I've said this before, but the early church believed that baptism had the effect of exorcising demons; only intentional dabbling in the occult or acts of apostasy could lead to the possession, and what is more, because demoniacs are possessed, that is to say, being controlled by, a foreign entity, they are not morally culpable for their actions while possessed. this man does not seem to understand that; I think he's confusing demons with the passions, which are actually more dangerous, if admittedly less glamorous in a macabre way.

When Morris was given his “honorary” doctorate, the reason given was that Morris had written 8 books. Readers must know that Morris uses a ghostwriter for all his books.

So a long-haired punk kid who was a self-admitted drug dealer and fornicator in high school in the late 70’s, dropped out of college after one year, then gets somebody else to write his books for him, then used Gateway tithe money to literally purchase an entire university and move it from California to Texas.
The university then gives him a “degree” and he magically becomes the Chairman of said “University”. BTW, there are a grand total of 135 students at TKUG, which includes grandmas who may take one class or just audit a class.

You should also know that Kings University’s original founder, Jack Hayford, has had multiple honorary degrees given to him, and he has adopted the moniker “Dr Jack” Hayford.

Yes. For crying out loud, Beck is a Mormon!

Surprise, surprise, Morris’ buddy, “Dr.” Jack Hayford has no postgraduate education and didn’t earn his “doctorate” either:

“He has received three honorary degrees: the Doctor of Divinity from both Life Pacific College and Oral Roberts University, and the Doctor of Literature from California Graduate School of Theology”

One more in a very long line of those with no interest in learning – they know you don’t need a degree to shear sheep.

JeffT wrote:

“He has received three honorary degrees: the Doctor of Divinity from both Life Pacific College and Oral Roberts University, and the Doctor of Literature from California Graduate School of Theology”
One more in a very long line of those with no interest in learning – they know you don’t need a degree to shear sheep.

Or cook and eat mutton.

Lydia wrote:

Yes. For crying out loud, Beck is a Mormon!

So was Mitt Romney.

Remember when he clinched the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012? How all the Christianese political activists flipped from “NOT THE MORMON! NOT THE MORMON!” to anointing Romney as God’s Anointed choice for POTUS? Even Franklin Graham made a fatwa that Mormons were Really Christian(TM). Don’t know how long that “Mormons are Really Christians” doctrine outlived Election Night.

And Beck has another thing going for him: He out-Rushes Rush Limbaugh, de facto kingmaker of the GOP. The Mormon who would be Kingmaker…

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

The Geraldine Defense for a preacher sex scandal? “THE DEBBIL MADE ME DO IT!”

The Church Lady responds, "Oh, Reeeeeeeallly? How Conveeeeeenient."

btdt said:

"When Morris was given his “honorary” doctorate, the reason given was that Morris had written 8 books. Readers must know that Morris uses a ghostwriter for all his books. So a long-haired punk kid who was a self-admitted drug dealer and fornicator in high school in the late 70’s, dropped out of college after one year, then gets somebody else to write his books for him, then used Gateway tithe money to literally purchase an entire university and move it from California to Texas."

That is impressive I can see how someone like MD is attracted to such raw talent I will have to keep my eye on Dr. Morris as someone I would like to emulate as soon as I can get rid of this conscience that seems to always get in my way.

Mr. Morris’s teaching on demon possession is not just bad doctrine; I think it constitutes heresy because it denies the power of God. It also unfortunately reinforces Mr. Driscoll’s misbegotten demon trial practices. That guy needs real spiritual help, and Morris isn’t giving it to him.

P.S. Here’s what I wrote about “Mark Driscoll’s Demons – the false doctrine of the Mars Hill demon trials” when they came to light a while back.

Been There Done That wrote:

You should also know that Kings University’s original founder, Jack Hayford, has had multiple honorary degrees given to him, and he has adopted the moniker “Dr Jack” Hayford.

With these bozos, if any one of them titles himself “Dr” (and especially if he insists on it), assume it’s a Larry/Moe/Curly Honorary Doctorate until proven otherwise.

The whole lot of them are charlatans and grifters, and anyone who doesn’t know that by now is a fool. It is just so over the top foul that I can’t even imagine how people fall for it. I mean. it’s not like it’s a secret – these guys are grifters. There is nothing of Christ in them. I don’t want to read about them or think about them any more. It’s too depressing.

Another piece to the puzzle…. Texas has NO personal income tax. None. In addition to being corporate friendly and having reasonable cost of living this was the main reason BFF Glenn Beck and the Jonas Brothers family moved their empires to Westlake, TX. Morris’ mansion is just across the Vaquero Country Club intersection they live in. Both claim to attend GW regularly (Beck and his family go to GW Saturday evenings to “worship” then spend Sundays in Mormon Temple for “church”)

Driscoll would be down with that whole no tax deal. It does come with a different price tag: he’ll need more and better coifed hair, he’ll have to affect at least a small twang when he speaks, sprinkling his speech with plenty “y’all”s; he’ll have to stop drinking publicly and stop talking about alcohol; no more cursing – ever; and he’ll have to quit telling women to become strippers and service their men on their knees in order to bring them to Christ. But hey, no state income tax – yippee!

This link is a 5 minute video of James Robison testifying at Gateway Church in 2010 about his encounter with Milton Green as they battled demonic possession in the early 1980’s with Robert Morris. Morris looks on approvingly.

http://youtu.be/PZO4_MEjc4w

You can decide for yourself how mentally stable James Robison appears to be.

dee wrote:

@ Been There Done That:

Green’s testimony is not as confident that the “deliverance” “worked”…
Why would it be to their advantage to say that the deliverance worked? They can blame bad things on their resident demons.

Well they have to have it both ways.
1. All the sins of the past can be blamed on demonic forces, therefore no personal accountability for sin, abuse, etc.
2. I’m better now, so you can trust me.
3. When sin re-enters the scene, repeat #1, then repeat #2.

This is how Mark Driscoll keeps “moving the goal posts” about his “angry young pastor” days. Claiming they were 15 years ago, but they keep recurring in the past 3 years. So I “apologize” and keep on sinning. The idea of stepping down from leadership is never on the table, no matter how many “accountability partners” are claimed to be involved in “personal restoration plans”. It’s all a cover act.

I have a real doctorate. It required years of coursework, additional reading beyond the coursework, four days of exams – two general and two specialized – an oral defense of what I wrote in the exams, passing a Foreign language exam, a dissertation based on original research, and a defense of that dissertation. I earned that degree. There are few things that annoy me more than people who pretend that their honorary degree is a real doctorate or who call their unfinished doctoral work 'as good as' a doctorate.

Tim wrote:

Mr. Morris’s teaching on demon possession is not just bad doctrine; I think it constitutes heresy because it denies the power of God. It also unfortunately reinforces Mr. Driscoll’s misbegotten demon trial practices. That guy needs real spiritual help, and Morris isn’t giving it to him.

P.S. Here’s what I wrote about “Mark Driscoll’s Demons – the false doctrine of the Mars Hill demon trials” when they came to light a while back.

Well worth reading! A really well done post, Tim.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

assume it’s a Larry/Moe/Curly Honorary Doctorate until proven otherwise.

I live in a college town with more doctorates than people it seems. People with real PhDs use the title very sparingly.

the fake doctorate is has alot of cred in fundiland, it can generate credibility which translates into the most important thing, increased revenue. If folks think this has anything to do with God or any such issues its about economics its always about economics. The bad thing is that there are many more good pastors who barely make ends meet and do good for God and people. They are the ones that get a bad name.

Hmm…this post is veering into the realm I grew up in. You wouldn’t believe the level of fear these kinds of ‘demonology’ teachings create. I did a post a couple of years ago on how this brand of theology can have serious consequences for those struggling with mental illness. If anyone is interested… http://www.truth-makes-freedom.blogspot.com/2012/03/minefield-of-mental-illness-and-church.html

As to further comment, this is getting close to my home struggles, as it were, and to quote BeakerJ (I think), “I’m going to go hide under the bed now.”

Gram3 wrote:

Would someone with knowledge about possession help me to understand the difference between possession and oppression? I’ve heard that believers cannot be possessed but they can be oppressed. I do believe that believers can be severely tried/oppressed by demonic forces. Possession doesn’t make sense because the Holy Spirit indwells believers, but I don’t really understand the practical difference.
Fake degrees and credentials from faux-academic entities. Where have we heard that before?

There are two reputable sources that you may wish to take a look at: the relevant articles in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is hosted online on a number of websites (warning: being a product of 1911 the article it offers on Judaism is distressing, but when it comes to matters internal to the Christian faith it is somewhat more usable), and the material compiled by the late Bishop Alexander Mileant of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad hosted on fatheralexander.org, which includes excerpts from several works on the same.

My understanding is that demonic oppression consists of the result of yielding to the sort of attacks routinely endured by Orthodox clergymen, which include temptations, nightmares, illusions, physical afflictions and apparitions of a distressing nature, whereas possession is that state where one is controlled by the demon as if a puppet. Think Being John Malkovitch. The possessed tend not to respond to psychiatric treatment, and tend to react adversely to holy objects such as bibles, pectoral crosses, iconography and so on. In this manner, Christian psychiatrists differentiate between the posessed and the mentally ill, but sadly, many psychiatrists aren’t Christian and simply keep such persons institutionalize and even sedated, while in some cases subscribing to inherently anti-Christian theology, see Jung and his fetish for Gnosticism. There is one Protestant German pastor who did a lot of work on this subject and his material was quoted by Alexander Mileant on his website, so the treatment of demonaics is not exclusively a high church thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Indeed the sensationalism of it attracts megachurch charlatans, which is what were seeing here. If Dr. Robert were in fact posessed this would mean, according to the consensus patrum, that he was either never properly received into the Church, or else, he was,but abrogated his baptism by dabbling in the occult or otherwise apostasing. However, a great deal more information than what we have here would be required to rationally analyze it.

Demonic possession is frankly overrated; it attracts a lot of attention but inside the church, it’s impact is negligible, and it’s worth noting that in the early church, exorcists were among the lowest ranking clergy in minor orders, ranking just above doorkeepers. The passions are infinitely more dangerous; the devil seems to prefer to entice us to our own destruction by flaming our desire for money, power, sex, and so on, and this is what seems to have led to the downfall of Driscoll to begin with.

