Open Challenge to Fans and Critics of Bill Johnson/Bethel Church
February 24, 2013 157 Comments
The following transcription comes from a sermon on 12/20/09 titled Jesus Is Our Model1 from Bill Johnson of Bethel Church. This is the same one which contains Bill Johnson’s infamous “Jesus was born again” statement.2 This time we’re taking a closer look at a different and more lengthy portion of this sermon.
Before proceeding, a brief review of the Trinity may be in order. The first Person of the Trinity is God the Father, the second Person is God the Son, and the third Person is God the Holy Spirit. Orthodox Christianity affirms that each member of the Trinity has the divine attributes of omnipotence (being all-powerful), omniscience (possessing all knowledge), omnipresence (being everywhere present),3 immutability (inability to change, divine constancy), and other divine properties, in distinction from humanity. For our purposes, even more needs to be said on the second Person.
The Gospel of John describes the second Person of the Trinity as the Logos, “the Word”, who was “with God” in the beginning and who was (and is) God [John 1:1-2]. Then, the Logos, the Word “became flesh” and dwelt among us [John 1:14]. That is, the eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, entered our temporal realm as God in the flesh – fully/truly man and fully/truly God. Jesus Christ is the one, unique “Word made flesh”.
With our brief review completed, we can proceed with the selected statement of Bill Johnson. In the following selection, ALL CAPS indicates words/phrases in which Johnson himself is being emphatic; underlining is added to bring the reader’s attention to something deemed important towards understanding Johnson’s overall statement. Interspersed throughout the selected transcription is some explanatory commentary as well as some questions (in green text) which comprise this “challenge”.
To participate in this challenge, simply copy and paste the question(s) you’d like to answer into the comment box with your answer(s) following. You may answer any or all questions, but please keep each individual comment relatively brief with one or perhaps two questions and your responses in each comment box. Any comment which does not attempt to answer a question constituting this challenge may be summarily deleted, unless it is in response to another’s comment. Please view the Before You Comment tab if you are new to commenting on CrossWise.
First, we’ll provide the transcription in full, and, following that, we’ll repeat the selection, breaking it down into smaller sections while adding the related commentary and questions.
Here’s the complete selected text in order to provide full, uninterrupted context. Johnson begins by describing Jesus’ testing in the wilderness in Luke 4, quoting from the NKJV:
…Look at verse 3, “And, the devil said to Him, ‘IF you are the Son of God command this stone to become bread.’” Jesus answered Him saying, “It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone but by every WORD of God.” What was the first temptation? It wasn’t to turn stone into bread, it was to question who He was. Verse 3, “the devil said to Him, IF you are the Son of God’.” What did it say in verse 22, chapter 3? “YOU are My beloved Son.” “In YOU I am well pleased”. What was His first temptation? “IF you are the Son of God”.
Jesus explains this later to the disciples in Matthew 13; I’ll just read the one phrase to you that’ll help that concept to make sense. He was talking about people who had no root in themselves; they hear the Word but there’s no depth in their person. They’ve not been prepared for what God is saying and doing. And, then it says “for when tribulation or persecution arises because of the WORD [ED: 3 second pause for emphasis] immediately they stumble. Persecution, difficulty, conflict arises because of the Word. The WORD of the Lord attracts CONFLICT. It’s not punishment. It’s not to humiliate. It’s for two basic reasons: it’s because the Lord wants to give reward and He wants to honor character. Character is not formed in the absence of options. There has to be two trees in the Garden where I am honored for a decision. Do I honor what God has declared over my life or not? Do I consider other options, other possibilities?
The Scripture, this story in Matthew 13, the parable of the seed and the sower actually gives this picture of soil; and the seed of God’s Word, the sperma of God, is released into the seed, through His Word, into the soil. And, then it says, but other things grow and they choke out the life of that seed of God. Think about it: the Word of God, the most powerful thing in the universe, is put into an environment that if we give attention to other IDEALS, other VOICES, other WORDS, we actually give them a place in our heart to take root and they choke out the Word of God, the most powerful thing in the universe. For a season, the Lord has allowed our choices to affect the power, the effect of the most powerful thing in the universe. It’s stunning.4
Now, here’s the same selection broken down a bit for our challenge:
…Look at verse 3, “And, the devil said to Him, ‘IF you are the Son of God command this stone to become bread.’” Jesus answered Him saying, “It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone but by every WORD of God.” What was the first temptation? It wasn’t to turn stone into bread, it was to question who He was. Verse 3, “the devil said to Him, IF you are the Son of God’.” What did it say in verse 22, chapter 3? “YOU are My beloved Son.” “In YOU I am well pleased”. What was His first temptation? “IF you are the Son of God”.
In this first section, by Johnson’s context, to whom or what does “WORD of God” refer: Jesus Himself, the written Word (Scripture), the Father’s words spoken over Jesus following Baptism, or a combination of some or all of these? Explain.
Considering the Biblical context of Luke 4:1-13, how did Jesus Christ answer the devil in each of the three temptations? Which kind of “Word” does Jesus refer in each of His answers? Is each response a different kind, is one different from the other two, or are all the responses the same kind of “Word”?
Take note how Johnson relates the Father’s words “You are My beloved Son” and “In You I am well pleased” from Luke 3:22 to his interpretation of Luke 4:3-4, which is that the devil’s temptation was “to question who He was”, and how Johnson then proceeds to correspond this to Matthew 13 [verses 18-23] as “Jesus explains this later to the disciples”:
Jesus explains this later to the disciples in Matthew 13; I’ll just read the one phrase to you that’ll help that concept to make sense. He was talking about people who had no root in themselves; they hear the Word but there’s no depth in their person. They’ve not been prepared for what God is saying and doing. And, then it says “for when tribulation or persecution arises because of the WORD [ED: 3 second pause following for emphasis] immediately they stumble. Persecution, difficulty, conflict arises because of the Word. The WORD of the Lord attracts CONFLICT. It’s not punishment. It’s not to humiliate. It’s for two basic reasons: it’s because the Lord wants to give reward and He wants to honor character. Character is not formed in the absence of options. There has to be two trees in the Garden where I am honored for a decision. Do I honor what God has declared over my life or not? Do I consider other options, other possibilities?
Given that Johnson has started this section with “Jesus explains this later”, how exactly does Matthew 13 ‘explain’ how the first temptation of Jesus in the wilderness [Luke 4:3] “was to question Who He was”?
Did Jesus Christ potentially have ‘no root in Himself’? In what way is it possible, or is it impossible, that Jesus could be in a position to ‘hear the Word but there was no depth in His Person’?
Is it possible Jesus could have been in any position in which He had “not been prepared for what God is saying and doing”? Explain.
Could Jesus have ‘stumbled’ due to “tribulation or persecution because of the WORD”?
In Johnson’s question “Do I honor what God has declared over my life or not?” it’s clear that Johnson is referring to himself and/or his audience as ‘believers’. Does this mean Johnson is referring to the words spoken over Jesus by the Father in Luke 3:22 and that these words will be ‘declared over’ the believer’s life; or, does he mean some other declaration?
From a Biblical perspective, does Matthew 13 even apply to Jesus at all? If not, then to whom does Matthew 13 apply? Explain.
Finishing up the selection:
The Scripture, this story in Matthew 13, the parable of the seed and the sower actually gives this picture of soil; and the seed of God’s Word, the sperma of God, is released into the seed, through His Word, into the soil. And, then it says, but other things grow and they choke out the life of that seed of God. Think about it: the Word of God, the most powerful thing in the universe, is put into an environment that if we give attention to other IDEALS, other VOICES, other WORDS, we actually give them a place in our heart to take root and they choke out the Word of God, the most powerful thing in the universe. For a season, the Lord has allowed our choices to affect the power, the effect of the most powerful thing in the universe. It’s stunning.
Taking the full context of this selection of Bill Johnson’s Jesus is Our Model message, is the “Word of God” (“Word of the Lord”) used in the second and third parts of the transcription the same as the “WORD of God” in the first part (from Johnson’s interpretation of the NKVJ of Luke 4:4)? Why or why not?
Could Jesus have succumbed to other IDEALS, VOICES, and/or WORDS and therefore have ‘choked out’ the Word of God? Explain.
Is there Biblical support for Johnson’s assertion that the Word of God is “the most powerful thing in the universe”? If so, cite chapter(s) and verse(s).
Is the “Word of God” more powerful than the Trinity or any one Person of the Trinity? Explain.
From a Biblical perspective, what is meant by “Word” in Matthew 13:21-23 when put in the full context of Matthew 13:1-23, i.e. does it refer to new revelation from God, the written Word (Scripture), the Gospel, Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh, something else, or a combination of some or all of these? Explain.
