Or, vival as he calls it. He also brings up the difference between revivals and church renewals which are often mistaken for revivals.
You can read it here.

I agree wholeheartedly that the church should be in constant renewal-revival. However, when the church and the country (they both go together amazingly) are running dry, perhaps it's time for a "kick-in-the-pants" from God.

I have hinted in previous posts here about a false revival and a true one. I believe this Third Wave revival (i.e. Toronto, Brownsville, etc.) is the false one preceding the true one. As I wrote previously, Andrew Strom is the latest to catch on to the deception.
So what is the difference between a false revival and a true revival?

Here are some characteristics I've gleaned as I've pondered this matter over the past 15 years.

1. The false revival is loud and the attention seems to be on the revival, so-called signs and wonders, and revival leaders.

The true revival is quiet and all attention is on Christ and His atoning work at the cross.

2. The prophets of the false revival don't have a very good track record in foretelling or even forthtelling. Their "prophecies" are often vague and very generalized which is convenient as to accountability...or the lack thereof I should say. The current crop of "prophets" keep whining about how a NT prophet cannot be held to a 100% or even close rate and that their 60-70% rate is just fine. And their sheep followers buy into this stuff. Sigh...

The true prophets are almost 100% on and are specific.

3. The false revival brags about great healings and miracles. But when you try to find these it is often difficult. A lot of it is just hype. Are these people really getting people out of wheelchairs and raising the dead?

In the true revival, miracles and healings aren't hard to find at all and are verified accurately.

4. The false revival leaders are constantly telling us that after they pray over a certain area (after researching it's "spiritual" history) that area changes. They present such shining examples as Cali, Columbia (currently probably the worst and most chaotic city in the world), Toronto, Canada (bad crime rate and homeless problem there), and so forth. You can get the picture I'm sure.

The true revivalists understand HOW to pray correctly and in the Spirit for an area. And after prayer it changes.

5.The false revivalists accuse the brethren for questioning them. They get angry and call us really horrible names. We are the religious dead, Jezebels, dead, dry bones of the church, etc. How dare we come against their "anointed."

In the true revival they will be too humble and too busy for this kind of nonsense.

6. The false revivalists are quite arrogant.

The true revivalists are really humble--not a put-on humility--but the real deal.

7. The music...well I won't even go there as it will cause WWIII.

It will be interesting to see if my prophecy is accurate? If not, well, just dump me in with the rest of the "know-nothing" 3rd Wavers.

Christians and the Public Square

In the Sept-Oct 2004 issue of Modern Reformation magazine, there is an interesting
interview with Michael Cromartie, Vice-President, [The] Ethics and Public Policy Center.

He talks about Christians engaging the public square and how we should be in it
without being a wing of one political party or the other. He says,
"One way to do it is to be sure that when we work in the public arena we make appeals to the common good as opposed to just making appeals to fellow believers."

He continues by saying that it is the pastors duty to encourage the parishioners to become engaged as citizens BUT it is NOT the role of pastor to tell people how to vote. In other words, the role of the pastor is to encourage the laity to do the work of the kingdom. He says that one part of that work is political, but not all of it.

He makes the point that many of the things that we are working for is not only good for believers but for the whole community.

He continues,
"When Christians start saying there is a Christian view for everything, they are speaking to things that Scripture does not address. We must learn to go from Scriptural principals to certain policies and we reach conclusions on which honorable people of strong Christian faith may actually disagree."

He points out that When a church tries to speak for a political party it compromises the church's unique identity.

He continues,
"We should stop talking about the church this and the church that. We should be talking about individual Christian citizens exercising their rights in the public arena. All of our churches, no matter how conservative or liberal the are, are full of people with diverse opinions about politics. A pastor should never assume that everybody in the sanctuary is of the same persuasion."

Then he says what so many of us bloggers have been saying for the past weeks:
"Turning the kingdom of God into a partisan political activity either on the right or the left weakens the witness of the church to the gospel.

Yes....AMEN to that!

Items of Interest

Here are some interesting items that have come in over the past few days.