Tim wrote:

Mr. Morris’s teaching on demon possession is not just bad doctrine; I think it constitutes heresy because it denies the power of God

And I believe you’re right, Tim.
In fact, it sounds like Morris is giving the devil altogether too much credit–almost setting him up as another “god”…..Oh, wait; isn’t that why Lucifer fell in the first place?

@ Gram3:
I’ve had to wrestle with this one as well. One line is ‘possession’ implies ownership, and cannot apply to Christians who are possessed of the Holy Spirit which i think is true. I think the word possession though is Elizabethan English (KJV) for ‘to have a spirit’ or demon, which is in line with the Greek of the NT, which also talks about being ‘demonized’.

I think ‘oppressed’ is used to get away from the idea that full control of a believer and their destiny could ever pass back to demons; it’s a weaker idea, but one has to be honest the term isn’t used in the NT. Another teaching on this is that believers can be ‘infiltrated’ by demons, often by succumbing to doctrines of demons. Followers of Jezebel-type immorality would be an example of this, in modern days I think there is a demonic component to things like inner healing ministry and pseudo-christian mysticism. I’ve known a believer become oppressed by being prayed for by a “healing ministry”, only later to find out the person praying was a spiritualist and no Christian.

If we were demon proof, we wouldn’t be told to resist Satan firm in our faith.

This spiritual warfare is illustrated in Eph 4:27 which says ‘not to give opportunity to the devil’. I believe the word opportunity can mean a bridgehead, a bit like the first days after D-Day. The picture is of an area of the believer’s life where Satan gains access through chronic sin or disobedience and tries to wreak havoc. You can ‘fellowship’ with demons this way.

Deliverance imo from this comes primarily from conversion (favourte verse of mine is Col 1 : 13 where delivered is a completed action in past time), believer’s baptism (implied), and prayer. But I can’t see anywhere in the NT where believers need to have demons actually cast out of them. I don’t see the need for a specialist expert deliverance ministry.

Whether a title like “Dr.” is legitimate or not, I always am a bit skeptical when people lead with their title, especially when it appears to be leveraged as a way to cause people to give some sort of automatic respect.

I have personally known two “Dr’s” who were pastors. One has multiple post grad degrees(including a law degree from a major institution with honors) and spent over a decade working on a Doctorate while working as a Pastor full time. Upon completion of his doctorate he has never once mentioned it, nor, addresses anything as “Dr”. Unless you knew him fairly well you would never know that he was carrying so many initials with his name. He simply keeps studying because he believes it his responsibility to continue to learn.

The other was a professor with PhD’s in Biblical languages and OT. He served as an interim pastor for a time and was always introduced as “Our friend, Dr So and So, from the local school.” After a while that church decided they wanted him to continue on full time and he agreed(and has done wonderfully) so his title sort of carried over with him due to how he started. But he also never calls himself that, or addresses things with that title.

Doctorates are like money. People who really have it don’t flaunt it. People who want you to think they have it, make a big show of it. I knew people who lived in huge houses with no furniture. They would host parties and in the cover of night would have rental furniture brought in to keep up the charade. Flaunting your Doctorate is like that imo….

The D.Litt.’s honorary, it’s not like a Ph.D by publications, which is a legitimate degree offered by several British, South African, and Australian universities, among others. Generally in academia it’s given to someone who comes and gives a commencement address or the like. It’s disappointing, though, that they’d fall prey to granting letters to a televangelist celeb, because I looked into the CVs of the “resident faculty” at King’s, and while I can’t speak to the theology, having no clue and no desire to investigate, I can speak to their academic credentials, and while they’re not exactly Gordon-Conwell, they do look legitimate.

RE: Honorary Doctorates

I have just completed a project to clean out our church library. A lot of books from the 1960’s – the present went in the dumpster, and to Goodwill, because the church library had become a dumping ground for bad theology of all sorts.

Many of the author’s had honorary doctorates. That fact jumped out at me in light or recent discussions. Sometimes they had 5 or 6 after their primary earned degree. Now I am not an educated person like some of you folks are. But I find it interesting that the produce of the CIC of the 1970’s ended up in the big green dumpster behind the church because no one wanted any of these books that they thought they couldn’t live without back then.

I think that forty years from now there will be another poor sap like me who has to clean out his church’s library of all of the produce from our era. A lot of Mark Driscoll, (et al.) is already being moved off the shelves. There will be plenty of other titles and more trees killed producing a steady stream of pablum to feed people who have jettisoned the Word of the Living God in favor of the guru du jour.

Will we ever learn? Not likely, imo. So far past performance has been an indicator of future results.

Adam Borsay wrote:

Whether a title like “Dr.” is legitimate or not, I always am a bit skeptical when people lead with their title, especially when it appears to be leveraged as a way to cause people to give some sort of automatic respect.
I have personally known two “Dr’s” who were pastors. One has multiple post grad degrees(including a law degree from a major institution with honors) and spent over a decade working on a Doctorate while working as a Pastor full time. Upon completion of his doctorate he has never once mentioned it, nor, addresses anything as “Dr”. Unless you knew him fairly well you would never know that he was carrying so many initials with his name. He simply keeps studying because he believes it his responsibility to continue to learn.
The other was a professor with PhD’s in Biblical languages and OT. He served as an interim pastor for a time and was always introduced as “Our friend, Dr So and So, from the local school.” After a while that church decided they wanted him to continue on full time and he agreed(and has done wonderfully) so his title sort of carried over with him due to how he started. But he also never calls himself that, or addresses things with that title.
Doctorates are like money. People who really have it don’t flaunt it. People who want you to think they have it, make a big show of it. I knew people who lived in huge houses with no furniture. They would host parties and in the cover of night would have rental furniture brought in to keep up the charade. Flaunting your Doctorate is like that imo….

It’s almost a cliche that the fringy psuedo academic with poor credentials, such as a doctorate from a minimally or unaccredited for-profit, will invariably call themselves “Dr. So-and-So, Ph.D.”, insist on being called “doctor”, and have a picture of themselves in full regalia on their online bio.

RE: Conversion Stories

It may have already been said, but what I was trying to get at is that the conversion story, in some circles, is sacrosanct. You do not question it, and it can give one instant credibility. I can pack it with anything I want, to accomplish whatever purpose I want. I have seen them morph over time to include all manner of increasingly grotesque sin so as to make the deliverance from that sin all the more spectacular.

And I have seen people be apologetic for not having a spectacular conversion story. So to me, it’s part of the illusion, or like a sales tool.

Gram3 wrote:

Possession doesn’t make sense because the Holy Spirit indwells believers, but I don’t really understand the practical difference.

I believe I was oppressed several years ago but it’s difficult to explain. I’ll try. I was deeply crushed by something that happened in my life and found myself crying (almost literally) day and night over it. The sadness went on for a very long time and I might describe this timeframe by saying I freely participated in the sorrow. In other words, I was in a pity-party and not making any effort to get out of that mindset.

One Wed. night church service, the pastor invited those who needed prayer to come up and I (along with many others) went forth. In the middle of his prayer, I burst out crying, but it was a much, much different cry than I had ever experienced before. I was sobbing so hard I couldn’t stop – and I was embarrassed because it was so loud. But stopping was impossible.

A young woman came up to me and put her arms around me and held me very tight. The longer she held me, the sobbing began to ebb. Finally it stopped and she whispered in my ear, “It’s ok now; it’s gone.”

I believe I had given way to a spirit of sadness (if I could call it that) and it just kind of took over. Most of my time was spent feeling very sorry for myself and that evil spirit just “hung around” me in an effort to keep me in a “mode” that was self-defeating and unproductive.

I hate to even think of that period, but I refuse to linger in sad memories ever again. I do allow myself time to grieve, but now I think this particular length of time was an inordinate length that attracted a spirit of sadness to oppress me with it.

I know it sounds strange, but I firmly believe the “it” that woman mentioned was a spirit. Nothing like that ever happened before or since and I was grateful for her intercession. She told me the Lord told her to “go to her” when I was sobbing and I’m very happy she was obedient.

Hope that helps some….

Law Prof wrote:

very few insist on being called “doc”, save for a few in the classroom context.

The only place I use my own title is at the courthouse or some other judicial setting. Even then it feels weird to apply it to myself, and I’ve had the title “Judge” since 1995. Still not entirely used to it.

@ Ken:

Thanks for replying with some helpful thoughts. I have knowledge of instances where Western believers ministering in the third world have been severely stricken physically and emotionally by phenomena that are positively weird and scary. It made me think of Job’s affliction. Some Christians say that a believer cannot be that oppressed because of the Holy Spirit. I like your idea of not being demon-proofed. What would you say to that missionary who is being oppressed even to the point of nearly dying or going totally insane?

GSD wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
With these bozos, if any one of them titles himself “Dr” (and especially if he insists on it), assume it’s a Larry/Moe/Curly Honorary Doctorate until proven otherwise.
We have a local church pastor who was mentored by one of these guys, and the pastor refers to him as “doctor,” as if that was his first name. As in, “One time, doctor said to me…”. Maybe that is just a local thing.
But I did find this. Maybe someone can tell me if this is a parody site. I can’t believe this is real.
http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/Doctor-of-Divinity-Famous-Ministers-with-our-Doctor-of-Divinity-Title-Premise-by-NewtonStein.html

There’s a large issue of pastors with fake degrees. I don’t know how these people get away with it, because it’s easy to check, but there’s a fellow out there with the coif who goes by “The Rev. Dr. David M. Berman Th.D.”. Three titles in one! Unsurprisingly, his “doctorate” is from a diploma mill in a tiny brick office in North Carolina.

@ Ali:
You are so spot on – it is really challenging to find true biblical worship/fellowship/shepherdship in DFW. Perhaps most of Texas. They don’t call this the buckle of the Bible Belt for nothing..It’s like being in the epicenter of an earthquake. Honestly. Look to DFW for the makings of church crazy.