Does Bill Johnson’s statement in any way affirm that Jesus Christ is the one, unique “Word made flesh”; and, if so, how? If not, then does this selection actually affirm the converse, i.e., that Jesus Christ is not the one, unique “Word made flesh”; and, if so, how?
This “sperma of God” concept of Bill Johnson is rather difficult to unravel by the context. It seems that everyone, or every potential ‘believer’, has “soil” within which contains a “seed”. The “sperma of God” is the same as “the seed of God’s Word” which is then released into the ‘seed’ of the individual, which is in the individual’s ‘soil’. Thus, there appears to be two “seeds”: one is “the seed of God’s Word”/“the sperma of God”/”Word of God”; the other is the “seed” within the “soil” of the individual which may be brought to life by this “seed of God’s Word”/”sperma of God”/“Word of God”.
Please note that Biblically it’s only “the farmer” [13:3-4] with seed who then ‘scatters’ it, with it falling either: “along the path” to be eaten by birds [v 4], i.e. snatched by the evil one [v 19]; on rocky places in shallow soil with the resulting plants scorched “because they had no root” [vv 5-6] lasting only for “a short time” [vv 20-21]; among thorns which choked the resulting plants [v 7] due to the “worries of life” and “deceitfulness of wealth” [v 22], or on good soil where it produced a crop of “a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown” [vv 8, 23].
However, there is an occult/New Age concept in which all things have a divine seed/spark/‘”Christ” within’,5 which may be ‘activated’ to grow by “the Word” aka “the Christ”. That is, there is a “Christ” without:
Christ is the Logos [Word] of Infinities and through the Word alone are Thought and Force made manifest.6
And, there is a “Christ” within:
…Now Christ, the universal Love, pervades all spaces of infinity…7
The above quotes are taken from Levi Dowling’s 1907 book titled The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ. The ‘Christ without’ is the only vehicle through which all things were made;8 hence, it could be called “the most powerful thing in the universe”.
The following provides some more explanation:
Perfection is the ultimate of life. A seed is perfect in its embryotic life, but it is destined to unfold, to grow.
Into the soil…these seeds, which were the Thoughts of God, were cast…and they who sowed the seeds, through Christ, ordained that they should grow…9
These “seeds” (‘Christ within’) were cast into all of creation from the very beginning. The goal, then, is for each person (and thing) to listen to the “Word” aka the ‘Christ without’ in order for “Thought and Force” to be “made manifest”, thus activating the seed/spark/‘Christ within’, with the goal of growing to “perfection” by transcending the outer material ‘shell’ with only the ‘divine’ remaining.
In this occult/New Age conception, Jesus is not actually the Christ as in the Jesus Christ of Scripture. Jesus was merely a man (but a special man) who, like all of mankind, had the ‘Christ within’; conversely, “Christ” is ‘God’ as part of a false Trinity. Jesus’ ‘Christ within’ was activated by the “Christ Spirit” (the ‘Christ without’) when it descended upon Him as a dove. At this point, Jesus received the “official title” of “Christ” and became known as “Jesus the Christ”, with “Christ” referring to His office.10
This Jesus is but man who has been fitted by temptations overcome, by trials multiform, to be the temple through which the Christ can manifest to men.11
Thus, He began the journey to become “the Christ” for our current era/aeon, which was not fully consummated until Ascension. At Ascension, He became the fully divine “Master Jesus”, and as such, He became the pattern for all to follow towards the attainment of self-deity/divinity.12
This leads to the final question of this challenge:
Keeping in mind the title of Johnson’s message – Jesus is Our Model – and the entire content of the selected transcript, could this be an adaptation of the occult/New Age concept described above? Why or why not?
1This is from the 2nd of two services that morning.
2Johnson’s statement was covered in an earlier article, “Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again’ Jesus, Part I” <http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/bill-johnsons-born-again-jesus-part-i/>
3I particularly like the way in which Thomas V. Morris [The Logic of God Incarnate. 1986, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY & London, UK] describes omnipresence with its close dependence on the other two ‘omni’ attributes and vice versa: “Perhaps the best understanding of the attribute of omnipresence is that of its being the property of being present everywhere in virtue of knowledge of and power over any and every spatially located object” [p 91].
4Bill Johnson Jesus is Our Model sermon from 12/20/09, Bethel Church, Redding, CA, taken from compact disc subtitled “sunam2” (Sunday AM, 2nd message, 11:00); 25:21 – 28:24. CD (and DVD or MP3 download) available at ibethel.com, titled “Jesus Is Our Model 11:00am December 20, 2009” <http://store.ibethel.org/p3322/jesus-is-our-model-11-00am-december-20-2009> as accessed 02/24/13.
5Levi Dowling The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ: The Philosophic and Practical Basis of the Religion of the Aquarian Age of the World. © 1907 Eva S. Dowling and Leo W. Dowling, © 1935 and © 1964 Leo W. Dowling, (11th printing, 1987), DeVorss, Marina del Rey, CA; p 6. On page 3 is the following from the “Introduction” by Eva S. Dowling: “The full title of this book is ‘The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus, the Christ of the Piscean Age’…” See also Alice A. Bailey From Bethlehem to Calvary: The Initiations of Jesus. © 1937 by Alice A. Bailey, renewed 1957 by Foster Bailey; Lucis Trust, 4th paperback ed., 1989; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; pp 162-163, 280. A favorite Biblical text to pervert in this regard is Colossians 1:27, “Christ in you, the hope of glory”.
6Dowling; p 6
7Dowling; p 6
8Dowling; p 6
9Dowling; p 6
10Dowling; p 8, 82-83. Also, Bailey; pp 100-101.
11Dowling; p 8
12Dowling; pp 8-9. Also, Bailey; pp 231-284
YesNaSpanishTown
Thanks for writing about the anointing, and searching the Scriptures for information on it. Does anyone here know how this concept came into being in the hyper-charismatic world. The last time I tried doing research on it, I came across Randy Clark as the possible origin. If it didn’t begin with him, then he has helped to make it popular.
When I was going to the former church, I was confused about the concept of anointing. At the time, the pastor didn’t preach about it from the pulpit, but some of the elders (what that congregation called the leadership in the church) talked about it a little in conversation. The first time I really heard about this concept was the same time that the Lakeland Todd Bently stuff was happening. The leaders in the church wanted to “give everyone the anointing” at an evening worship service — this anointing was supposedly passed on from people who had been to hear Bentley. Up until that time, I didn’t even know that that people in that church were even into Bentley. I didn’t go forward to receive the anointing, and I left early, confused by what was happening. I’d done research on Lakeland already, as an apologetic site I often visit had mentioned it. It then was all over forums that I’d visited at the time, etc.
I was upset, and I wrote that church an e-mail sharing my concerns with the leadership. That was the first e-mail I sent to the leadership. Thankfully there was no senior pastor at the church at the time, and the people did look over my e-mail and the information presented carefully. As a group, the leadership decided that they didn’t want anything to do with Bentley or Lakeland….simply because Bob Jones was behind Bentley. I had cried and prayed over this — these were people that I loved, and I really loved that little church. I praised God when I heard their decision not to get any more involved with Bentley or Lakeland.
However, it was tough — before they made that decision, I had a confrontation with several of the elders, and it was clear that they were all for Lakeland, Bentley, and “the anointing.” It was during this time that the one person made the comment that she didn’t want to miss anything that God was doing. Even though they had rejected Bentley, Lakeland, and the anointing, I didn’t realize that the evilness had crept into the church to stay. Little seeds remained.
Then the new senior pastor came after the summer was over (and also around the time Lakeland ended). This senior pastor was the one who had attended Dutch Sheets’ church. He slowly started introducing more and more error. I wasn’t at home during much of this time, as I was away at graduate school. But I did notice after I’d graduated what was going on.
First, there was that young adult service that I went to. At that meeting, I heard about the anointing again — this was from an elder. He said that he had thought at one point in the service that there was going to be “an anointing” time. Then there was the “Voice Of The Apostle’s Conference” that the elders were showing. Then there was the dominionism that was preached from the pulpit, and then there were the “words” that were dominionist in nature, and also the guided imagery. I’d written two more e-mails to the church leadership during this time, and I got rude responses back. This time it was clear that they weren’t going to listen, and it was clear that the whole church leadership was steeped in the false. I had to leave.
But it was this “anointing” thing that kept on being promoted. First with Lakeland, then the young adult service (mention of it by an elder), and then the mention of it by those who were putting on the webcast of the “Voice of the Apostles Conference.”
I challenged the church leadership to tell me where the concept of “anointing” came from, and I tried telling them it was unbiblical. They ignored all this. So how did this concept take such a quick hold in this little congregation? How is the Christian world able to so freely accept it? Where did people get the idea that there was a transferable anointing that could be passed on from Christian to Christian?