*The Christian Right is becoming way too obnoxious. I already wrote yesterday what Dobson said to George Stephanapoulis on the ABC Sunday morning news program (see A Reverse Scenario). Now Dr. James Kennedy has come out saying,
"The voters have delivered a moral mandate. Now that values voters have delivered for George Bush, he must deliver for their values. The defense of the innocent unborn human life, the protection of marriage and the nomination and confirmation of federal judges who will interpret the Constitution, not make law from the bench must be first priorities come January."
Wow! I guess that makes it pretty clear..no wonder I just read at Matt Drudge that........
President Bush is considering Clarence Thomas to be the new Chief Justice if Mr. Rehnquist should resign.
If that should happen, look for more bald liberals (after tearing their hair out) and more emigrants to Canada.


*David Brooks, the conservative columnist at the NYTimes wrote the following this week after the election:
--->Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. 16% of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances (uh--I guess that isn't a majority is it). There was no increase in the number of voters who say they pray daily.
--->Bush did better this year in the "blue" states of New York, Connecticut and Massachussets than in 2000. But he did not gain significantly in the 11 states that passed anti-gay marriage referendums.

*From the Los Angeles Times Opinion section yesterday:
There are certain predictions each year that seem to be right on. here are a few:
--->Psychic Dogs-Sylvester Stallone's mother has some dogs that seem to use telepathy to her to pick election winners. They have successfully picked the presidential winners since 2000 and also the now governor of CA. They also picked Bush this year but by a margin of 15%. Maybe the dogs need to do a little fine tuning?
--->Gourd Flinging-In Statesville, NC., pumpkins dressed as Kerry, Bush, Cheney and Edwards are launched from catapults. The pumpkins that travel the furthest predict the election winners. This year both the Cheney and Bush pumpkins beat out the Kerry and Edwards pumpkins for distance.
--->Halloween Mask Sales-Bush beat out Kerry 53%-47% in mask sales.
*Eyebrow Effect-The person with the shaggiest eyebrows always loses according to this theory. This year Kerry needed an eyebrow trim...and he lost.

*And in Hollywood.....it seems that Sherry (hasta la vista baby) Lansing's studio, Paramount has a flop in their new movie Alfie.
And get the explanation for this demise:

Wayne Llewellyn, the president of distribution at Paramount, said that the conservative ethos reflected in last week's election results might have hurt the film.

Uh..yeah...maybe....


And that's all folks....

A Reverse Scenario

First of all I want to thank TotemtoTemple for his gracious link to my post yesterday. He takes what I said and gives an explanation of why he believes the Christian Right might be trying to bring their agenda on board here in the Untied States. Actually, after reading Cal Thomas's and Ed Dobson's book Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America, I'm wondering more and more if it's about raw, naked power.

And that brings me to today's scenario after seeing Dr. James Dobson, now the Christian Right's titular head (sorry, move over Dr. Fallwell) on George Stephanapoulis' ABC news program this morning. Dr. Dobson is intent on "bullying" (my term as well as what Thomas and Ed Dobson say in their book) the Republicans in Congress. Now he is gunning for Arlen Spector (who says he has faithfully supported all of Mr. Bush's past court nominees)and anyone else who is holding up the Christian Right agenda. So Mr. Bush, be very, very careful...Dr. Dobson is watching you.

Dr. Dobson was asked by Mr. Stephanapolous why he called another senator a "Christian-hater?" He was asked if this wasn't a very strong term. To that Dr. Dobson tersely and somewhat angrily replied, "George, I don't think you have to lecture me about what a Christian is."

Uh...when did we become so mean spirited and crazy? And you wish to follow these "Christian leaders?" Please, please do read Blinded by Might. I got my copy from my local library so perhaps you won't need to buy it.

Yesterday (see The Future-The "New" Jews) we saw what might happen if liberals came to power and turned the Patriot Act against the evangelicals. Today, let's see what happens--and this is certainly a very possible scenario now as the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the presidency--if the Republicans decide to go a step further with those they oppose. This is stretch for me but it could happen. The liberals could become the next "Jews" (in fact the gay community are convinced they already are). In Germany prior to WWII the Nazis were actually the Right of the day..hooray for Germany, motherhood, the flag and apple strudel (their version of apple pie). The liberals were as follows:
*the Jews
*some of the Wiemar Republic democracy leaders
*communists,
*world-wide socialists (as opposed to German Nationalistic socialists)
*homosexuals
*and, other assorted folks.