I come from a Baptist / nondenominational background. After being apart of two mega churches. I needed a change. This fall I have worshipped with a Methodist church, an Anglican church, an Episcopal and a Lutheran church. I was fed spiritually at each church service. After hearing from my nondenominational ‘elitist’ mega church about all these “dead churches” I was encouraged to meet real believers at each church.

I have been worshipping with a small Lutheran church this past month. It has been refreshing to here Gods word preached and not have all the ‘soapboxes’ teachings and mega personality that come with a mega pastor. I also have been encouraged to hear these smaller church pastors pray lovingly and personally by name for those sick or hurting from the pulpit.

I feel a bit like a spiritual mutt still unsure where to put down roots. I have been encouraged that there are churches that are following ‘care for the least’ and are not following the big box big business mindset of doing mega church for profit.

@ Ali:
“I feel a bit like a spiritual mutt still unsure where to put down roots.” This. THIS. This brings tears to my eyes reading this, honestly. I too feel this way. What an accurate, poignant way to phrase it. But you know what comes to mind? Jesus sure does love us mutts, yeah?! I’d rather be a mutt but love Him so very much than ever be told by Him “I never knew you; depart from me.”
Running in the church circles I’ve been running in for quite some time now, I think I have a lot of unschooling to do. My views on Catholics, the UMC, Presbys, etc were narrowing by the minute. How utterly horrible and judgmental of me. And now, I find myself wanting to do what you did. Worship for periods of time at a Methodist church, a Catholic church, an Episcopal and Lutheran church. Meet real believers at each church.
It’s funny somewhat…in the past year, I have developed good friendship with two women who come from Episcopalian and Catholic by way of Mormon backgrounds respectively. I trust them more with my life and heart’s yearnings than most any “Christian” I currently know, to include family.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Fake degrees and credentials from faux-academic entities. Where have we heard that before?
Reverend Larry awards Reverend Moe an Honorary Doctorate.
Reverend Moe awards Reverend Curly an Honorary Doctorate.
Reverend Curly awards Reverend Larry an Honorary Doctorate.
NYUK NYUK NYUK!

We need a “like” button for this comment.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“The Seven-Day Sex Challenge” while sitting on a bed with his wife onstage?

That little stunt is what I would refer to as the real demonic oppression/possession — whichever more appropriately applies 😉

zooey111 wrote:

In fact, it sounds like Morris is giving the devil altogether too much credit–almost setting him up as another “god”…..Oh, wait; isn’t that why Lucifer fell in the first place?

That is an actual heresy: Attributing too much power to the Devil.

When the Spanish Inquisition rolled on an actual witchcraft case (which was rare; Inquisitors were on a fixed salary, not a cut of the take), that was the charge they usually brought.

Thing is, the more powerful you make the Devil, the more heroic you are as a Mighty Spiritual Warrior. To the point that God would be helpless without such a Mighty Spiritual Warrior on speed-dial. Which is why I think so many of these Mighty Spiritual Warriors are so loud and shrill — they have made the Devil so much more powerful than God that deep down inside they are afraid they picked the losing side.

Bridget wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
“The Seven-Day Sex Challenge” while sitting on a bed with his wife onstage?
That little stunt is what I would refer to as the real demonic oppression/possession — whichever more appropriately applies

People do dumb things. But the thing that always gets me about Grinning Ed’s stunt was the timing: While he was pronouncing the Seven Day Sex Challenge, I was hearing the Mass of Christ the King on the last Sunday before Advent. That synchronicity is just too good to pass up.

@ Chris:

What about missionaries who are immersed in a culture which is animistic or polytheistic though they themselves are not participating in those sorts of activities but are teaching against that? The missionaries were, in effect, shamed because they suffered and thought it was due to demons, but the shamers believed that demons could not have oppressed/possessed the missionaries.

Just to comment on the demon possession topic. If Morris was demon possessed he would have been pretty messed up. From the accounts in Scripture these people who were possessed were in such bad shape mentally, physically, and spiritually. They were sickly and were not in their right minds. A demon possessed individual would not be able to get help on his or her own.

Matthew 8:28-34 Living Bible (TLB)

28 When they arrived on the other side of the lake, in the country of the Gadarenes, two men with demons in them met him. They lived in a cemetery and were so dangerous that no one could go through that area.

Matthew 9:32Living Bible (TLB)

32 Leaving that place, Jesus met a man who couldn’t speak because a demon was inside him.

Matthew 12:22Living Bible (TLB)

22 Then a demon-possessed man—he was both blind and unable to talk—was brought to Jesus, and Jesus healed him so that he could both speak and see.

Matthew 15:22-29Living Bible (TLB)

22 A woman from Canaan who was living there came to him, pleading, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, King David’s Son! For my daughter has a demon within her, and it torments her constantly.”

Matthew 17:14-18Living Bible (TLB)

14 When they arrived at the bottom of the hill, a huge crowd was waiting for them. A man came and knelt before Jesus and said, 15 “Sir, have mercy on my son, for he is mentally deranged and in great trouble, for he often falls into the fire or into the water; 16 so I brought him to your disciples, but they couldn’t cure him.”

Mark 1:23-26
25 Jesus curtly commanded the demon to say no more and to come out of the man. 26 At that the evil spirit screamed and convulsed the man violently and left him.

Mark 9:18Living Bible (TLB)

18 And whenever the demon is in control of him it dashes him to the ground and makes him foam at the mouth and grind his teeth and become rigid.[a] So I begged your disciples to cast out the demon, but they couldn’t do it.”

Acts 19:13-16Living Bible (TLB)

13 A team of itinerant Jews who were traveling from town to town casting out demons planned to experiment by using the name of the Lord Jesus. The incantation they decided on was this: “I adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches, to come out!” 14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish priest, were doing this. 15 But when they tried it on a man possessed by a demon, the demon replied, “I know Jesus and I know Paul, but who are you?” 16 And he leaped on two of them and beat them up, so that they fled out of his house naked and badly injured.

I find it highly suspect that Morris had a demon/demons.

Right on, but it only goes to show the spiritual state of this guy’s mind.

LT wrote:

But hey, no state income tax – yippee!

It’s more than made up by the county property tax assessment. A sibling’s house has an appraised value of $219K. Her property tax is $4248.07 for this year.

Victorious wrote:

[much important detail omitted here]…I know it sounds strange, but I firmly believe the “it” that woman mentioned was a spirit…

This from Proverbs 18:

The human spirit can endure in sickness, but a crushed spirit who can bear?

The Hebrew word for “spirit” (“ruach”) used both times in this verse is the same as that used for the Spirit of the Lord, and for the evil spirit (from the Lord, of all places!) that troubled King Saul in 1 Sam 16. There are numerous references in the NT to a person’s spirit that are very clearly neither a demon (or other sub-optimal third party), nor the Holy Spirit.

The intense sadness you describe, Victorious, doesn’t sound psychiatric because in my, albeit limited, experience of this, when God heals a psychiatric problem he does it by replacing a lie with a truth. So quite possibly it was a spiritual healing you experienced. I have no definitive answer, but I’m less convinced it was something else’s spirit attached to yours in some way. But at the end of the day, it has all the hallmarks of something Jesus would accomplish, and it worked; so I’m not going to war over the underlying physics of it!

All of which, besides, is worlds and worlds away from you putting your experience into a book and hawking it, then announcing that the Lord revealed it to you because he was giving you a sadness-alleviating ministry which anyone can partake of for just $29.95 plus travel and accommodation.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Depends which one, for a start…

Oh. Well, there you go then.

Nancy wrote:

I don’t think I know what “the modern idea of spiritual warfare” is. Can you help me out on this?

Sure. This is my understanding based on what has been pushed on me, so take it for what it is worth.
There is a spiritual warfare movement, of sorts, that puts the Christian in a perpetual posture of doing battle with demons. They are supposed to bind the demons that are territorial in nature, but that also have certain natures linked to certain sins. Like the demon of lust, or the demon of gluttony. (Personally, I may have the demon of chocolate, but that is a whole ‘nother topic. Who says I can’t hold contradictory views?)
They are also supposed to be territorial, invade structures, and such. Like there is one in every room of your house, and unless you bind them and cast them out, bad stuff happens. So let’s say you are experiencing a lot of arguing at your house. You would go around and command all the demons to leave, in every room, your car, your garage, maybe even your outhouse if you have one. Then peace and harmony will return. They HAVE to leave in Jesus name. And you have to use Jesus’ name to cast them out.
So in this way you do spiritual warfare.
You take prayer walks around your church, binding the demons that have invaded your church building, room by room, and around the perimeter 7 times, I think, but not sure on that number. They may be in your car. You boat. Your camper. Anywhere you are, they might be harassing you.
There are several gurus of this movement, but for the life of me I can’t remember all of their names. Naravrre (sp?) C. Peter Wagner, Jack Hayford, Paul Cain I think, plus others. If you google SWM or Spiritual Warfare Movement you will probably get more info than you care to have. Does this help?
Weird, isn’t it? And not very Scriptural if you ask me.

Nancy wrote:

I don’t think I know what “the modern idea of spiritual warfare” is.

You could also check out: http://ausprayernet.org.au/teaching/strategic_warfarerest.php and also here: http://ausprayernet.org.au/teaching/

Doug wrote:

Maybe he has the demon of “pseudo-tithing”, since we are making stuff up.

Since some pastor told his [ ]listeners | [ ]congregation [ ] victims (check as applicable) that they were guilty of the sin of questioning, let’s make a few more things up.

[ ] Robert Morris – his sin is that of always craving more money.

[ ] Robert Morris – his is the sin of bullsh***ing church attenders all across the country with his heretical teachings about the tithe.

[ ] Mark Driscoll – his sin is that of wanting to beat guys up and breaking their nose, and that includes any “version” of Jesus he doesn’t agree with.

[ ] CJay – …. , no, I won’t go into this here, definitely not funny.

@ dee:
I would be honored to have you post my A29 story/experience on your blog. Of course you’re welcome to use what I’ve already commented. I’m sure upon giving it greater thought, I can compile a few more relevant details/experiences.
I’ll give it some thought and email you. In the meantime, I’ll reread the blog posts regarding Countryside Church. I know I browsed through at least some of those posts while I was devouring all things Acts 29 related. It will be good to refresh my memory, especially as I reflect on my own experiences.

