“Quiet Time” Christian Style

Posted on January 14, 2014 by Kent Philpott

In the January 15, 2014 edition on the San Francisco Chronicle, in the Opinion section under the heading, ‘Open Forum On Meditation’, David L Kirp, a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley, who is the author of Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a great American School District and a Strategy for America’s Schools argues that America’s students, of all ages, do better when they observe a “quiet time” during the school day. Kirp states that students learn better, and more, are less rowdy, stressed, and restless, experience less suspensions, and show higher improvements than other students who do not have daily quiet times. Accompanying the article is a photo that shows Barry Zito (a pitcher for the San Francisco Giants baseball team), David Lynch, and Russell Brand meditating “with students during Quiet Time at Barton High.” Kirp describes the process: “Twice daily a gong sounds in the classroom and rowdy adolescents, who normally can’t sit still for 10 seconds, shut their eyes and try to clear their minds.”

There is no real sense in arguing this practice might be a violation of the separation of church and state. Of Course, a “prayer time” would not be acceptable, but a “quiet time” and “meditation” are not terms clearly and directly linked to any particular religious practice or group.

Maybe I should campaign for Christians to take up practicing “quiet time.” Wait a minute here though, the quiet time is nothing new to Christians who have in fact been doing the same for twenty plus centuries. We call it prayer, or devotions, or meditations as well, but millions of Christians have their daily quiet times.

At Miller Avenue Baptist Church where I am pastor we do have a quiet time built into each worship service: we have free form and written prayers; there is a time for silent prayers; we have a time for reflection. Then we listen in silence while portions of Scripture are read. A sermon is given, and here again is a time for quietly absorbing thoughts on our Faith and Practice.

As a new Christian, in 1963, I began a devotional discipline, usually in the mornings when my work schedule allowed. It included the reading of a number of chapters of the Bible followed by some minutes of prayer. I used a prayer list, also noting the date of the prayer, the specifics of the prayer, and an “answer” column. (Below is a sample of my prayer list.)

It is more than a quiet time; it is stillness, peacefulness, and focused consideration on the God I worship and serve.

I have tried the kind of ‘quiet time’ Kirp presents in the Chronicle article, and it does not work for me. A clearing of the mind is impossible for me to achieve, and if we would admit it, thoughts, sensations, and feelings constantly intrude themselves into our conscious mind. But the pleasant reflection on and consideration of the grace and mercy given to me in Jesus is rich and satisfying. The God who loves us immensely — we spend time in His presence, since we have the abiding and indwelling Holy Spirit; it simply cannot get any better. Sitting alone with our Bibles, mindfully focused on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not needing music in the background or any other such artificial device, we close or open our eyes and have the most wonderful quiet time. I treasure mine and look forward to these special times.

After reading Kirp’s article in the paper this morning, I felt the desire to remind those of us who trust in Jesus that perhaps the age old discipline of the devotional time has been minimized in our experiences. Do you have a time when you are alone and look to Him who has rescued you from your constant self interest? If not, please do not feel guilty but challenged to take up the ancient ways or our forefathers in the Faith.

MY PRAYER LIST

Date	Prayer	Answer

BIBLE READING FORMAT

3 CHAPTERS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

2 PSALMS

3 CHAPTERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

As you read, think about what you are learning. After reading each chapter determine what the main themes are and what may apply to you. Use critical thinking as well by asking the hard questions, and note the instances where you would like to have had more information.

Adam and Evolution

Posted on December 16, 2013 by Kent Philpott

“The Place of Adam and Eve in the History of Salvation”

“Origins: What Are We to Make of It in Light of the Bible and Evolutionary Science?”

“A Theological Conversation: What to Do with Adam and Evolution?”

“Is Scripture Right About Adam? If So, Is It Wrong about Evolution? How Might a Biblically Faithful Christian Make Sense of It All?”

The above may all fit as titles to this essay. Let us explore the issue, and maybe we can figure out which title is the most accurate.

Positions Christians take[1]

There are three general positions regarding the relationship of biblical origins to contemporary evolutionary science held among Christians: creationism, intelligent design, and theistic evolution. Not always obvious is the fact that this conversation or debate is actually an intra-mural rather than an extra-mural one. By that I mean, it is a conversation or debate that goes on among Christians who all want to be biblically faithful, so that it ought to be conducted in a civil and brotherly manner.

Creationism may primarily accept either a very young earth creation date or a little older young earth creation date. With the former the year 4004 B.C. is pegged as the year of creation while the latter holds to dates of around 10,000 B.C. Both subscribe to the earth being created old-appearing; however, some of the mainline young earth creationists insist that the flood of Noah’s era was all that was necessary for the earth to have attained its present oldish appearance.

A creationist also believes that the entire universe was created by a supernatural being, and for Christians, this being is God as described in the Bible. In the generic sense, all Christians, whether young earth or oldish earth creationists, intelligent design advocates, or theistic evolutionists are all creationists; it is simply the how of it all which is at issue.

After science developed concepts about origins in the 18th century onwards, efforts were made by Christians to reconcile the new views with the Bible and its Genesis accounts of creation. By the beginning of the 20th century the creation-evolution controversy had developed, largely fomented by the popularity of Charles Darwin’s work, and the term “creationist” became associated with the rise of Christian fundamentalism. This view opposed any claim for development of separate species through evolutionary processes. The fundamentalist view predominated among Bible believers in that day and still boasts a considerable following. However, even in that early period when the debate flared up, there were “evolutionary creationists” who sought to harmonize the Bible with modern science.