I suppose it might have happened when people started viewing the Holy Spirit as a force rather than as a Person in the Trinity, or at the very least, they viewed His power as being a force they could tap into.
With some of the articles that Craig has posted about the anointing and being “christed” and all of that…..it seems that there is one type of “anointing” in which someone becomes anointed with the gnostic christ spirit), and then there are additional transferable anointings that a person can receive. Perhaps they believe the initial christing anointing opens the spiritual door for them to be able to tap into the power in these transferable anointings? Maybe they view the transferable anointings as power sockets that they can plug themselves into? That seems to be how they actually use it. (Yes, I put “Christ” in lowercase because their “Christ” is a false one.)
Seriously, Christianity has becoming a mockery in so many corners of what is called the Christian Church.
Carolyn,
You are right about many Christians and churches trying to promote a Christian culture — a place where people don’t have to really dig into their faith, but instead where people can just sit around and exclaim how cool Jesus is. And you’re right, many of them probably don’t know Him, and are likely just Christians on the outside.
Arwen4CJ,
I believe the “anointing” teaching goes back to the early 1900s via E.W. Kenyon, the REAL father of the Word of Faith. No doubt Kenneth E. Hagin (Sr.) taught on the “anointing”, and he ‘borrowed’ many teachings from Kenyon.
[added] I should also note that both Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar are recognized as Hagin devotees, and each of these taught on the “anointing”.
Craig,
I see — so these people are just taking this “anointing” concept from one another, and it has gotten mixed in with hyper-charismatic doctrine….and if it is from the early 1900s then it has had about 100 years of being all mashed up and distributed to all these hyper-charismatic groups.
My next question would be — where did Kenyon get the idea? Perhaps from an angel of light? It had to come from somewhere, as it is not biblical, and it is not part of church tradition.
I think a lot could be learned if we could track down some of this false doctrine.
Another concept that I’ve wondered about is the whole “pleading the blood of Jesus” protective statement that hyper-charismatics make. I’m guessing they got this from a twisted interpretation of one of the verses in Revelation — but what is the origin of the false teaching on it? Is this also something from Kenyon’s writings?
And what about the concept of blaming an evil spirit for everything? Such as people who claim that there is a religious spirit? A judgmental spirit? A critical spirit? A spirit of depression? A spirit of death? A spirit of a headache? Spirit of fornication? Spirit of drugs? Spirit of rejection? Spirit of fear? etc. The list could go on and on and on. And then they believe that all of these spirits need to be exorcised.
Yes, I do believe that there are evil spirits, but I don’t think that they are responsible for every single thing, etc. Their system seems very oppressive. And the “spirits” that they name for various sins seem to me like they are placing all the blame on the spirits rather than taking any responsibility for sin themselves.
Theology that supports all of these spirits seems to me to be more like occultism than it is biblical Christianity.
Where did this spirit blaming theology come from?
(yes, I know that it is all demonic doctrine…..but who is the human source of it? Did some people borrow these concepts from pagan religions?)
Arwen4CJ,
I should add – as I know you are well aware – that this “anointing” teaching is prevalent in esoteric Christianity going all the way back to 1st/2nd century Gnosticism. Myself, I’m convinced that both the Gospel of John and, more explicitly, John’s first epistle deal with this issue [1 John 2:18-27]. Irenaeus, in his Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), claims that John’s Gospel was an apologetic against the burgeoning Gnostic teachings.
Kenyon, who borrowed heavily from New Thought, Christian Science, etc (and I’d argue Blavatsky’s Theosophy), may well have been the first to take this form of esoteric Christianity directly into the ‘Church’.
I see — so these people are just taking this “anointing” concept from one another, and it has gotten mixed in with hyper-charismatic doctrine….and if it is from the early 1900s then it has had about 100 years of being all mashed up and distributed to all these hyper-charismatic groups.
My next question would be — where did Kenyon get the idea? Perhaps from an angel of light? It had to come from somewhere, as it is not biblical, and it is not part of church tradition.
It looks as though I was answering your question before you actually posted it!
Also, with the Nag Hammadi discovery of 1945, Gnostic teachings gained new followers.
Arwen4CJ,
I mentioned a bit about Kenyon (comparing his teachings with Johnson) in this article here in the Johnson’s Word of Faith Roots Showing section. I was convinced then that Kenyon adhered to the same spirit/matter dualism of the 1st/2nd century (and before) which informed his own Gnostic-styled teachings.
Yes — that makes sense for Kenyon to have been involved in that sort of spirituality, as it is the same stuff that is in gnosticism and all the other forms, as we have discussed. So if it was Kenyon who transplanted the “anointing” into the church.
That’s exactly what I was looking for — the person that interacted with the spirit behind the doctrine, so the person who would have brought it from the esoteric teaching widely into the church. So then, we need not look beyond Kenyon for this doctrine.
What about for the other doctrines? The “Pleading the blood of Jesus” as some kind of protective spell that is so prevalent now in Christianity. Was Kenyon the one who made that popular too?
And what about the doctrine of evil spirits for everything? Kenyon?
I’m not sure on the origin of the “pleading the blood” and blaming evil spirits for everything. It’s been a while since I’ve read McConnell’s book A Different Gospel to know if these are addressed in it.
However, since WoF teaches that we should have no sickness (a teaching which DOES go back to Kenyon), then it may be easier to blame it on the ‘demon of colitis’ or what-have-you. That is, assuming that the problem is not your “lack of faith”.
Thanks. I’m looking it up now.
Hmmm….it looks like Kenyon might be the inspiration of “pleading the blood” too…..
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/syndrome_vinc3/devotions/eternalministries/mysticism.htm
It looks like some guy named H.A. Maxwell Whyte was reading Kenyon’s work about the blood of Jesus, and decided that “pleading the blood” was a good idea.
http://letusreason.org/Popteach52.htm
I’m guessing that the spirits behind everything doctrine is of similar Word of Faith origin. Thanks
From: http://www.gotquestions.org/pleading-the-blood.html
Question: “Is pleading the blood of Jesus biblical?”
Answer: “Pleading the blood of Jesus” in prayer is a teaching that can be traced to some of the early leaders of the Word of Faith movement. When people speak of “pleading the blood of Jesus in prayer” they are referring to the practice of “claiming” the power of Christ over any and every problem by using the phrase “I plead the blood of Jesus over _______.”
Carolyn says:
March 14, 2013 at 1:08 pm
But, is it possible that it was serving God’s purposes in the long run? Not that he sent you into deception, but he allowed it for the greater good in your life.
Absolutely and would agree with you 100%…
Thank you for the response to my post
Craig – Mar 14 6:57 Your comment: “God’s “genetic code” is the not yet activated “spiritual DNA” that all receive at conception. This “spiritual DNA” is activated when one begins to listen to the ‘Word of God’, or “conscience” / ‘spirit’ as Jones would put it, thus beginning the ‘born again’ experience. Here are some additional quotes:
…Exposure to the supernatural works of God changes the capacity of leaders to lead, thereby changing the bent of the people of God to pursue Him.
Such exposure is the equivalent of a spiritual change of DNA. Something is altered in that person that enables him or her to lead in a way that the people of God inherit a heart for God through the leader’s influence.”
I was reading this over again, trying to understand what is going on. There is no mention of Christ’s atoning work. Our new life is activated by conscience, capacity of leaders to lead, change in bent, exposure to supernatural works of God…etc….
No. We are dead in trespasses and sins. We have no spiritual seed in us that can be revived. We are born again from an objective, external source…Christ…not an subjective, internal source of a mystical DNA.
When you get this, you can see that Satan triumphs through our assumptions. We assume that the atonement has been incorporated in the the teaching and that we are all on the same page. But the atonement, though mentioned as a Christian theme, or related as a background issue is superseded by this new theology.
We have to be clear on the gospel, not blending it with our assumptions. If we isolate the false gospel from our assumptions, then it is easier to see that it is indeed a different gospel.
I believe that the sleight-of-hand technique has been used in the whole Brownsville, laughing revival, Toronto Blessing impartations and Supernatural Manifestations…where the crowd is looking at a diversion while the real action is taking place elsewhere. In this case, the diversion is the exposure to the supernatural or teaching on the anointing while the real action is an exchanged gospel.
And those that have swam in the charismatic river for so long(like me) can miss it because they become immune to the terminology and function on our assumptions. Of course, we do have the Spirit who is saying to those who are listening, that something isn’t right. But I think in some ways, someone like Craig, has the advantage, coming from a clean cut pathway into Christianity, he can see it more easily separate truth from fiction……maybe…..