Ken wrote:

@ Gram3:
I’ve had to wrestle with this one as well. One line is ‘possession’ implies ownership, and cannot apply to Christians who are possessed of the Holy Spirit which i think is true. I think the word possession though is Elizabethan English (KJV) for ‘to have a spirit’ or demon, which is in line with the Greek of the NT, which also talks about being ‘demonized’.

I think ‘oppressed’ is used to get away from the idea that full control of a believer and their destiny could ever pass back to demons; it’s a weaker idea, but one has to be honest the term isn’t used in the NT. Another teaching on this is that believers can be ‘infiltrated’ by demons, often by succumbing to doctrines of demons. Followers of Jezebel-type immorality would be an example of this, in modern days I think there is a demonic component to things like inner healing ministry and pseudo-christian mysticism. I’ve known a believer become oppressed by being prayed for by a “healing ministry”, only later to find out the person praying was a spiritualist and no Christian.

If we were demon proof, we wouldn’t be told to resist Satan firm in our faith.

This spiritual warfare is illustrated in Eph 4:27 which says ‘not to give opportunity to the devil’. I believe the word opportunity can mean a bridgehead, a bit like the first days after D-Day. The picture is of an area of the believer’s life where Satan gains access through chronic sin or disobedience and tries to wreak havoc. You can ‘fellowship’ with demons this way.

Deliverance imo from this comes primarily from conversion (favourte verse of mine is Col 1 : 13 where delivered is a completed action in past time), believer’s baptism (implied), and prayer. But I can’t see anywhere in the NT where believers need to have demons actually cast out of them. I don’t see the need for a specialist expert deliverance ministry.

Ken, the passages in question refer to the struggle against temptation and sin, and not possession, in which you are deprived of physical control over your person. One possessed lacks the ability to struggle against temptation; they are entirely under the control of a devil and were not held by the early church to be responsible for their actions.

@ dee:
Just saw this, and will do! I’m curious your take on him and Fellowship.

Melissa wrote:

And so we’re in limbo. Husband continued to attend alone for about a month, and hosted a bible study with a few other men at our house throughout the summer. He states it’s his desire to return. Obviously not mine. So this chapter is yet to be written…

That’s a very moving story. I’m thankful you did not go to the meeting with Matt Chandler or any other Acts29 pastor or any pastor who follows CBMW teaching. I can tell you how that meeting would have gone.

Matt or other pastor would express seemingly genuine concern about your concern and would assure you that they are thankful you came to them with your concerns. They would speak soothing words and say how much they love you and the people in the church and how privileged they are to be your pastor.

The would tell you that of course they do not support covering up child abuse, but men have been “speaking into C.J.’s life” behind the scenes. Mark Dever, in particular, has been helping C.J. and that’s why C.J. had to come to Capitol Hill.

Of course they disagree with Piper’s view on domestic violence. But saying that one person in the marriage is in authority over the other one has nothing to do with abuse. They would *never* tolerate abuse. They will say that the hierarchy arrangement is not inherently abusive because Jesus submitted to the Father, so how can hierarchy be emotionally and potentially physically abusive?

They would assure you that the doctrines they teach are the ones that truly glorify God, and that the hierarchy they teach models the gospel because the Son submitted to the Father and came to earth to die for us, and husbands are to lay down their lives for their wives. They would tell you that if wives and husbands don’t observe a hierarchy in their marriage that the gospel message will be hidden and not put on display like it is when a husband “lovingly leads and serves” his wife as Christ does for the church.

Then, they would ask you why you are resisting God’s plan for you and your marriage? Why is your husband unwilling to “step up” to his responsibility and be a “godly spiritual leader.” They would unmistakably imply but never state outright that you are a rebellious woman, and “Don’t you see that Eve stepped out from under Adam’s protection and usurped his authority and that’s how sin came into the world?”

They would probably tell you that lots of important men who have studied this carefully believe that this is God’s plan for relationships, implying that you are too stupid to study the Bible for yourself. That would be the point where they attempt to intimidate you by their superior knowledge.

They would tell you a narrative that they totally made up about Eve stepping out from Adam’s authority, and in so doing, Eve’s supposed “rebellion” became her first sin, not eating the fruit. The next sin she committed was giving the fruit to her husband and leading him into sin instead of following him.

Noe of this, of course is in the text, but they just assert that it is true, and then build on it. Then, they would say in a very concerned voice as if they are deeply concerned about your sinful attitude, “You don’t want to be like Eve, and go against God’s good and beautiful design, do you?”

So, by that point, the table would have been totally turned, and you, the woman, are the *real* problem. You need to be in submission to God, and you can’t do that unless you and your husband have a hierarchical marriage.

And you would be thinking that you had stepped into the twilight zone, and what ever happened to what the Bible actually teaches.

You were wise to flee from that environment. You might invite your husband to carefully examine what he has been taught and compare it carefully to what is actually *in* the text without making assumptions and reading authority into the text so that authority can be read from the text. Ask him if he can see the internal logic (hint: it’s not there!)

If he has been truly indoctrinated with this man-made doctrine, then it may take awhile for him to work his way through it and to detox from the shame that has been placed on him for not being a good enough leader.

Chris wrote:

Satan@ Gram3

Whoa. I hope Satan doesn’t have an email at my domain. 😉

Thanks for your encouraging words.

Doug wrote:

There is a spiritual warfare movement, of sorts, that puts the Christian in a perpetual posture of doing battle with demons. They are supposed to bind the demons that are territorial in nature, but that also have certain natures linked to certain sins. Like the demon of lust, or the demon of gluttony. (Personally, I may have the demon of chocolate, but that is a whole ‘nother topic. Who says I can’t hold contradictory views?)

I heard of someone rebuking the Demon of Burned Out Light Bulbs once when his light bulb burned out. Now THAT’s a Spiritual Warfare Case.

All this talk of commanding demons… Do you have to properly inscribe the containment pentacle before the summoning so you can bind and command them?

They are also supposed to be territorial, invade structures, and such. Like there is one in every room of your house, and unless you bind them and cast them out, bad stuff happens. So let’s say you are experiencing a lot of arguing at your house. You would go around and command all the demons to leave, in every room, your car, your garage, maybe even your outhouse if you have one. Then peace and harmony will return. They HAVE to leave in Jesus name. And you have to use Jesus’ name to cast them out.
So in this way you do spiritual warfare.

Still sounds like Making Magick to me.

Or the inverse of Tatted Todd at Lakeland: “DEMONS! DEMONS! DEMONS! SHEEKA-BOOM-BAH! BAM!”

You take prayer walks around your church, binding the demons that have invaded your church building, room by room, and around the perimeter 7 times, I think, but not sure on that number. They may be in your car. You boat. Your camper. Anywhere you are, they might be harassing you.

In the pictures on your wall. In that sweater you got at the thrift shop.
I’m not making those up.

Question, Doug: Does prayer walking the perimeter 7 times have to be done widdershins for the casting to work?

General observation: These guys would have been a lot better off if someone turned them on to D&D instead of Spiritual Warfare. Then they could cosplay high-level mages and clerics without dragging the rest of us into their LARP.

I have a problem with this:

D. James Kennedy, B.A. M.Div., M.Th., D.D., D.S.Litt., Ph.D., Litt.D., D.Sac.Theol., D.Humane Let.

Call me conservative, but if my life is threatened or I need an abscessed tooth extracted, I will turn to a physician or a DDS. A Litt.F, or D.Sac. Theol. won’t help me. They do glorify the person who has them as a train or albatross behind their name. There are professional colleagues who demand the respect of their credentials, but please call me Mark.

dee wrote:

And, as always, we are 100%, certified demon free.

This one’s for you dee…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3ns6H5dHrU

In other news, separation of the Rosetta orbiter and Philae lander is confirmed; the signal reached Mission Control soon after 9:00 GMT, having travelled half a billion kilometres* at 300,000 kilometres** a second.

* Or half a terametre
** Or 300 megametres

Lisa wrote:

YWAM teaches this kind of warfare mentality- lots of well intentioned young folks being trained to “take the city.” Of course, all “in Jesus name” taking authority in all kinds of unscriptural ways. They are passionate and sincere, and that is not the same as being right. Look into IHOP’s school of supernatural, and Bethel Church/Jesus Culture’s school of ministry. It is all the same sensual, “I am In charge of demons in Jesus’ name” experiential out of body stuff. Pretty scary. @ Doug:

I wonder if that is evident in their doctrinal statement? Didn’t YWAM come out of Campus Crusade?
I’ll bet there is a lot of practical stuff like that practiced but not purposely mentioned in a lot of para-church organizations. The very idea of a para-church organization isn’t Biblical, yet millions of $$$ are funneled into & thru them annually. Is it any wonder they engage in questionable practices? Thanks Lisa!

Gram3 wrote:

phenomena that are positively weird and scary

My own actual direct encounters with the demonic are pretty limited, but not none at all. The cause of the demonisation was involvement in the occult, usually but not always ouija boards or similar. Freedom from this can come via repudiation and repentence from the sin of such occult dabbling accompanied by prayer, and the the usual means of grace available to a converted person.

There is also a spiritual warfare of a more general nature, the sort for which we need to take the whole armour of God. Like an ‘battle’ this may involve casualties and seemingly inexplicable events that get us down, even nearly drive us out of our mind. This is not something I have given a great deal of thought to in recent years because a) I have not been in churches where this is taught much, and b) some charsimatics have run off with the whole subject to produce a ministry of 10% truth and 90% exaggeration or outright falsehood. One thinks of the stratetic spiritual warfare of the new apolostic reformation, where the church was to ‘take authority’ over the principalities and powers over their local area. The existence of such evil wickedness is acknowledged in the bible, but I can’t we where we mere mortals, even though we are now in Christ, are told it is our job to deal with them.

I try to keep my talk in line with my walk on this issue. There are clearly two inherent dangers with the subject of deliverance ministry: one is to blame sin on demons and either evade responsibility for deliberate wrong-doing and/or think prayer can be a quick fix for deep-rooted problems, and the other is the power a “deliverance ministry” can get over a badly taught or gullible and too trusting believer. I’m convinced some of the charismatic stuff I’ve encountered on this subject, whereby you could be mistaken for thinking that all believers need multiple doses of deliverance ministry – including for what their ancestors did – is itself a doctrine of demons. Far from delivering, it enslaves.