Those were precisely the people who ended up in the concentration camps + the gypsies and some evangelical Christians who refused to go along with the nationalistic program of the Third Reich. Hmmm....makes me wonder where Christians like me and some others will end up under the Christian Right reign.
Then you have the Third Wave which also opposes "questioners" and you really wonder where people like me will end up if the Christian "sheep" continue to "follow" these people. By the way, here is an interesting side note. Both the Third Wavers (Charismatics and some Pentecostals [C/P'ers]) and the Christian Right (I would say for the most part they are non-C/P'ers) want to establish God's kingdom in THEIR way. And that is precisely what is wrong. It needs to be God's way. Jollyblogger and some other bloggers that I've listed on the right sidebar at this site have written in the last few weeks about this problem. Many are Reformationists and understand that we probably should not blur between what Augustine called God's city and Man's city. However, unlike the fundamentalists of old, we certainly should engage non-Christians in the public square. In this month's (Sept-Oct, 2004) issue of Modern Reformation magazine a writer says that we should do that as individuals NOT as the church or a group. AND THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THIS DILEMMA. Get Christian groups and churches OUT of the public square and PUT INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS IN! Meanwhile, churches should be preaching the gospel, not politics as TotemtoTemple has been pointing out a lot these past weeks. In fact he writes that he decided to stay out of church until after the election so he wouldn't have to hear the "stuff" (my word...not his).

Now, switch to my Christian chat room. They are really nice people but mostly from the "red" states and especially The South. I now understand why the blue states people tear their hair out. I'm seeing it so much in my chat room. So many of them follow the Christian Right thinking-no questions asked. I am beginning to think that one of the greatest things a church can do is to help their congregants to question things and teach them the difference between bias and fact. I have to listen to the main stream media AND the Christian talk programs AND the political right talk programs AND NPR (the ultra-liberal public radio) to figure out just what is really going on. I was hoping that just maybe a Christian talk host or Christian news program would present the whole picture, not just the Christian Right picture. But so far I cannot find a Christian Bill O'Reily.

The Future-The "New" Jews

Well, I and scads of others have predicted that Christian Evangelicals would be persecuted in this country (USA) one day and I do believe we are one step nearer.
I have actually gone one step further and predicted (prophesied, whatever) that it would be because of the Christian Right's mangling of the gospel message that would bring this persecution on.

Have you read what even the mainstream media is saying and especially the liberal OpEd columnists? They are all saying it is the evangelicals' fault that Bush won.

Here is what one columnist at Slate online mag titled his column--The Unteachable Ignorance of the Red States. And we ALL knows WHO he means don't we?

On his radio program yesterday Bill O'Reilly went down the list of main Democratic columnists and their hysteria about how evangelicals are "taking over" the country.

This same thing happened in Germany before WWII. Then it was the Jews' fault that everything went wrong....WWI lost, the weak Weimar Republic, the decaying morals, etc.

Now WE are the New "Jews." Welcome to the future when the liberals finally do win. I have told you readers of this blog over and over that the precedents set today such as the Patriot Act and so forth may come back to bite you..and bite you hard. It isn't fair and it isn't right to persecute Muslims and others under this unconstitutional act. And it is just plain stupid to think it will not come back to haunt us later on.

I cannot remember the man's name right now but there is a Jewish gentleman who runs an organization to research persecuted peoples around the world. He says that Evangelicals are the most persecuted right now.

I think now is the time for all Christians to denounce the Christian Right and stop supporting it and begin to do some damage control without lettting go of our principles. How about preaching the real gospel instead of the Finneyistic laws and rules "theology."

Let me say this strongly--You simply CANNOT legislate morals. Prohibition lost. It was the ONLY Constitutional amendment in our country's history to be repealed. There was a reason for it and I want you to really think deeply why. God isn't going to sit up in heaven and go, "oh..neato...they passed a law against abortion. Now I am so happy because this will stop abortion." Some Christians need to read the gospels again, especially the parts where Jesus talks about what is in the heart is important to God, not especially what is done on the outside, unless of course (a la book of James) it is a result of what is happening on the inside of a person.

The only way to change people is to change them through regeneration. I trust you evangelical readers will know what this means. For the nonevangelical readers...don't worry about it..it is one of our "in" terms.