And those that have swam in the charismatic river for so long(like me) can miss it because they become immune to the terminology and function on our assumptions. Of course, we do have the Spirit who is saying to those who are listening, that something isn’t right. But I think in some ways, someone like Craig, has the advantage, coming from a clean cut pathway into Christianity, he can see it more easily separate truth from fiction……maybe….
Having not been in the ‘river’ movement is certainly advantageous on some levels. I don’t carry any emotional baggage from the resultant feeling of betrayal and embarrassment that can come with it. This is not to say that all who’ve been in hyper-charismaticism have emotional baggage. It’s just not a potential factor for me. This allows me to research and write from a somewhat dispassionate viewpoint, since I’m not emotionally invested as such. Of course, I only do this because I truly care about those who are caught up on this, those who are concerned about friends and family who are caught up in this, and those who may be spared from getting involved in the first place.
On the other hand, not having the firsthand knowledge can leave me with an incomplete picture. This is why I’ve read a lot of other sites’ blog comments as an attempt to understand. Which leads me to a question for those who were involved: Did you use the term “anointing” in describing some of the goings-on, such as “the anointing was really strong in that meeting”? Or was the term used primarily be leadership?
Everyone uses the term to describe the goings-on. A common inside joke is to rub your shoulder with another’s and say something like, “I want to get some of your anointing.”
I was at a meeting early (which I really didn’t want to be at). At first I didn’t know anyone there. Usually, I can make light conversation with people I don’t know, but literally everyone was there to honor an old pastor who has an “anointing”. So I tried to stand in the back of the room and blend into the wall until the meeting started to avoid the inevitable topic of conversation. There was one man who is really goofy and all into the anointing whomI was working hard to avoid. But he found me at the wall and came up to me and said, “I can tell just by the way you stand and look that you have a really heavy anointing!” I just can’t slough these things off any more. I have to speak out. So I said, “Oh, I believe the Bible says that every believer is anointed.” He had no idea what I was talking about. He tried to argue back, but I would not give in. I just responded with, “Every believer is anointed.” Finally he said, “Yes, but Jesus had the Spirit without measure.” He finally gave up because I repeated yet again, “Every believer is anointed.” I recognize now that he was probably getting that from Bill J. That crowd loves his stuff.
Did you use the term “anointing” in describing some of the goings-on, such as “the anointing was really strong in that meeting”? Or was the term used primarily be leadership?
I personally had used it as a way of discribing “something was going on”, as a difference between what was perceived as a place with “normal feeling” and a place where a “supernatural feeling” or “spiritual feeling” was present and therefore the place was “anointed”. I guess the same thing was meant if I were to say “the presence of the Lord is in this place…”.
I never ever thought a person was anointed, but rather being used by God for that moment as in the idea that the gift(s) were flowing/manifested, which meant to me that the presence of the Holy Spirit was in the place and working through a person(s).
But then later in my walk I do believe that I probably would say something to the affect that, there is an “anointing” upon that person. The Holy Spirit is upon him/her and using them mightly.
YesNaSpanishTown – good on you for continuing to say “Every believer is anointed.”
I have something similar to what you shared that also drives me nuts. I have to laugh to keep from crying, but I also find it “funny” when people tell me “God is going to use you.” They always seem to be referring to something in the future that will be “epic” or large scale.
I always want to ask, “you mean God is not using me now?” It’s part of the Pentecostal movement to always look for some momentous undertaking to occur at some future date.
Maybe one day we’ll all be “on stage” and speaking to millions, but really, who cares? If that’s part of God’s plan for our lives then let Him figure it out, right? Why not just serve where we are now and let everything else play out the way God intended?
I also think if you tell someone that “one day God will use them,” you almost imply that what they are doing now is insufficient or somehow “less.”
Oh well, glad I’m no longer a fruit loopy Christian like I used to be – bring on the orthodoxy I say!
Oh Shawn, YES and AMEN.
You said: “It’s part of the Pentecostal movement to always look for some momentous undertaking to occur at some future date.”
You have so hit the nail on the head about the Pentecostal movement that I HAD to jump in with a hurrah! This is just it, resting in the assurance that God is using me (and you) at this moment and NO it doesn’t have to be a momentous future event. This is exercising true faith, even when the details are not in clear view. Preach it! God is using you!
Thanks Linda – glad this spoke to you too. The next time I pick up a toilet brush for the mens’ bathroom at Church I’ll remind myself that God is using me
Ha – bet they don’t mean that when they talk about “the anointing” or doing great things for God!
Jesus washed dirty feet… no man is greater than his master. ( : Keep up the good work!
The problem with the statement “Jesus is our model” like so many teachings in charismania is that no lines are drawn. No specifics defined. It’s like when the pop culture says so-and-so is a good “role model.” I always ask, “Role model for what?” Yeah, Tiger Woods is a good role model of how to play good golf, but not so much on many other issues.
Jesus is our model for what? He is our model for many things like obedience to God’s Word, truthfulness, how to respond to the poor, how to respond to wickedness, how to respond to self righteousness, etc etc.
But there are aspects of Jesus we cannot model. We cannot model His unique standing as having existed with God [ED: and as God] before time. We cannot model his atoning death for the sins of the world. We cannot model His bodily resurrection [ED: of/by Himself]. We cannot model His second coming as the Righteous Judge, etc. etc…..
Having had an extended journey through charismania these vague open ended ideas take on a life of their own: morphing and evolving until they do not reflect the truth of the Word of God. In that way it is very much like new age teachings as they keep changing and (in their minds) growing into new understanding. Each new book adding to the concepts of earlier books until the truth is lost.
The same is true in relation to your question about the use of the term ‘anointing,’ Craig. We all used it- in many and varied ways. It was really up to personal interpretation what was meant. A song could be anointed (evoke an emotional response). A teaching could be anointed. A teacher could be anointed. A room could be anointed. A person could have an anointing. A person could catch or transfer an anointing. The anointing broke the yoke. It was a force. It was unseen, but felt. It could be discerned, felt, gained and lost.
If I was to try and list synonyms …..It could mean ability or talent. It could mean impacting. It could mean articulate. It could mean being empowered. But the trouble was these alternative synonyms were not used. The term “anointing” was used, which automatically implied the approval of God.
On rare occasions it would have been accurate to say true conviction was experienced during a message, but the message was declared ‘anointed,’ which diverted the focus from the Lord onto some abstract idea or the person delivering the message.
I agree that most don’t know what “Jesus is our model” means; however, Johnson does, in fact, define his meaning/s. At least they are strongly implied in the way he words some things. As in this post, given that the title of Johnson’s ‘sermon’ is Jesus is our model, and given that Johnson expressly claims that the passage in Matthew 13 explains Johnson’s own (faulty) exegesis of Luke 3:22/4:3-4, we can draw the conclusion that Jesus, as the “rhema” word (as the ensuing explanations in the comments have shown), is our model. But, again, many others do not specify, and those sitting under the teachings are not really understanding what it taught when they are teaching it, as they are vague and teach just enough that sounds Biblically orthodox that the audience just (figuratively) nods their collective heads in agreement. It’s tragic.
The way I see the whole “anointing” thing is that this “so and so is so anointed as a singer, musician, etc.” that they don’t see how these false teachers are REALLY defining the “anointing” as Johnson has with the “Christ anointing” teaching I keep reiterating here in Crosswise. That is that Jesus was merely a man who was “Christ anointed” by the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’, thereby providing the title of “Christ”, making the man Jesus into Jesus Christ. This same “Christ anointing” is for all, which really means we all become ‘little Christs’, or ‘little gods’ – though Johnson does not say this like some of his predecessors. Yet the teaching boils down to the same thing when taken to its logical conclusion.
theuntangling,
I think you are right about a major problem of hyper-charismaticism is that terms aren’t always defined, or if they are, they aren’t defined the same way all the time. It isn’t consistent across the board. Perhaps this is on purpose. Those who are being drawn in aren’t able to see the danger in what is being taught. They slowly absorb one teaching after the other, and all the individual people are being mixed with others at various stages in hyper-charismaticism.
When a person hears a term that they have already accepted as being “true,” or “acceptable,” then when someone else uses it slightly differently, they are able to accept the new usage of it. This keeps happening until the person gets deeply into the dangerous doctrine.
Bill Johnson does have a definition of anointed, but perhaps not everyone realizes what it is. They just eat his teachings up, accepting what he says as truth. All the while they don’t realize that they’ve accepted false doctrine — that the meaning of a word has changed from what they thought it meant.