Sopwith said “Riga-morri$” and I laughed so hard…

One day, I have got to share my experience with the demonic. It is not necessarily what people see on the movies, and I doubt the average pastor would see or even know what it was….
As I said when I served as a missionary in South Texas, you saw it from time to time. If you are actually trained by a long time minister(s) who know, you can spot it. It’s pretty spooky actually.
Who knows, I wonder….perhaps some of these are mega-church leaders are actually possessed now?

Gus wrote:

As I said <a href="#comment-164695" in another comment above

Sorry I messed up the HTML. I meant the following comment:

Gus wrote:

the hard work that is part of real pastoring: visiting the sick, encouraging the desperate, helping the helpless, and praying for all of them.

A pastor who doesn’t “do” funerals or hospital visits is a fraud, IMHO.

dee wrote:

Robison needs help, not followers.

Yes he does.

  __

“Religious Lunatic Fringe, Perhaps?”

Hey Gus,

—> The hard work that is part of ‘real’ pastoring: 

visiting their honey on da side,

desperating the encouraged, 

helping the helpless by reliving them of their money, 

and ‘preying’ on all of the unsuspecting,

A pastor that does dat today, is apparently a great success.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR8c7r-hjZM

🙁

I can hear them coming…

(sadface)

Sopy

—

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

half a billion kilometres

Attempt at humor follows.

Do you people really think that the r sound in english is spelled better as re than as er? Now from listening to NT Wright on you tube I do notice that your r is not our r and your l is not our l, and lots more that I have not yet pinned down. But metre, really? If one must listen to rules, which I do not except for fun like this, I always thought that if a vowel was followed by a consonant and then another vowel then the first vowel had a long sound, in english, as a rule, for what that is worth. Which would make metre sound like met-ree. Unless of course you retained the schwa sound for the terminal e as in German, and then it would be met-ruh. But meter would be meet-uhrr. We being somewhat more enthusiastic about terminal r sounds, don’t you know. I am just thinking that I don’t know who you people think you are impressing with pronunciation or spelling or for that matter rules….you know?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Which is why I think so many of these Mighty Spiritual Warriors are so loud and shrill — they have made the Devil so much more powerful than God that deep down inside they are afraid they picked the losing side.

Do you think that’s the problem with the woman in this vid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmEGtHTbh1E

I’ve never tried this Monster stuff myself, or even looked closely at one of the cans. If the packaging does have the vulgar terms she describes, then I guess the makers are a pretty irreverent bunch. But all the Satanic woo-woo? I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not about to go sniffing for demons in my beverages. Got better (or at least more enjoyable) things to do.

@ Gus:

People just seem so oblivious to the fact that these swindlers have absolutely NO interest in them or God and, instead, have more in common with isolated and paranoid petty dictators – their nothing but parasites feeding off of other people.

Mark wrote:

The vaunting of these degrees, both actual and honorary: I believe is one method that televangelists use to market themselves to the public

Precisely. A teleevangelist who had, for example, a post-graduate diploma in water divining from a suitable accredited institution of higher learning will greatly impress the public by having the letters Dip. Stick after his name. 🙂

The issue of demonization is as debatable as predestination, eschatology, divine healing, gender hierarchy, the Trinity, old/new earth creationism, and so on; but when Jesus sent out His ministers, He said, “Freely you have received, freely give.” Paul also urged Timothy not to fall into the trap of seeking riches. Just saying, I know many of us here have differing views on many things and we can all use the scriptures that support our experiences, but I am just curious if anyone here supports with scripture what appears to me to be such a blantant disregard for 1 Timothy 6

@ Serving Kids In Japan:
When I saw that vid a few days ago I just thought that someone has too much time on her hands. Go & do something useful for heaven’s sake.

@ Dave:
DAbe & Melissa – he wrote a whole book on this topic – The Innocence of God. That reminds me to dig it out, because I could do with re-reading it.

Hello? Where is my brain – that’s the question time – here’s the lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28-9TF0cpiI

  __

“Good Ta Go: No Restoration Required.”

hmmm…

Riga-Morri$ is giving MerkyD a pulpit and a microphone to continue on with his expletives, his profanity, and his spiritual abuse?

What?

God help us.

Da proverbial Marzhil bodies under da bus aren’t even cold yet.

Passé da plate?

;-(

—

  __

“Battle Scars?”

hmmm…

MerkyD won’t get too far, huh? cuz he always has ta blame someone…

—> El$e.

MerkyD: “You’re all to blame!!!”
__
Comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih9EUBoaYyU

🙂

—

@ Trey Roberson:
Extremely true Trey. Robert started out evangelizing with Billy and Winky Foote, then soon moved on to James Robison. Both allowed Robert to preach as a pastor even though he had zero training and despite both knowing he was simultaneously doing drugs and having “multiple multiple affairs” with girls attending their revivals. Robison is a GW Apostolic Elder and helped co-found GW. Robison and Morris also traveled TOGETHER evangelizing for cash with Milton Green, a violent drunkard and drug addict, convict who had to be institutionalized for insanity several times as well as doing the same with oil millionaire T Cullen Davis a man believed to have executed his own 12 year old daughter then took a contract out on his wife and divorce court judge to have them murdered. THIS is the real “root” of GW Church – greed, rebellion, drugs, zeroing in on “cute girls with daddy issues” who were at these small town revivals in pain looking for Jesus then manipulating them and their pain into a one night stand to steal their virtue forever, over and over – a new town a new victim – and all while Pastor Robert had a wife and babies! Great partners and men of gawd there. Ironically Morris just finished a lengthy series on “roots” yet failed to mention the church’s tainted roots. Trey, could you please provide any other information you have on the Foote, Robison, Green, Davis days?

Ken wrote:

But God through the apostle gives the woman a free hand in whom she should marry.

Don’t ignore the fact that also she not only had the option to refrain from future marriage but also that Paul advised it. And he said that he thought she would be happier if she did not remarry. Happier. The first time I really realized that he had said happier it was awesome to me, since basically the statements in scripture about marriage do not talk about happiness but rather only restrictions and responsibilities. Who else besides Paul ever actually mentioned the woman’s happiness as even a variable to be considered?

dee wrote:

@ Patti:
I can assure you that we are looking into the eradication of demons and the money that comes to those who claim they do so. There is big money here.

I shall let David Seville/Ross Bagdasarian speak for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmjrTcYMqBM

dee wrote:

Ken wrote:
will greatly impress the public by having the letters Dip. Stick after his name.

Considering all the televangelist sex scandals (enough to institute a take-a-number system), shouldn’t that be “Dip. Wick” instead of “Dip. Stick”?

@ Lisa:
YWAM has a very long history with this kind of thing, It was especially promoted by some people who have since left (I think they were “asked to leave,” basically).

Unfortunately, YWAM has tremendous credibility in many evangelical/charismatic circles, including That Church (the one that booted me). It is full of ex-YWAMers and the “pastor” still travels around the world to lead “training sessions” for YWAM. He is good buddies with George Otis, Jr. who is a HUGE proponent of all of this and who is one of those people who left YWAM leadership because they were “asked to.” His theology is very strange and, imo, has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual Gospel.

These people do not talk very much about the incarnation, atonement and resurrection because it interferes with their apparent mandate to go around “taking territory for God.” The whole notion is frightening, because what about the *people* who live in/on “the territory” they “take”? It’s a very short step toward demonizing other human beings, imo.

George Otis Jr. has become a laughingstock in many circles due to his fraudulent “Transformations” videos. His “ministry” is called The SEntinel Group. I urge you to look it/him up.

Nancy wrote:

In my former line of work a favorite motto was that you see what you look for and you look for what you know to look for. There is a huge amount of truth in that.

Indeed! Pretty well sums up what many charismatics do as far as the supposed “demonic” influences that they claim are omnipresent. And yes, I said “omnipresent” – like God, as they see it/him. Tehy do not know to look for reality, and they find what they have been told to look for. The whole world is viewed in this manner, and it really is [not typing expletives] nuts.

William G. wrote:

the sort of attacks routinely endured by Orthodox clergymen, which include temptations, nightmares, illusions, physical afflictions and apparitions of a distressing nature

I would like to see some actual substantiation of these claims, but it would likely be best to post over on the Open Discussion page.

@ Doug:
Also keep in mind that Wagner’s World Prayer Center was actually housed inside Ted Haggard’s church for quite a few years, and Haggard, as director of the Nat’l. Evangelical Assoc., had weekly phone convos with a previous 2-term president, and… well, journalist Jeff Sharlet has written quite a bit about both Haggard (before his downfall) and the World Prayer Center, and that material is also fairly easy to find. Sharlet’s books are, btw, excellent.

numo wrote:

These people do not talk very much about the incarnation, atonement and resurrection because it interferes with their apparent mandate to go around “taking territory for God.”

They really should dress the part when they do — in long robes and pointed hats embroidered or printed with stars and crescent moons. And waving wands — can’t forget the wands. And marking symbols along the perimeter of the territory they take. What would God ever do without such Masters of Mighty Magick to do the REAL heavy lifting?

The whole notion is frightening, because what about the *people* who live in/on “the territory” they “take”? It’s a very short step toward demonizing other human beings, imo.

Remember the Canaanites?
“GOD COMMANDS IT!”

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

What would God ever do without such Masters of Mighty Magick to do the REAL heavy lifting?

P.S. No wonder they were so dead-set against Harry Potter. Couldn’t stand competition.

It was a story in a really great book about the power of prayer, the title of which eludes me at the moment. I’ll try and search for it. It was on a chapter on forgiveness, and she used it as an example of an expereince she REALLY jag a hard time forgiving. I would too, I felt enraged as I read it. It had a happy ending though. She referenced 2 Cor 2:5-7, because apparently, someone put two and two together, figured out who it was, and the woman was shunned. The writer of the book was the one who reached out to her, and it became an impetus for change in the offenders life.