The way evangelicals is pictured is of course ludicrous. The mainstream media always manages to pick some obscure small church in the South with mostly uneducated-looking people. They wouldn't dare come out here to Southern California and pick a church because they know on the whole we are more sophisticated and educated. But not all of this is their fault. When you have so many inarticulate Christian-Right spokespersons and TBN (shudder) what can you reasonably expect. And poor Oprah is still scratching her head wondering why so many evangelical "Christians" hate her and send her hate mail.

There is a big difference between us and the WWII era European Jews. They really weren't doing most of the horrible things they were accused of.

But.....we are.

I hope you will read the next post,
A Reverse Scenario to see the other side of this picture.

Andrew Strom

I need to interupt my Future series because of what has happened with Andrew Strom. For those of you who haven't a clue as to who I'm talking about, let me give some background.

In one of my first posts, True Revival, I set forth the differences between this so-called current (Third Wave) false revival and the true one I sense is following.

Enter Andrew Strom. A few years ago I found a prophetic email list hosted by one Andrew Strom from New Zealand. At first of course I thought it would be another Third Wave prophetic tool. But, I began to see that this guy was not of the Third Wave ilk. In fact he even had grave reservations about the Toronto "blessing." The more I read his list, the more I saw he probably was a forerunner of the true prophets in the true revival.

But then he got the idea to leave New Zealand and come to America. And that is where the problems began. He landed in Kansas City, Mike Bickle land, the one who introduced the "prophets" to the vineyard in the 80's. And that was the forerunner of the current movement. Add Dr. C. Peter Wagner, John Arnott and the Browsnville crowd and presto! You have the Third Wave.

Since Mr. Strom has arrived on America's shores, his message seems to have changed radically. That is, unless he believed these things all along. There are two main problems I saw, that is until recently when he got his eyes open to the first one.

First, he began to really get behind the Third Wave prophets like Cain, Jones, Joyner and the gang. I won't be so unkind as to let you in on what is going on with some of these guys..but let's say they are in disaray as to "purity." For instance, right now, Bickle and company are tearing their hair out trying to figure out what to do with Paul Cain. I've predicted this for 15 years. And what happened to Strom at the "conference" could have been predicted. One simply needs discernment which is sorely lacking in the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches today.

So first, Strom thinks these prophets are hot stuff. Then he attends a conference where his discernment finally kicks in. The prophets are there and he doesn't like what he senses. No, I would imagine not. Very occultic (those are my words) and disturbing to the spirit. If you go to his website and read why he is leaving the Prophetic movement you will see the reasons listed. And he couldn't have described the Third Wave occultism any better. So now he has decided, and this are his words, "to leave the prophetic movement." Uh, Andrew, I hate to inform you but the Third Wave prophets are NOT the only game in town. There are others, truer ones like Jacob Prasch, David Wilkerson and maybe Art Katz. I have an idea. Why not join up with those folks?

Second, the other distressing thing that many of us are seeing from Strom is his fascination for the teachings of Charles Finney. Add to that a few whacked out theological ideas and we ahve big problems. He recently presented a series called The Nine Lies of Today's Church.

Here they are in the order he presented them. Most of them are fine, but he does what so many tend to do--go to an extreme. I offer my comments after the dash (-).

1. Asking Jesus into your heart-I agree..isn't in the Bible
2. Church buildings do not exist in the Bible-I think he goes a little overboard here. However, I agree that at times too much money and time is spent on these buldings.
3. The "one pastor runs everything" model- a BIG amen for this one..yes!
4. Tithing is not a New Testament practice-another big amen
5. The words "prosper" and "prosperity" were never used by Jesus at all-Agreed but there is the OT model of prosperity for some--not all and certainly not ostentationess. But let's not go back to the other exteme of the poverty model. There were both rich, poor and in-between in the early first century church. It depends on what God has called you to do and with whom and to whom.
6. There were no Bible colleges or seminaries in the early church period-I have to take issue with him on this one, but I will save that for another time.
7. There is no evidence whatsoever that the early church had their main meeting on Sunday. They basically met everyday from house to house-OK..but let's have leeway here.
8. He says we have replaced the Holy Spirit with programs and more programs.--Yes we have....amen.
9. We preach a humanistic Jeuss today--Yes indeedy we do.