I’m going to copy a comment I just made on another thread as it’s apropos here
This is one of the reasons I’m trying very hard to show that this is the same modus operandi of the so-called “esoteric Christianity”, which is in reality occultism. In my ‘Christ’ in the New Age article I quote from Hannah Newman’s excellent The Rainbow Swastika, which speaks of this same problem from a Jewish perspective. I only used her “Trojan horse” quote, but here’s a bit more context:
…The main tenets of NA religion are important to grasp, not least because familiar religious terms are given radically different meanings while allowing outsiders to define them as they like (for example, the Great Invocation). This ploy has allowed NA “change agents” (as they are known to insiders) to infiltrate the unsuspecting Jewish community in the Trojan Horse of semantics. They say all the “right” things, work hard in service and scholarship, win leadership positions, and only then do they set out to reshape the old concepts to fit the “new paradigm”….
Craig,
Thanks for another great artice!
Over the past two years I have seen these teachings infiltrate my church and Im not sure what to do anymore. Im torn between uprooting my family and staying to see where it all goes. There is clearly a division within the congregation over these beliefs. I have voiced my concerns but they seem to get swept under the rug. We have elders and members taking trips to Bethel and coming back excited about all that they “felt and experienced”. Then it spreads through out the members and familys alike.
Our Wednesday night service has turned into a joke. The worship team mimics that of Jesus Culture and Bethel Worship spouting out “prophecys” and “words from the Lord” as they play. They also incorporated “Treasure Hunts” (Finger of God movie) into the service. It seems like they parrot anyting and everything that comes out of Redding. Its sad.
Our youth pastor seems to think he has supernatural powers. One day I was having trouble getting a leaf blower started (I help maintain the church grounds) and he offered to give it a try. It started for him and after asked, he stated that it started because ” I spoke life into it “. After digging deeper, I found out that I was priming it too much, resulting in the engine being flooded. Not that I wasnt speaking life into it. I brought this to the attention of some of the elders who didnt seem concerned and said he is just immature. Am I being overly sensitive/critical? I believe that a youth pastor needs to held to a strict standard of beliefs. How can he teach truth if he embraces false teachings?
Sorry for the rant. This stuff obviously bothers me. Keep up the hard work Craig!
I wanted to ask you a question about another topic but couldent find an email or contact page on your site. Have you done any research on Heidi Baker? She and her husband Rolland have a ministry in Mozambique. She is affiliated with NAR, TACF, Bethel, ect. There have been 4-5 young kids from our church that have gone to her school and come back speaking very highly of her. They also come back embracing the “supernatural realm”. It seems like the theme of all these ministries is to target the youth. Another theme Im seeing is that they dont read the word, or tell anyone that they should read it. I found this video of Heid and its quite creepy. I was wondering what your thoughts are on it or if you can shed some light on it for me.
http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?165350-Heidi-Baker-and-the-Burn-movement&s=7264c2b7015fa3914b0c428a18289d7a
Your youth pastor is governed by the Word of Faith belief that words have power (an occult belief). This comes from the belief that God Himself evoked the ‘Word of Faith’ in the creation account of Genesis 1. God “breathed life” into Adam. So, then, in essence, it’s a belief equating humans with God. Blasphemy! This is why Johnson references the (“rhema”) Word as “the most powerful thing in the universe”. Therefore, IMO, you are absolutely NOT being overly sensitive or critical.
I’ve done little research into Heidi Baker, but, clearly, she is just like the rest of hyper-charismaticism; she exalts mystical experience over everything else. It’s all about ‘feeling’ and the ‘presence of God’. Yes, these groups have a focus on the youth – get ‘em while their vulnerable.
Just in viewing the first couple of minutes of the video in the url you reference I hear two of Baker’s “WHOA”s, the same thing “former” witch Patricia King is known for. My bottom line: this is from the occult. The Holy Spirit does not so ‘take over’ an individual that they’ll be under this sort of control. The Holy Spirit’s role is found primarily in John 14:15 – 16:16. The Holy Spirit does not bring attention to Himself (not through others who would exhibit His characteristics, for example), He points to Jesus instead. He convicts of sin and leads to righteousness – not mystical experiences.
Also, the guy in the video exhibits the Lou Engle ‘rock’, thought it’s not as pronounced.
Stay away, I say.
Matt,
If the leadership is just continuing to go more Bethel-like, and there are no others in leadership to counter this, then you’ll eventually have to leave, IMO. You can try to be a light amongst the darkness (just sayin’ it straight), but if leadership wishes to remain in the Bethel darkness (which looks like ‘light’, but see 2 Cor 11:14-15), things will just go from bad to worse.
Matt,
you state: “It started for him and after asked, he stated that it started because ” I spoke life into it “. ”
my question: Did it start breathing, speaking the praises of God, grow legs and walk around the grounds by itself? Well then, he definitely did not “speak life into it”.
I would encourage you to move your family far, far away from such nonsense and keep them safely planted in the Word of God. From experience, I know that this isn’t easy; but you have children to consider. wof doctrines and “ministries” are largely targeted to the youth. If your church is becoming bethelized, you will soon find your youth ministries going down that path also. It is cultic and dangerous. If you were a single man, firmly grounded in the faith, who wanted to stay and fight; that might be one thing. imo, when children are involved; the need to be proactive for their protection is very important. There is demonic behind much of this. If your youth pastor is “speaking life” into a leaf blower, it is time to move on (imo anyway)….
Will be praying for you and your family as I know that others here will also do.
my question: Did it start breathing…?
But wait! Since it’s a leaf blower, I suppose the youth pastor DID speak life into it; that is, if it started blowing, then it must have had ‘breath’ in order to start blowing!
LOL
Gotta inject some humor once in a while.
Re: Heidi Baker (and her husband, Roland)…
“Burn movement” says it all.
The Bakers are huge fans of William Branham. Among other things, Branham taught that “trinitarianism” was “of the devil”. I have heard footage of Roland Baker calling William Branham the “most anointed” man since “jesus christ”. Branham was also into all kinds of new age ideas, and his tombstone is a large pyramid….
Craig maybe has something he can link you to regarding Branham.
The Branham promotion alone would be enough for me to steer clear of Heidi Baker.
I have a short section on Branham here:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/kris-vallotton-and-the-mantle-of-jesus-christ-bill-johnson-on-corporate-anointing/
>>>I have a short section on Branham here:
>>>http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/kris-vallotton-and-the-mantle-of-jesus-christ-bill-johnson-on-corporate-anointing/
I read this one the other day. Good stuff. It amazes me that Bill and Kris speak about Branham openly and everyone accepts it as a positive thing. How is this possible??
Branham is accepted under the false premise that we are to “eat the meat and spit out the bones”. Yet, those accepting this premise fail to acknowledge that a little leaven (yeast) leavens the whole.
“It amazes me that Bill and Kris speak about Branham openly and everyone accepts it as a positive thing. How is this possible??”
Matt, I believe a common thread among false teachers is a strong desire NOT to have their own teaching held up to the refiner’s fire of scripture. It’s like “honor among theives”…they generally return the favor to each other. It is also part of the “falling away” that comes at the end. They refuse to love the truth…Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God made flesh…and so they fall into apostate teaching….deceiving and being deceived.
So, Bill Johnson has no motivation to test Branham against scripture. He won’t even test himself against it. Dangerous stuff, indeed.
There is a conditioning of sorts that goes on through feeding folks the rotten food of Branham, the leaven of which Craig speaks. If you can get a person to accept someone like Branham willingly, or if you can get them to lay down their Bibles and believe that Branham in his day was a “new move” of “god” regardless of what the Bible had to say about it, then they will gladly eat all the rotten fruit of the current crop of false teachers too. It is a prepping for the final anti-christ.
I should add something else about Branham. Most of the teachers in h-charismaticism will claim that Branham’s gifting was as a healer; and, it wasn’t until he moved into teaching that he got out of his ‘gifting’. This is the reason cited as to why he went off a bit towards the end – that is, by those who DO concede even that much.
This, of course, fails to acknowledge Branham’s many false prophecies, plus the fact that he couldn’t heal unless his “angel” was at his side.
On another note altogether: Since just1ofhis mentioned about this movement “prepping for the final anti-christ” I wanted to state that it seems not a few folks have a misunderstanding of the term (not speaking to you just1ofhis, just in general). While anti can mean “against”, it also can mean “instead of” or “substitute”. I’d say he’s much better understood as the “substitute Christ”. Certainly, he’s against Jesus Christ, but the point is that he will seem to be so much like Jesus that many will think he IS Jesus Christ. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians, “Satan masquerades as an angel of light” and “his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness” [2 Cor 11:14-15]. The antichrist will be the ultimate masquerader.
The Lord keeps pointing me back to these two verses everytime I start to get distressed over this. Its the only thing that explains to me why others dont see whats really going on here.
The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 ESV)
You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is.