It was a really good book, I need to find it now!

dee wrote:

Chris wrote:

I heard of a story of a woman who refused to take a desperate prayer request once because it wasn’t the prayer teams “proper jurisdiction”

No way! I have never heard that one. Do you know what she meant?

Had, not jag…lol. autospell is annoying.

Amen. I’m having the same problem with some people (who are wonderful in many ways), who have ascribed to the, “It doesn’t have to be this way, you can have victory in this life! ” as if the normal suffering God allows is somehow an indicator that Satan is getting the victory over me. Many times it’s just the opposite, because nothing brings me to my knees before Christ like pain does – something I’m sure the enemy would never encourage.

dee wrote:

@ Chris:
Thank you, Chris. I think this goes back to my post on all these control freak pastors claiming they have the authority to declare me a kingdom citizen.™ I know who I am and Whose I am. I have seen Him walk with me through the worse trial in my life-the malignant brain tumor of my little girl. He is present in pain and He has given me hope that one day all of our tears will be wiped away.

@ Nancy:
George Otis Jr. and C. Peter Wagner – and others like yhem – certainly turned it into a circus, though i think the whole project was misbegotten and wrongheaded.

As if latitude and longitude are primary indicators of need of any kind! The Lausanne Conference, which heartily endorsed this, also backed a lot of other dubious “spiritual warfare” nonsense back in the 90s.

Funny how those map coordinates seem to correspond to large swathes of what used to be parts of the British empire and/or former French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese colonies, too. (I find it not only ironic, but actually believe there are real socio-political aspects to the whole thing, albeit mostly lost on people from the US.)

@ William G.:
Regarding Driscoll, i think that he likely has serious psychological problems. I wouldn’t take him at his word about supposed “visions,” William. It’s very much akin to his story about a man with a machete rushing him onstage – which never, as far as the Deebs and everyone else who had investigated this can tell – happened.

Additionally, until the advent of relatively effective treatment for some mental illnesses, those who suffered were considered to have been demon-possesed by many. It is good to maintain a healthy skepticism when reading a lot of material that attributes anything from differing beliefs to car troble to the actions of unseen spiritual forces. And yes, i have heard car trouble and the like blamed on demonic attacks.

Off-topic, but Piper just ticked me off with his latest tweet. Feel free to break this one down:https://twitter.com/JohnPiper/status/532722145416450048

numo wrote:

It’s all superstition, and it’s all truly crazy, and it’s harmed a whole lot of people. I am very, VERY relieved to be 10+ years out of a “church” that was part of this garbage.

Wasn’t one of the beefs the Romans had with the early Church was the Christians weren’t superstitious enough to be a REAL religion? Looks like they solved that problem…

XianJaneway wrote:

Off-topic, but Piper just ticked me off with his latest tweet

It reads

If God should utterly cease to think of me, I would utterly cease to be. Such thoughts have lowering and softening effect.

Fwiw, I think Piper’s dead wrong on this (again). If his statement to hold true it would imply we’re simply figments of God’s imagination. I think someone, sorry can’t remember who, who said in these forums recently that Piper was just desperate for attention is spot on.

Udo Middelmann gets stuck into Piper in the video from BeakerJ, above

Law Prof wrote:

There’s a large issue of pastors with fake degrees. I don’t know how these people get away with it, because it’s easy to check, but there’s a fellow out there with the coif who goes by “The Rev. Dr. David M. Berman Th.D.”. Three titles in one! Unsurprisingly, his “doctorate” is from a diploma mill in a tiny brick office in North Carolina.

I once made a silly bet with a friend that I could ordain my cat if I paid the fee. Said cat lived another decade– with a Th.D after her name. (Fully ordained. Available for weddings…..funny how nobody took me up on the offer to have her officiate).

Doug wrote:

Patti wrote:

just curious if anyone here supports with scripture what appears to me to be such a blantant disregard for 1 Timothy 6

By Whom?

Sorry, I guess that wasn’t real clear. I meant by Robert Morris and all the other rich preacher types. I’m not afraid to say that I believe it’s possible for Christians to have a demon in their flesh, as just one disagreement, yet I’m in so much disagreement with most other things here. I was just wondering if anyone who reads and comments here is not afraid to say that they think it is perfectly fine to make money off of preaching the gospel and if they have any scriptures to back up their claim.

Oh my my, commenting waayyy too late..I meant that I AGREE with most other things here!

zooey111 wrote:

I once made a silly bet with a friend that I could ordain my cat if I paid the fee. Said cat lived another decade– with a Th.D after her name. (Fully ordained. Available for weddings…..funny how nobody took me up on the offer to have her officiate).

Hmmm, my dogs would like to know where she may have found her ‘credentials’….*for research purposes only*

Law Prof wrote:

“Dr. So-and-So, Ph.D.”

Using “Dr. So-and-So, Ph.D” is always the tip-off of an uneducated person and possible imposter. If you’re going to use the credential, the real deal is to say “Samantha Smith, Ph.D.”

Dave wrote:

If God should utterly cease to think of me, I would utterly cease to be. Such thoughts have lowering and softening effect.

Dave wrote:

If his statement to hold true it would imply we’re simply figments of God’s imagination.

If only that were true, then I would know what to be praying about…

Dave wrote:

I think Piper’s dead wrong on this (again). If his statement to hold true it would imply we’re simply figments of God’s imagination.

You’re right, Dave. That “we’re all just figments of God’s imagination” stuff was the subject of doctrinal debate centuries ago. It has no basis in Scripture and runs counter to sound creation doctrine.

@ XianJaneway:
Very interesting tweet from Piper. Thanks for linking. Loved your response to Piper.

William G. wrote:

in light of that Driscoll’s own report of seeing people engaging in perverse acts of great sin in private rooms becomes more disturbing; it would seem from a Patristic standpoint it is not inconceivable that this was Driscoll experiencing actual demonic suggestion or delusion, as opposed to merely engaging in hubris. I would at this point caution anyone to avoid getting invoked with either of these pastors.

That would, perhaps, be at least a partial explantion for his obsession with sex, & his foul language in the pulpit, wouldn’t it?

Melissa wrote:

so how can hierarchy be emotionally and potentially physically abusive?

From the POV of the woman, an ordained hierarchy means that God has made her gender inferior to males. The words that complementarians use to deny this obvious implication of their teaching is not enough to remove the force of it. A woman needs a leader. A man does not need a leader. A man is a doer of important things. A woman is a doer of less important things and is the man’s assistant because “Woman was made for man” and Eve was a helper. They totally disregard the meaning of helper in Hebrew and the way it is used in the Bible and build their theology on one current meaning of the English translation of that one word.

But most will say that it is fine for a woman to be a leader in the world. A woman can be the CEO but once she comes home, a magic cone of incompetence descends over her, and suddenly she needs a leader. Not a loving partner, but a leader over her. If you ask the Comps point blank what being a spiritual leader is and why a married woman but not a single woman needs one, they start reciting their proof-text mantras, especially 1 Timothy 2:12. It sounds ad hoc and incoherent because it is ad hoc and incoherent. A single woman can apparently take responsibility for her spiritual life, but a married woman needs a leader?

When they say things like a woman is made in the “derivative” image of God because God made the woman from the man, then women naturally feel like their imaging of God cannot be good enough, and they cannot image Christ because they are not male. Comps emphasize the fact that the incarnate God was male and how significant Jesus’ gender is. This tells women that Jesus identifies more with men than with women because he is a male.

From the POV of the man, it must be soul-crushing to think that God holds you responsible for the spiritual well-being of your wife. How can that possibly work? How will the good husband know if he is leading his wife to maturity the right way? What if he fails in some way. Will he be responsible if his wife goes off the spiritual rails?

According to Comps, God expects the husband to “lead his wife well.” What in the world does that mean? A husband with a good heart will exhaust himself trying to do this, and one who does not have a good heart will use that the domineer his wife. The comps will deny that their teaching leads to domination, but that depends on the good will of the husband. I have a wonderful husband, but many women do not, and they are dominated or even abused. This doctrine can be used to justify abuse, and all the words in the world from the Comps disclaiming responsibility from the consequences of their doctrine will not change that.

The Comp doctrines totally distort what the Christian life should be like. It is based on external rules which are supposed to “display the Gospel.” Actually, adherence to rules without a heart motivated by love displays clanging cymbals.

The Christian life is motivated by the outflow of a changed heart not by following rules and roles. Comps start reading Ephesians at verse 5:22. Not only is the English translation of this part grammatically incorrect, but their citation of it ignores the context of the letter which is written about Life in Christ and the historical context of what life was actually like at the time Paul wrote to the Ephesians.

We are in Christ. Men and women are not sets of functions or roles. All of us who are in Christ are new persons. The focus is on our identity *in Christ* not our gender identity. God designed the Man and the Woman in the Garden to do their work together as complementary (the dictionary meaning) partners. When Christians marry, they are both in Christ and are both indwelt by the Holy Spirit whose leading both should be following together. To reduce something as intimate as marriage to a set of roles and responsibilities is not only tragic but is also an odious distortion of what God intended by “one flesh.”

A marriage cannot be healthy when everyone is paranoid about crossing lines and fulfilling roles and “lovingly leading” and “graciously submitting.” That is not how people grow in unity with one another, and it denies the power of the Gospel to reconcile those who were formerly rivals and to make them one in the Spirit. A healthy marriage should be characterized by the practice of all of the “one anothers” rather than by the practice of one-way role relationships. Complementarianism is fleshly and of this world, and it is so sad that people fall into the trap of this false system and miss the blessing of unity in the Spirit.

From the perspective of single men and women, the obsession with complementarianism is that it diminishes the value of both. If males are designed to lead a woman, then a single man is failing in that calling and design if he is not married. If a woman is designed to have a head, then she may be tempted to think that God has failed her by not providing what she has been taught that she needs to be complete. Both single men and women may feel that they haven’t made the grade because they can’t “display the Gospel” in a complementarian marriage. That tragedy is only compounded when the single person is single due to divorce or death.

I hope that your husband will be able to look at the Bible without the distorted lenses that he has been taught to use. I hope that he will be able to see the freedom of walking side by side with you in the power of the Spirit and not the power of the flesh to observe rules and roles. I hope that you will both be able to walk together in your freedom in Christ and not remain in bondage to these human manufactured doctrines of the flesh.