My big recommendation for Mr. Strom is to read anything by Michael Horton. He badly needs to balance the Finneyism.

Here is Andrew Strom's website. You can read the Nine Lies of Today's Church in depth; why he is leaving the "Prophetic Movement," and so forth. You can also sign up to be on his ANZAC email list.
You can also hear his teachings on audio. You will hear what I consider to be a forerunner of the true last day prophets. I just hope he will get back on track in some areas.

Andrew Stroms website is Revival Supersite.

Listen to his teachings here. I would recommend the Thundering in Nashville one.

The Future...beginnings

Well, this may sound a bit strange for a conservative Republican but I have mixed feelings about the outcome of the US election here. And, I am finding more and more conservative Evangelicals who feel the same way. If Kerry had won, perhaps it would have been a last ditch chance for the church to turn around, get serious about the gospel and get humbled.

But now......both the Third Wave prophets and the Christian Right have been vindicated. So more people I suppose will follow Kim Clement (shuddder). But Pat Robertson goofed....it wasn't quite a landslide for Bush.

Bush is making more promises today. Let's see how he did with his promises from the last election in 2000.

Here is a synopsis by the brilliant (IMO) NYTimes OpEd columnist Thomas Friedman in his Oct. 30 OpEd piece.

Bush said:
1.Oct. 11, 2000: "If we're an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. ... We've got to be humble."

Me: Well, I hate to say this but I agree with Mr. Freidman who by the way has traveled and talked extensively to the regular folks in Muslim nations. Mr. Freidman points out less than 5% of Jordanians think Mr. Bush is doing well and more than 65% of Pakistanis think Osama is great. And then there are the Europenas as well as everyone else. I agree that the humble thing isn't working well.

Feb. 27, 2001: "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. ... We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would."

Yes I know about 9/11. But Mr. Freidman points out that the debt now has increased 40% by 2.1 trillion. Is this really all due to 9/11 and the Iraqi war? Perhaps. But there is still a lot of pork...he could veto the bill, send it back to Congress and demand it comes back porkless.

Sept. 25, 2000: "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil."

Yes, and what exactly have we done about that? I remember vaguely in one of his state of the union speeches that Mr. Bush promised a lot of research into hydrogen cars? Does anyone remember that too?

June 11, 2001: "My administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change."

Ditto what I said above with the oil.

June 26, 2003 "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the
eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors."

Well, what about OUR abuses of prisoners all over from Iraq to Guantanmo to other secret places?

Nov. 5, 2003: "In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. ... We're asked by our convictions and tradition
and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society."

Bush isn't to be blamed for this necessarily but the Christian Right is so convinced that if we just get in a Conservative moral values president everything will be fine. Mr. Friedman points out (The Christian Right won't like this) that under the Clinton administration abortions actually decreased by 22% in the '90's. But they have increased thus far in the Bush administration. He says that according to Glenn Stassen, a pro-life theolgian, abortions increased by 52,000 in the year 2002 than would have been expected by following the trends of the 90's.

May 25, 2004: "One of the challenges we face is to make sure the health care system responds to the needs of the citizens."

Mr. Freidman says that 5 million more Americans have no health insurance than when Mr. Bush took office.

May 24, 2003: "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."

Again, Mr. Friedman: On Mr. Bush's watch, North Korea is generally believed to
have gone from two nuclear weapons to about eight.

2001: "Not on my watch."
Scrawled note by Mr. Bush on a Sept. 30, 2004: "The biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network."

Mr. Freidman: But the single most important step to reducing the risk that a nuclear weapon will destroy New York is to secure loose nukes abroad, and Mr. Bush has been lackadaisical about that. Only 135 out of 600 metric tons of Russian nuclear materials have been given comprehensive upgrades, and Mr. Bush initially proposed cutting funds for that program. report to him about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that had occurred under President Clinton.

Sept. 2, 1999: "Effective reform requires accountability.
... It is a sad story. High hopes, low achievement. Grand
plans, unmet goals. My administration will do things
differently."

Mr. Friedman: Oh?
Me: Hmmmm....

Tomorrow, let's talk about the evangelical church in all of this.