(Galatians 5:7-10 ESV)
“The Bakers are huge fans of William Branham. Among other things, Branham taught that “trinitarianism” was “of the devil”. I have heard footage of Roland Baker calling William Branham the “most anointed” man since “jesus christ”. Branham was also into all kinds of new age ideas, and his tombstone is a large pyramid”
I did some research last night and found the video of Rolland Baker speaking VERY highly of Branham. Very interesting……and sad…
Matt,
I know a little bit about Hedi Baker, although not a whole lot. Before I left the one church in my hometown, the elders in the church had promoted a conference called “Voice of the Apostles.” They were offering a web viewing of some of the speakers at this conference (or sessions, or whatever they specifically called them). One of the speakers that they showed was Hedi Baker. From the time that it was announced that they would be showing videos from the conference up until they actually showed it, I searched for as much information on the speakers as I could. The other speakers were Randy Clark and Bill Johnson.
From the research that I did on Hedi, I learned that Hedi’s ministry is a subdivision of Bethel Church. She is tied to Bill Johnson and all of Bethel. She speaks at many Bethel events, as well as with other hyper-charismatic teachers. She is a favorite among the hyper-charismatic crowd. I watched a few of her videos, and she appears to be often incoherent, drunk, and shaking/manifesting things that I am sure are demonic.
The content of her “sermons” or “messages” or whatever you want to call her lectures or talks is very Scripturally suspect. For example, instead of preaching on Scripture, she tends to speak on spiritual experience. When she does use Scripture, she uses eisegesis (she makes a verse or passage mean what she wants it to, reading her own meaning into the text, and making it seem to support whatever she is saying) to support the manifestation or experience she has been talking about. She completely ignores the context of a given verse or passage.
So, let’s say she is talking about angel encounters. (This is a real example that I can remember from a video I watched), and she’s been talking about all these great experiences she has had with angels. She then opens her Bible and turns to Revelation, where it talks about “the angel of ____ church.” She pulls one of those verses out and then launches into talking about hearing from angels, angels interacting with humans, etc. She spends the rest of the time continuing talking about this.
I didn’t attend the “Voice Of The Apostles” webcast at the church, but I did talk to one of the elders about it the Sunday following the showing. He and his wife told me about Hedi Baker’s talk, and had nothing but praises to say about her. Apparently she talked about spiritual manifestations and experiences (what a surprise). And one of the things she talked about was when a tornado was coming towards her ministry in Africa. She used Jesus’ example of controlling weather, and was able to push away the storm so that it went in another direction, or so she claimed. The elder who told me this and his wife were super impressed by this tale, whether or not it is true. (The story personally sounds far fetched to me, who in the audience was going to try to verify her story? All she needs to do is show that she is “spiritual” by doing a few signs and wonders, shaking, etc, and these people will believe anything that she says. However, if it was true, and did happen, then it would have been by evil power, just to keep her trapped in thinking that she can control weather and be a little god.)
It is true that she has an orphanage and a ministry to children in Africa, and that is great. But doing good work does not mean that someone’s ministry is sound. And I think this is the hook that gets a lot of people — her apparent love and devotion to these children in Africa. This is a good quality, and most people admire someone with that kind of love and devotion to the less fortunate. This is something that Jesus would want. So, it actually is a good fruit. So, I think a lot of Christians put down their guard about her. So, this is a case in which this part of her ministry is right — but the theology and content of her teaching is way off, which overshadows the good in her work. And the bad thing is that she is teaching this false theology to these poor orphan children.
As far as weather or not you should go, from what you’ve said, I would leave. But that is just my personal opinion. If you don’t leave now, and nothing changes, then I think you’ll have to leave at some point in the future. However, certainly pray about it. If God tells you to stay for awhile, then you should listen to Him.
You said you have to think about uprooting your family — so I don’t know who “family” is in this context. If it is a wife and children, then you need to discuss this with them. What do they think about these teachings? Do they think that what is going on is okay? How are they being influenced? Is this church a spiritually healthy place? And if it isn’t preaching sound doctrine, then how are you and the members of your family growing spiritually?
How many people in the church leadership are into the Bethel teachings? Are there any that are not? If everyone who is in leadership is into this stuff, you’re going to have a lot of uphill battles to fight. Are you alone in the church in opposing these teachings? Are there others with whom you can share your concerns with, and who feel the same way? If so, then there is a chance that you could team up with them and try to approach the church leadership as a group, present your concerns, and see where it goes from there. Perhaps once you have taken this step, you will have a clearer picture on how entrenched your church is in this. You said there is a division in the congregation over these beliefs — so it sounds like there are others who hold your view? These are the people who you need to talk to.
I think that you and other concerned members have to do something now. So, take some time, do some research, pray about it, and present your concerns as a group to the leadership. That’s what I would suggest doing before considering leaving
That way you have done everything possible that you can.
Oh yes…treasure hunts…sigh….that is spreading as well. That’s what the church in the town where my graduate school was started doing under the new pastor. Well, not regularly — they did it at a conference that the church hosted — but still.
Treasure Hunts in the service though, that is weird.
Yeah, the coalition of people with concerns about these teachings need to ask the leadership why these things are being incorporated, when they are not found in Scripture. Are they doing them just because Bethel does them? Etc.
No, I don’t think you are being overly sensitive at all. Youth pastors should be held to the same standards as other pastors in a church. If they are teaching things that are off, then they need to be confronted in a loving way.
Arwen stated, “It is true that she has an orphanage and a ministry to children in Africa, and that is great. But doing good work does not mean that someone’s ministry is sound. And I think this is the hook that gets a lot of people — her apparent love and devotion to these children in Africa. This is a good quality, and most people admire someone with that kind of love and devotion to the less fortunate. This is something that Jesus would want. So, it actually is a good fruit. So, I think a lot of Christians put down their guard about her. So, this is a case in which this part of her ministry is right — but the theology and content of her teaching is way off, which overshadows the good in her work. And the bad thing is that she is teaching this false theology to these poor orphan children.”
Arwen and all,This is just something to consider when you are weighing this “fruit” of Heidi Baker. Heidi Baker has sold lots of books, cd’s, dvd’s, etc. describing all the good “fruit” of her life (both natural and supernatural). She is widely loved and received in charismatic circles because of all this testimony that she is providing about herself. It isn’t that the work is wrong. We are absolutely told in the Bible to love all people and to help provide for those who have less than we do, but we are told to do that in such a way that “our left hand doesn’t know what our right hand is doing”. Our Heavenly Father rewards us when we do our giving in such a way.
BUT, if we do our giving and use that giving to win the praises of men (and sell lots of books and dvds and cds to boot), then we have already been rewarded in full for those efforts.
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have NO REWARD from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, THEY HAVE RECEIVED THEIR REWARD IN FULL. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be done in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matt 6: 1-4)
I would apply this same line of thinking to the new pope. Much was written and stated about his great humility and care for the poor, and yet he had no trouble putting on the white garb and talking for himself the title, “holy father”. He didn’t hesitate to walk out of the balcony to the cheers of several hundred thousand admirers. The “righteousness” of men and women such as these is something celebrated and honored among people….they have received their reward for it.
just1ofhis,
Please note, I was not meaning to say that I liked Hedi Baker, or supported her ministry. I was only saying that the act of running an orphanage in itself is a good thing. That is a good deed. This in no way means that I support her ministry, or think that she is a sound teacher.
Most false teachers have some good that they do in their ministry. This doesn’t justify her ministry. I was trying to say that, yes, the orphanage stuff is good, in and of itself.
I don’t know the motive of her heart for doing the orphanage work — if it is only to sell DVDs and books and to make money. That may or may not be the main reason that she does it. Only God knows her motivation for doing her ministry. It is a possibility that she is only doing it to make money. It’s also a possibility that she is doing it because she really wants to help them.
Either way, the very fact that she does this seemingly good work makes her dangerous. People look at it and assume that she is very loving, and so they draw the conclusion that she must be a good person and a sound teacher.
I think she is a false teacher, and that this good work that she is doing is a snare to get people to like her, whether or not she is consciously doing it for that reason. Her orphanage work is the very reason that people are being deceived about her.
This is what I meant with my comment above. I was not trying to say that we should accept her, or that the work legitimatizes her ministry. I clearly think she is a false teacher, and that she has gone off the deep end, and that she is leading many astray.
So please don’t take that one paragraph that you quoted of what I wrote in the previous message to be my opinion of her.
I’m also not saying that Hedi is righteous because of what she does. Some people might think she is, but I don’t. I’m just trying to explain why people like her so much. Does that make sense?
Arwen4CJ,
I think just1ofhis was just conveying the fact that false teachers do exhibit some good qualities; but, these good things are usually done in front of men, to be seen by men and, so they’re receiving their reward in full at present. The way I understand her comment is that she was agreeing with you, just merely adding this other element.