@ Gram3:
Thank you, Gram3, for your response. Much to contemplate and chew on. I hope as well for the things you mentioned.

Doug wrote:

So I am wondering how much of that plays into the practice of ignoring women and just talking to the husband? Maybe that comes out of the CBMW stream, I don’t know. Maybe someone can help me understand that.

The thinking is that a man is usurping the husband’s position as head of his wife or family if the woman is addressed without going through her husband or outside the presence of her husband. A woman is viewed essentially as part of another man’s territory, though that is not how they would present it, of course. He is her “head” and they religiously maintain that “head” means “authority” so speaking to her directly undermines the husband’s “headship” of his wife. The reason I know this is that I have been part of that particular play.

However, the “second look” thing sounds like Gothardism which also has the idea of a husband being his wife’s “covering.” A lot of YRR culture reflects the intellectualization of Gothardism, IMO.

Doug wrote:

Anyway, in some circles, setting up the fences means that we aren’t supposed to talk with a woman unless she is elderly. I know that sounds crude, and I apologize, but that is what I have been taught in the past.

There is no need to apologize because the “rules” that you were taught is an extension of viewing a woman primarily as a sexual object. And Gothardism and YRR/CBMW genderology is just a baptized version of that. The value of an elderly woman obviously does not lie in her ability to bear children, and her sexual appeal to men at large is no longer an issue, though I’m sure there are exceptions to that. One of the main advantages of being older, in my experience, is that a lot of nonsense has become moot, and the really important things come into sharper focus.

Doug wrote:

There is a “code” in some circles that it is not ok to talk to another man’s wife. I think it’s called the “Billy Graham Rule”, where he is supposedly famous for never meeting with a woman alone.

Actually, this goofy rule is usually applied to UNmarried woman. If you are a single woman, you are regarded as a Jezebel temptress who will rip a married man’s clothing off the very second you are both alone.

This is, I believe, due to some Christian married woman’s insecurity and over inflated sense of physical attractiveness on the part of married Christian males (many of whom I do not personally find attractive at all, and wouldn’t date them if they were the last man alive).

Doug wrote:

So are you suggesting that the whole purity thing is just a cover for a deeper philosophy that has nothing to do with purity?

Not sure I would say that exactly. I think that the idea that men and women should strive for purity in all things is good, but that should be done in the power of the Spirit and not by observing outward rules. The problem is that humans want rules to measure and judge their own personal holiness and also their relative holiness.

If I am in a purity system, then everyone knows who is holy and who is not. Who is “in” and who is “out.” This creates sinful pride for those who are in and tragic shame and sometimes despair for those who are “out.” But the message of the Gospel is that God has come down to us to free us from our pride *and* our shame.

Gothardism arose as perceived protection and insulation for Christians frightened by the enormous social upheavals and unrest that came to the fore in the late 1960’s. The impulse is understandable, but the prescription has been toxic. And Gothard himself proved that the system does not work, just like any other human system that is guaranteed to produce results. Doug Phillips is another example.

Gram3 wrote:

And Gothard himself proved that the system does not work, just like any other human system that is guaranteed to produce results. Doug Phillips is another example.

Yeah, isn’t that the problem with any law based system? Eventually you can’t keep it, and neither can those who are over you. The strength of sin is the law.

Melissa wrote:

Where it gets even more ridiculous is when the “bro code” that you mentioned bleeds over to the wives of said men. In other words, not only will these men not approach me because of what you mentioned, their wives won’t touch me with a ten foot pole either.

That’s because the well of their thinking has been poisoned by their indoctrination. They have been taught that a woman who disagrees is rebellious against God and her husband. They have been taught that the very *nature* of a woman is rebellious which they get from a weird and novel interpretation of Genesis 3:16. So you represent a threat to their system and you are, by prior definition, rebellious against God’s plan and design. The thing is, they don’t realize that their reaction to you is a prideful response, just like the men don’t realize their desire to be the authoritative head is a prideful one.

They may be afraid that their husbands will be suspicious of you if they associate with you. I can tell you that I am very careful in how I interact with people from my former church so that their reputations are not harmed by association with (contamination by) me. Their self-worth is not tied to being in Christ but rather in how faithful they are to the system which they have confused with God’s plan.

Humans are willing to trade an enormous amount of freedom for certainty and security. I think that is why the women are behaving as they are. I don’t think it is personal to you, but what you represent is very threatening to their cognitive equilibrium and to their reputation inside the system.

I’m so very sorry you have had to go through this and are going through this. It is a terrible counterfeit gospel human system that has ensnared so many who have good intentions.

Beakerj wrote:

Hi Melissa! A warm welcome here & an invitation to become one of our happy band of usurping females

You left out deceiving deceivers and rebellious castrators.

This: Gram3 wrote:

Their self-worth is not tied to being in Christ but rather in how faithful they are to the system which they have confused with God’s plan.

And this:
Gram3 wrote:

Strive and fail under the law or rest and thrive in Christ.

… are part of the reason I come here. As a grace-based person in a not-so-grace-based tribe, I have to keep being reminded of the truth. There are glimmers of hope when the church functions like it is supposed to, and we are all one in Christ.
Thanks for the reminder. 🙂

Victorious wrote:

You’ll also find a number of very warm, supportive, encouraging men here who see through the errors of the “patriarchy” type teachings.

Also they are very secure in their identities and don’t need to make stuff up to support who they are. Gotta love a man who loves Christ and his sisters in Christ and all women more than he does Piper and Grudem.

@ Ken:
Actually, yes, thanks for reminding me. I’ll see if I can lay my hands on it again (get it? heh)

Ken wrote:

Pigs in the Parlour

Just found this review, it seems quite fair: http://searchingforauthenticchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/a-controversial-book-on-deliverance-pigs-in-the-parlour-by-frank-and-ida-mae-hammond/

Classic quote: “Overall this book does end up giving rather a different sheen on the Christian faith to your average Church of England experience of preaching and teaching.”.

@ Haitch:
Further, i think this junk from the early 70s is best left back there, in the early 70s. Especially the part about schizphrenia being caused by demons. Yikes!!!

@numo, it probably also didn’t help that I read Chick tracts and books like “Pigs in the Parlour” when I was in primary school and lower high school (I was an advanced reader) – I don’t think a young brain can properly process that stuff and I think it’s quite damaging actually.

@ Melissa:
Melissa,
Thank you for sharing. I and my wife, too, live in the area. Our background is SBC, but in 2011 we left that behind and joined Gateway. Although we have gone to many services at the Southlake campus, a satellite campus is closer to our home and we go there each weekend. TWW does not treat the teachings of Gateway or Robert Morris fairly at all in these posts. Consider visiting Gateway and decide for yourself. In my experience, Robert Morris does not “lead with his doctorate.” That said, like any pastor of a megachurch, Pastor Morris does not always do and say things I agree with: Glenn Beck being one such example. But, on the balance, Gateway has been a great church for me and my wife, and Pastor Morris’ week-in week-out teachings are Bible focused and accurate.

Ken wrote:

I think I must have donated my copy to Wheelie-Bin Ministries.

Can I use that? 🙂 Funny.

@ Ken:
Wheelie Bin Ministries – good one, Ken!

numo wrote:

Oh my yes – that stuff is lethal for kids!

If you’re talking Jack Chick and similar, it still grabs and shakes my hindbrain some 50 years later. Anything to do with God or Christ has to first climb over that wall.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Men are “visual”, women are “visual”, ALL PRIMATES ARE “VISUAL”; SIGHT IS OUR PRIMARY SENSE.

Agreed!

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
One of them. Hearing is the other big one, though of course, being a musician, i am bound to say that, no?

Gram3 wrote:

And, it goes without saying, we cannot possibly know anything of the deep thinking taught to divinity students. In my limited divinity experience, it is best made with pecans and in low humidity conditions, though some purists prefer it plain white and don’t care if it is somewhat sticky.

In other news, my experimental kwafi sponge cake of a couple of days ago turned out very well indeed. Having never made kwafi sponge before, lacking any kwafi essence or similar ingredient designed specifically for baking, and certainly lacking what the various interweb recipes recommended, namely (if you’ll excuse the obscene language) instant kwafi, I used finely-ground kwafi beans sieved in with the flour.

Gram3 wrote:

You need to make a vacuum still, and then you could become the sole supplier for kwafi essence.

Well, that probably wouldn’t work because we do have kwafi essence over here in Blighty. It was introduced earlier this year along with electric light and the internal combustion engine.

By contrast, I’ve rarely make anything other than sponge cakes (or “punges”, as we call them in our family, based on one of the cute mis-pronunciations our daughter used to make when she was very wee – she used to call spoons “poons”). TBH, I really want to broaden my repertoire before Christmas. And flapjack doesn’t count.

@ Gram3:
I hope you’re jokimg re. “the deep thinking taught to divinity students.” (Has to do with the nature of academics and academia + academic politics, not a slam against all divinity students.)

@ numo:

in had to be a joke because she is a deep thinker and a divinity student. she just did not take the traditional route.:o)

Doug wrote:

Ok, but that’s not the reason men in the church are told they are visual.

What is the reason the church gave that men are more visual?

BTW – where does scripture say that the second look = sin? Lust is an issue, but a second look is sin?

@ numo:

And I took Brent’s remark about nurses and MBA’s as a gratuitous swipe at our blog hostesses which was unclassy, very rude, and also very revealing.

@ Bridget:
Sounds familiar; like all the things i heard in the early-mid 70s in the charismatic renewal. Surprising how many Catholic charismatics fell for Gothardism + shepherding.

Daisy wrote:

Doug wrote:
There is a “code” in some circles that it is not ok to talk to another man’s wife. I think it’s called the “Billy Graham Rule”, where he is supposedly famous for never meeting with a woman alone.
Actually, this goofy rule is usually applied to UNmarried woman. If you are a single woman, you are regarded as a Jezebel temptress who will rip a married man’s clothing off the very second you are both alone.
This is, I believe, due to some Christian married woman’s insecurity and over inflated sense of physical attractiveness on the part of married Christian males (many of whom I do not personally find attractive at all, and wouldn’t date them if they were the last man alive).

There is a similar code in Islamic societies. They take it a step beyond where women can only be addressed through her male first degree relatives.

In today’s business world, I rather have a witness with me when I am conducting business with a women. There are false accusers out there who bear false witness that so and so committed sexual harassment. I believe Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas instance, but false accusations do occur.

Billie Graham is concerned about no appearance of impropriety. Don’t think the rule is goofy.

Daisy wrote:

Actually, this goofy rule is usually applied to UNmarried woman. If you are a single woman, you are regarded as a Jezebel temptress who will rip a married man’s clothing off the very second you are both alone.

I don’t doubt that the rule, or some version of it, is sometimes – maybe very often – applied out of context and out of proportion.

However, the apocryphal reason (at least) Billy Graham developed a version of this had absolutely nothing to do with the character of any woman, real or hypothetical, he might meet. It had everything to do with the depths to which politicised opponents would sink to manufacture evidence against a public figure (Graham had the bitter experience of Watergate to draw on).

Doug wrote:

This is because we (men) are told that men are “visual” and that the 2nd look at a woman is where the sin happens and we just don’t want to go there.

If you’ve even watched women shopping for handbags or shoes, you’d know the “men-only visual” myth is just that…a myth! 🙂

Perhaps the “no-2nd-look” is supposed to sound valiant on the part of men, but I think it’s insulting. It assumes there might be a seed of lust lurking somewhere in the soul that would spring uncontrollably into action at any given moment. It also equates women with sex as opposed to a human being with a mind, soul, and intellect underneath those body parts.

It’s bizarre in my opinion.

@ Nancy:
Another problem with all of this is the assumption that it isn’t possible for men and women to be friends. That’s another topic altogether, but it is a truly damaging and unkind thing to presuppose that every social interaction is going to lead to the parties doing the interscting ending up in bed with each other.

@ numo:

I totally agree with what you are saying, but I don’t think that the world operates that way, and I think that protecting oneself however that needs to be done is legitimate. Personally, I really miss the days when anybody would ever suspect me of anything, married or not.

@ Nancy:
I think the “problem” lies in other peoples’ perceptions as well as standards of social acceptability. That said, there are lines i would not ever want to crosd.

Also, social mores vary in different parts of the country, and certainly, i used to have male friends who were gay. That shouldn’t make *anyone* feel threatened!

Gram3 wrote:

And I took Brent’s remark about nurses and MBA’s as a gratuitous swipe at our blog hostesses which was unclassy, very rude, and also very revealing.

Oh, I’m so slow, I didn’t get that, now I’m chortling, heeee. Brent, you’re way funny. So, in the world according to Brent, we must stay in our little academic silos and never venture out. Perish the thought of something…(wait for it)…interdisciplinary. This really is serf type thinking: know your place, and stay in it. Don’t EVER think you are capable of making any kind of contribution outside your initial chosen field. We must remain the fixed-brain, feet-in-disciplinary-concrete underlings that we are. I mean you would never actually want to……..join the dots.
Actually, I think Nick is to blame for this. The man is a scientist, a theologian, a mountain crawler, and a home baker. I’m sure other TWWers also mix things up a bit like this too. See, this is just too much, it makes people confused, they can’t label you instinctively. Just comment on the comet ONLY Nick, and you’ll be sweet with the Brentish type folks. (sorry to invoke your name Nick, it was just too easy though!)

@ Haitch:
oh man – that sounds crazy! (“The Guard.”) While not a fan of Westerns in general, hey, you only live once. 😉

numo wrote:

He even defended Clinton from accusations of adultery by going on and on about what an attractive man he was, one that women found naturally irresistible.

Somewhere on the Christian Gamer’s Guild website, Slick Willie Clinton is cited as a type example of High Charisma in D&D: “Even when you know he’s a crook, it’s impossible to NOT like him.”

@ Headless Unicorn Guy: most of the folks in question are Jewish, or nominal xtians, or of no set religion (or some combination of these).

“brian wrote:
The bad thing is that there are many more good pastors who barely make ends meet and do good for God and people. They are the ones that get a bad name.
So true. Those of us on the bottom rungs of society have to deal with the thugs who bring the teachings of these men into our churches and have to fight the real battles. I am thankful that I am associated with a pastor who is a real shepherd with absolutely zero desire to be well known.”

Trust me I have pleaded with God to help me repent of this nonsense, if a pastor can rake in the bucks by rhetoric etc, that is always good, always, and twice on sundays. A real shepherd makes bank and generates revenue, that is always holy. Of course I dont believe this, another reason I am totally unregenerate and apostate and an enemy of the Eternal God of Peace and will suffer His holy wrath for such emotionalism.

To be honest, it is really a rather strange religion, it really is.

@ Nancy:
I think most of out here share that same “observer bias,” Nancy! Still, just because some people are jerks doesn’t mean *all* people are jerks, you know? I think any decent person would be aware of boundaries and respect them. As for professional friendships, they can bepersonal, too. It all depends.

Ken wrote:

@ Doug:
Well, for a small love offering ….

Will you take a check?

Doug wrote:

Not saying I agree with it, but the teaching came from the introduction of psychology into the church, in my experience.

Would that the church had adopted some research based psychology if they were going to go down that road, rather than coming up with some misbegotten conglomeration by rewriting something they got out of the self help section at the book store. But then, if it made money for the original authors surely it would be a success if repurposed for the religious crowd.

Take in a deep breath, Nancy, let it all out; now just breathe normally.

@ Doug:

I see. It sounds like more of the “purity culture” nonesense. I agree with your comment that it seems like the believer (if they listen to these teachings) has less power to overcome issues when they arise than before they became a believer.

@ numo:
Twisted and harmful, that is.

@ Mark:

The rule is not only goofy but pretty sexist, and goes against the Bible on the point that people have self control.

The religious leaders of Jesus’ time had similar views about women, to the point they would avert their gaze if they saw one walking down the street and so walk into a pole or tree by mistake.

It’s very insulting and sexist to me when Christians assume I am a harlot only because I am a woman and I am single.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

I understand the reasoning behind it, but women still pay a penalty for it. And it’s assumed by mere virtue that a person is 1. of the female gender and 2. single, that she is more prone to be a harlot.

In this situation, you’re being based not on your behavior or character, but in-born traits (such as gender) or marital status… and as though married people are as fresh and innocent as the first snow.

Almost all the news stories I come across about Christians who sexually sin are about married preachers who cheat on their wives. Not un-married adults, but married ones.

@ Nancy:

All I can do is direct you to the books “Singled Out” and “Quitting Church” and to all my previous posts on this blog which discuss this. I’m not imagining it.

When giving sex lectures (in the context of marriage sermons), preachers almost always try to guilt trip the married women in the audience into putting out more.

They do this because there is this conservative Christian assumption that married women care more about non sexual things, like reading poetry and baking banana nut muffins, than having sex.

So, these preachers assume that the husbands are sex starved, and they pity them.

Evangelicals, meanwhile, tend to pepper their books, blogs, pod casts and sermons to frame single women as being very randy Jezebels types that men (especially married ones) must and should avoid being around or alone with at all costs.

There is most definitely a divide in evangelicalism that married women are dis-interested in sex and therefore must be convinced to have sex more often (and in kinky ways, see most Mark Driscoll sermons / books) with their spouses…

While single women are depicted, by evangelicals, as wild and reckless, hormonal, Sexy McSexy Dangerous Sexy threats, so that married dudes should stay away at all costs, and preachers should never meet alone with a single women, or always leave that door wide open.

When I was discussing these same subjects on a much older thread a few months ago, a few of you were scoffing, until that one lady – linda? – showed up and spouted off all these stereotypes.

At that point I got several apologies from some of you, as in, “Wow, you were not kidding, there are evangelicals/ Baptists/ conservative Christians who really believe that way.”
Yep, there are.

There is a HUGE difference between running interference on a Christian’s progress and possession. And actually to infer a fellow Christian is under possession is a demonic suggestion in of itself. This a psychological manipulation that such pastors use to control its audience. There are strongholds that a Christian can have but like in 12 step programs when utilizing steps to reconcile relationships and sins much is overcome.

Daisy wrote:

There is most definitely a divide in evangelicalism that married women are dis-interested in sex and therefore must be convinced to have sex more often (and in kinky ways, see most Mark Driscoll sermons / books) with their spouses…
While single women are depicted, by evangelicals, as wild and reckless, hormonal, Sexy McSexy Dangerous Sexy threats, so that married dudes should stay away at all costs, and preachers should never meet alone with a single women, or always leave that door wide open.

This is just Christianese for the outside trope “How do you stop your girlfriend from having sex with you? Marry her.”

Type example: the original 1983 music video for the song “Our Love’s in Jeopardy”. (The original Greg Kihn Band song & video, NOT the Weird Al Yankovic version!) Where what’s jeopardizing the singer’s love is getting married to her.

Earlier type example: Glen Campbells’ Sixties hit “Gentle on My Mind”.

My family were members of Gateway at the Southlake Campus for two years. Our kids wanted a change from the “stale” youth group they were attending elsewhere. WHAT A HUGE MISTAKE! Run! Do not walk away from this church and its teachings. Robert Morris is no theologian, he is a one trick pony who manages to work the Blessed Life tithing message into almost every message he preaches. I got tired of being told I was cursed if I didn’t fork over 10% of my gross wages to the church.

Here were my two eye-openers that caused the beginning of the end: Robert Morris stated from the pulpit that NO ONE should call the church and expect to get an appointment with him. He is “not that type of Pastor” – he doesn’t “see” people, he spends his time studying all week. (YAWN). The second eye-opener came when my father in law was dying in another State. We were having trouble scraping together the exorbitant emergency airfare to get to him before he passed. We called Gateway and asked if their benevolence fund could possibly assist us. An office minion called back to inform us that “Gateway doesn’t have that kind of money, but do call us when he passes, we’d love to send flowers.”

“We’re all about people” my foot….they are all about the money. There are other good churches in the DFW area that honor the Word of God and the example of Jesus…sadly, Gateway is not one of them.