Arwen,
Absolutely agreeing with you….sorry if it came off otherwise.
My belief is that the final anti-christ will not only be a false “jesus” but will likely come with all kinds of earthly based works as part of the deception. The thing is, we are told that we know them by the fruits of their lives and NOT the works. Taking care of the poor is a work.
It is so deceptive, because the “works” make the person seem “godly” in an worldly interpretation of the term. But the very fact that those “works” are flaunted before other people to gain a following makes them full of bad fruit.
just1ofhis,
I just wanted to make sure people weren’t reading my one paragraph and assuming that I was trying to make a case to support Heidi.
No problem
I think you’re right about the final Anti-Christ being not only a false Christ, but will also come with works as part of the deception. In fact, the Bible tells us as much — at least in regard to signs and wonders. Yeah, these people will be doing some seemingly “good” things, otherwise no one would be deceived — and certainly not to the point of “if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived.” The deception has to be very, very heavy for Jesus’ statement to be true.
We agree. I was just trying to say why so many people like Hedi. Anytime someone tries to point out her flaws (including when I tried pointing them out to the elders of the one church), the response is always, “Look at the fruit. Look at what she does in Africa with the children. This means that she can’t be bad.”
So, from the perspective of those who are deceived by Hedi’s ministry, they see her as only bearing good fruit (even though it only looks good on the outside), and that this means she is right. For them, her ministry to the poor justifies all her other teaching.
So, I think what we were doing was trying to say the same thing in two different ways.
I should also point out that that’s one of the reasons that people are deceived by Bill Johnson as well. Their argument goes something like this:
“Bill Johnson reaches out to the community — his church has all these outreaches, they pray for people, they have all these ministries, Jesus is being preached, people are being saved, people are being prayed for, etc. See all that good fruit. See how loving he is? How can you criticize that?”
They are setting it up as an either/or thing — if there is anything that looks good in the ministry, they point to that, and then ask the critics how they are able to say that the ministry is bad. They won’t look at the doctrine, because all they are looking at is the works.
So yes, this is exactly what just1ofhis was saying.
If people could get passed the seemingly good things about these ministries, and look at what is really going on, with the doctrine, what they are really teaching, then fewer people would be deceived.
We all know that good works are good things to do, and that Jesus wants us to do them. The problem is that we can’t use only look at the works — we have to look at the doctrine behind the works, we have to look at the doctrine that is being taught by these ministries.
Seeing Heidi work with all these children touches people’s hearts. They see her as being a loving woman who is serving God in Africa. These good things hide the rotten fruit she carries with her in her ministry from a lot of people.
Just as we can’t judge a ministry based only on signs and wonders, etc, we cannot judge a ministry based only on good works being done.
This “fruit” is not unlike Rick Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. Plan (with none of the “E”s for “Evangelism”, which by itself is quite telling). It’s seemingly a great humanitarian effort, but where’s Jesus? Where’s the Gospel? Berit Kjos has an article showing it’s parallels with UN Millenium Development Goals (UN MDG).
And, Warren himself sits on the board of Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation, which clearly identifies furthering UN MDG. It’s all part of the same one world religion plan, which will assist in ushering in the substitute Christ.
“Many will say ‘Lord, Lord’…and I will tell them ‘I never knew you’.”
I am not a fan of Mr. Johnson and have first hand experience of one of his “plants” in Arlington, TX. I might quote Sinclair Ferguson however who states that Jesus had the same issues with temptation that we have yet chose not to crater. In that regard alone we might assert for a moment that He ” laid down His divinity”
Mike,
I’m not familiar with Sinclair Ferguson, but I wonder if Ferguson would outright make the claim that Jesus “laid down His divinity”. Do you have a specific quote you can cite?
In any case, Scripture DOES say Jesus was tempted in all ways yet without sin [Heb 4:15]; however, this does not mean He was any less than divine. It’s complicated matter which goes beyond the scope of this article, but, more to the point, Scripture makes it clear He did not ‘lay aside His divinity”.
In John 2:11 we have the Gospel writer stating that Jesus’ first miracle “revealed His glory”. More conclusively, we have Jesus’ words in John 5:21-25 indicating that He both provided eternal life and judgment during His earthly ministry [cf. Luke 23:42-43; John 9:39-41, etc.]. Clearly, providing eternal life or judgment are divine acts. This could not have been done via the Holy Spirit, for if this were true than any Holy Spirit indwelt individual would be able to give eternal life or judgment to whomever s/he wanted – obviously not correct. Therefore, Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man during His time on earth (and He remains so at the right hand of the Father), just like the Council of Chalcedon of 451AD states. [ADDED:] And, the above Scriptures (and others) make it clear He exercised those divine attributes.
However, I note that you actually didn’t take part in this particular ‘challenge’. Would you like to answer one of the questions (in green) posed in the article? Perhaps you could explain Johnson’s “sperma of God” concept which includes two different ‘seeds’.
In the following thread on Andrew Strom’s site is a conversation I’m having with “Teshuva”. She seems to be putting forth the divine spark/seed concept by the way she’s framed a comment that “Christ is all in all” and “As He is so our we in the world”. And like most false teachers, she refuses to answer direct questions:
http://www.revivalschool.com/rap-song-names-names-of-prosperity-preachers/
To be frank, after looking at the posts on the site, I don’t think you’ll be able to reason with her/him. If you’re concerned for them I’d recommend prayer – nothing short of divine intervention is likely to pull the wool from this person’s eyes.
Taken from the link Craig provided:
antipas4yahshua,
The woman who is to be quiet and be in submission is the “Carnal Mind”. Men and women alike have this and so they do need to allow God to place His heel on it in subjection and teach. A physical woman who the Christ is speaking through should be a word that is honored and appreciated. Not all physical men who speak are speaking with the mind of Christ but are speaking from the carnal mind/woman/harlot etc..
Shalom
Criag,
with all due respect to you, how do we grow except by a seed. Nature teaches us that.
The spirit of God is seed. Reborn from above and then we will not act like animals, but will have the resemblance of God to love and imitate Christ.
You call me new age and gnostic–Bless you.
I say to you that there are some things that you have written I hear my Fathers voice coming from you.
You cannot have Christ likeness without the seed.
Every seed reproduces after its own kind–that is scripture– yet His divine order is that He created us and so we are subjected to Him.
Faith in Him is not for this eon only but the eons to come.
Teshuva,
Here’s a simple question: Do you believe all wo/men have a Christ seed awaiting to be awakened to grow?
Craig
Children do not have to grow/mature? All Children are born fully mature?
Craig,
So we are not to awaken to righteousness?
Antipas is twisting what I said.
I said that the carnal mind is to be subjected not we to be subjected to the carnal mind.
Teshuva,
Let’s try a different angle here to give you the benefit of the doubt: Could you describe what it means to become a Christian, i.e. the ‘born again’ experience? What does salvation and justification mean?
Teshuva
I used to do things that I should not do but when His love came in it subjected me to not do the things I used to do that I thought was right in my own eyes.
I am saved by grace through faith.
Craig Apr 18th 2013
Teshuva,
You’ve already identified yourself as adhering to ‘hyper-grace’ teachings.
I submit you’ve not fully expressed a Christian view. You wrote, “I am saved by grace through faith.” – by faith in what/whom are you saved and how? What exactly has provided for your salvation? What is justification?
_____________________________________________________________________
Craig,
I think that Teshuva may not be answering the questions because she may not understand the theological issues involved.
True, it looks like she is into gnostic teaching, and she very well could be. However, I’m not sure she is able to understand your questions or your answers, so it may be like you are speaking a foreign language to her, in which she is trying to make sense of.
I don’t know that she will answer your questions — she may have left the thread….but I would like to know a few things:
First, what does she mean when she said “the Christ is speaking through” in her first comment above?
If possible, I think it would be best to let her define it in her own words so that she can explain it — but then again, I’m not sure that she will take the time to explain it. Defining theology and making herself clear do not seem to be extremely important to her.
If she is willing to answer your question, you might have to ask her what she believes about “the Christ.” Again, maybe let her try to answer it on her own.
I know you tried doing this above with the divine spark thing — but I don’t think she exactly understood what you were asking because you were using the terms you knew in the question. You tried defining what divine spark/seed was, but I think your explanation went over her head.
I do think she might believe it, but we need an explanation from her in her own words. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like you’re going to get it
She also denied saying what she did about the “Carnal Mind” thing when the other person on the blog asked her a direct question about it.
By the way, I noticed that the other person in the conversation seems to think that Jesus is not Yahweh, but that only the Father is Yahweh. I’m not sure what this other person was trying to imply. Maybe he/she thought that there was only one God, but that Yahweh was only the name of the Father, and Jesus had a different name, etc. Or maybe she thought that Yahweh was the big God, and was only the Father, and Jesus was a demi god.
Teshuva answered this other poster with something about divine order, and started listing qualities behind the Persons in the Trinity…..which makes me wonder if this person is into kabbalah/mystical Judaism, which seems to really be another type of gnosticism. It seems to turn God into a bunch of impersonal attribute forces, etc.
What does Teshuva mean by seed here? A divine spark (which seems to be outside of her vocabulary, but she may very well believe the concept, but use a different name for it), a type of knowledge, etc.
Oh…and I noticed some other people commenting were trying to defend Todd Bentley, and they were claiming that Bentley is not into prosperity, and that he’s a great teacher!!!
I don’t really want to get involved in the discussion on the site — but I will if you want me to. I’d like to know what these people think of Todd Bentley’s angel preaching, especially when he talked about an angel that was assigned to get him money, etc. It should be obvious who Todd’s god is.
Arwen4CJ,
I’ll answer quickly as I need to run and I’ll be gone for awhile. While I cannot definitively know whether she ‘gets it’ or not, it sure seems to me like she is intelligent enough and writes well enough to comprehend. She may well be so indoctrinated into new age teachings that she thinks (knows) she’s right. She has the typical false humility of acting pious yet not listening to anyone else. I had earlier questioned her about her hyper-grace leanings, which she dismissed out of hand. I had pretty much given up at that point.
Keep in mind that in the New Age/Theosophical beliefs one can reach sinless perfection, and, in fact, the only ‘real’ sin is the sin of separation/being separative.
I asked a very clear question if she believed all have a ‘Christ seed’ awaiting to grow (to perfection). She chose to take the conversation elsewhere. This was after explaining the Holy Spirit indwelling and that the Holy Spirit is not essentially a ‘seed needing to grow’. Had she answered the question straight, we’d be better able to ascertain her stance. Not answering straightforward questions is the clear mark of a false teacher.
You’ll need to go up a bit to some more of the conversation. The one to ‘antipas4yahshua’ in which say states “Christ is all in all” and “As he is so are we in the world”. That was my tip off.
Like a lot of threads on Strom’s site, it’s a mixture of very false beliefs amongst a few who are orthodox. My advice is to stay out of it; it’s up to Strom, and if he wants to let folks espouse heretics and heretical beliefs, that’s his business. While I believe in giving folks a voice, it’s irresponsible to let such comments stand as is for others to be potentially led astray.
Shawn,
I wanted to address your comment. Sadly, many of us, myself included at times, use prayer as a ‘last resort’. All these people need our prayers. But, you’re right, she ain’t gonna ‘get it’ as is either because, 1) she’s so immersed in her various false teachings that she can’t see the Truth; or 2) she knows exactly what she’s doing and is a plant of the enemy.
Arwen4CJ,
“Teshuva” is Jewish for repentance; so, you may well be correct that she’s adhering to some mystical/Kabbalistic Judaism mixed with her Christianity – a “Christian” Kabbalah. Isaac Luria’s version of the Kabbalah is one which recognizes the divine spark/seed concept. Lurian Kabbalism has much in common with Gnosticism.
Teshuva has apparently left the conversation. My take is that her reasons are either 1 or 2 above.
Craig,
Thanks for the clarification. After looking over her earlier comments again….hmmmmm…..I still think she may have a slightly different understanding of “all in all” and “As he is so are we in the world,” portions.
I think her beliefs are still definitely wrong, and she is into false teaching, but I still think she might adhere to a slightly different form of gnosticism — the kabbalist kind. These beliefs still come from the same source as that of the New Age, and the beliefs are similar for sure. They do amount to the same kind of thing, as we’ve said before. However, I think the theological language that is used by these individuals is slightly different from the language the New Age uses — hence, she may not quite understanding what you are asking…..although she sees that what you are asking seems to line up with whatever falsehood she has accepted.
I had a friend who decided she wanted to become a Jew, a Messianic one. She no longer referred to herself as being a Christian. Since she’d met a Messianic Jew in college, and had some online friends who had decided the same thing as she……they sort of made up their own religion. They based it on Judaism, and they were open to everything that was Jewish, including kabbalah. They were self-made Messianic Jews, having never gone to an actual Messianic Jewish congregation, etc.
Please do not think that this is my opinion of all Messianic Jews. I know that there are people who grew up Jewish and have accepted Christ. I see them as my brothers and sisters in Jesus. However, the Messianic movement has its false teachers and whatnot too, just like any other Christian denomination. Those who do not actually belong to a congregation tend to make up their beliefs, especially if they were not raised as being Jewish, and these individuals tend to talk to each other on the Internet.
My suspicion is that Teshuva may be like my friend…..wanting to be a Messianic Jew, or adhering to the Hebrew Roots Movement, but just taking her sources from anything that she wants to, etc, including things that are part of mystical Judaism. She may also be using Christian sources, including Christian mysticism, and combining things just as she likes. Since mysticism of any kind seems to be related, being doctrines of demons, it makes sense that her views would be similar and maybe identical with New Age.
Also, I do want to point out that “growing to perfection” isn’t necessarily a heretical idea — it depends on what the person means by that. The reason that I say this is because John Wesley encouraged his followers to do this. Although my degree was in counseling, I had friends who were going into the ministry. It was a United Methodist seminary, and I had to take some basic classes that people seeking to be pastors took as well. The concept of sanctification is a very United Methodist one, and it is very different from what the New Age teach. According to one of my friends, when they are questioned to be considered for ordination, they are asked if they believe it is possible to grow to perfection, or something like that. And they have to answer yes, because it is a United Methodist belief. So, while I see why the statement set off alarm bells, and I think that this Teshuva had heretical theology, I just want to say that there are also other interpretations of that phrase.
I certainly agree that Teshuva’s language about “seed” was suspicious and sounded very mystical/heretical/gnostic. I really wish she would have answered the question about creation that she kept on avoiding, and I wish she would have answered you more directly, asking you clearly what you meant by the questions. Because she didn’t ask for clarification, and tried writing out responses, perhaps your assessment was correct — she did know what she was saying and doing.
And you are right about Strom’s blog. I have read a few other of his threads — and it seems that most people are expressing some very false beliefs, although a few are not. And Strom is doing nothing to correct the false beliefs. It should be his job to straighten out the false theology being exposed, and by remaining silent on the matter, he is letting heresy flourish. I think he is right to expose false teaching in his articles, but he should also take the time to correct false teaching in the comments. That he doesn’t do this really is disturbing, and gives the impression that he just wants people to be warned about dangerous kundalini type manifestations, and some big name errors, but doesn’t mind if the people reading his blog have a little false theology that he hasn’t specifically named.
Now, maybe he doesn’t correct comments because he doesn’t have the time. If so, he should have a moderator whom he trusts offer the correction. It sort of seems to defeat the purpose of having a blog exposing heresy, and yet allow people to post heretical comments without offering correction. Offering a voice is good, but then someone needs to gently point out that false beliefs are false.
Anyway……thanks for pointing this discussion with Teshuva out.
Hi Craig,
Yes, I’m guilty of doing that too. Prayer is my last resort instead of my first response. I’m working on this to try and get better becuase I really think this needs to change in my own life.
Thank you for your sharing, I really appreciate it.
Shawn
Posted by Marcia Montenegro on her FaceBook page. I thought this sounded very familiar vis a vis Bill Johnson:
Troubling quotes from Richard Rohr, head of the Center for Action and Contemplation: ==The Jesus we now have, the Jesus we participate in, are graced by, are redeemed by, is the risen Christ, the eternal Christ. The word “Christ” means “the anointed one,” and that anointment by God includes us and all of creation…..
The Gospels are about the historical Jesus. Paul, however, whose writings make up a third of the New Testament, never talks about that Jesus. He is talking about the Christ. Jesus is the microcosm; Christ is the macrocosm.
Jesus died, Christ arose. That’s precisely what the transformation is — Christ’s consciousness untied from a specific place and time.
This movement from Jesus to the Christ means that the same anointing that was given to Jesus is given to all of us. That’s why he didn’t say, “Worship me.” He said, “Follow me.” We’ve projected more onto Jesus than he ever asked for. Also Jesus didn’t move from Jesus to the Christ without death and resurrection. And we ourselves don’t move from our independent, historical body to the Christ consciousness without dying to our false self.
YesNa,
That’s about as New Age as it gets! But, I’ll say this. I do appreciate when folks just come out and say what they mean, rather than couching it as a ‘Christianized’ New Age as Johnson does. More distressing are all those who wish to give him [Johnson] the benefit of the doubt. If I’ve not convinced those who give this particular post a careful reading, then I guess I ain’t ever-a gonna.