Intelligent Design adherents admit the reality of much of the science of evolutionary thought but insist that God built into the natural building blocks of life the information, without which there would be no life on earth. ID advocates reject the pure Darwinian theory that a combination of undirected processes—natural selection and random mutations—explains the whole story of species development and consider that it falls short of a biblical account of creation. ID promoters see information in the raw building blocks of life, principally DNA in the genetic code, to have been placed there by the Creator God of the Bible who is thus responsible for all that life is.

Intelligent design advocates are usually not concerned about the controversy between a young and old earth, but accept whatever science says about it. They see evolutionary theory, sometimes referred to as neo-Darwinism, to be an inadequate mechanism to describe what is observed. The debate continues.

Theistic evolution refers to the idea that a creator God set in motion all that life and earth are and let the process develop as it would. It essentially rubber stamps all true science regarding origins. Francis Collins, the scientist who led the effort to map the human genome, is a champion of theistic evolution and a sincere Christian, and with him is a growing number of Christians who also assume his position.

A current focus of the debate

At issue presently is what to do with the Genesis account of creation. Were Adam and Eve real people, or are they representatives of or metaphors for something less personal and historical? Real live people with names and story lines are certainly more interesting and more easily portrayed by a historian or script writer than an account of snail-like changes taking place over long millennia. However, at stake for many is the veracity of the entire Bible with its plan of salvation centered in Jesus Christ. If the Bible is wrong about one, what about the other?

The young or oldish earth creationists face the most crucial dilemma, since they depend on a literalistic rendering of the biblical accounts. For them there must be a real Adam, a real Eve, and so on.

It might be argued that a literal Adam and Eve is necessary for there to be a Fall, the remedy for which is blood atonement brought by the One who bruises the head of the serpent (see Genesis 3). I will leave this issue alone, since my view is that one is independent of the other. Life experience reveals the essential flaw, or evil, at the core of humanity. We need not have an Adam and Eve, a serpent/devil, all in a Garden of Eden, for it to be plain that humankind is lost and depraved.

At the base of the debate is perhaps a fear that somehow contemporary science is an enemy and that specifically evolutionary, godless thought must be challenged at every turn. Let me pose some pertinent questions: Is the debate a distraction? Are we spinning our wheels here and ignoring the simple proclamation of the evangelical gospel? I am reminded that I was a convinced believer in evolution immediately prior to my conversion, and that over four decades of pastoral ministry most of those whom I have seen profess faith in Christ were very much like me. Additionally, must a person hold one scientific concept or another in order to be a Christian? Some say yes and some say no—this is for me the key issue.

Views Christians hold

So then, some Christians hold to a young earth creation with Noah’s flood figuring prominently in the scheme. There are older earth creationists who have decided to admit some science unearthed by the archaeologists and geneticists. Very well and good.

Then there are those who opt for intelligent design, perhaps straddling the fence, and it makes for some fascinating reading, especially considering examples of what is termed “irreducibly complex” organic systems. Here is a safer haven for some who value evolutionary science and want to be what they would consider biblically faithful. Very well and good.

There are also a growing number of those who embrace theistic evolution. They might see the story of Adam and Eve as told in Genesis to be a useful mechanism for an inspired writer to dramatically reveal the circumstances of human beings—made in the image of God but who fall into disobedience and thus can no longer enjoy the fellowship and rest they had with their Creator. We are still doing fine.

An as yet un-named combination view

There are variations on the above schemas also. A fascinating one combines intelligent design and theistic evolution. Here God creates all there is, determines the mechanisms, encodes into all life forms the DNA building blocks, and the millennia march on–but a creature via evolution cannot be anything close to a being with whom God will have direct fellowship. So then, God steps in and creates Adam and Eve who are made in his image and with whom he does have fellowship. At some unknown, but fairly recently time, humans made in the image of God suddenly appear, not due to evolution, but due to a special act of creation.

Let me rephrase the as yet un-named combo view: As I see the theory developing—at some point in history, real time history, the Creator stepped in and made man, male and female, in his image. Adam and Eve, real people, not metaphors, a life form who had the capacity not through evolutionary processes, but a specially made capacity, to communicate with God and have fellowship with him and know him in the deepest sense. Evolution could not get the job done.

Typical of God, he did it himself. It is the primal doctrine of predestination, or election—God’s deliberate acting. He created a people for himself, and though they strayed from him, he pursued them and made them his own. From Adam and Eve, in direct descent, came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel too, the chosen among whom he dwelt, and in time, the Body of Christ, the elect, the called-out ones.

What I mean is that the Bible records the fact that God is the author of all there is, and that Adam and Eve are the fountain head of the elect.

This combo view allows me to retain the creation account and does not force me to worry about young or oldish earth.[2] This view allows me to acknowledge intelligent design and perhaps theistic evolution as well, which I can also embrace, or at least not feel like I have to reject.

A restatement

Adam and Eve, not evolved but specially made in the image of God, perhaps even given life in a time frame endorsed by creationists, old earth or younger earth ones. This preserves a Fall and thus a need for the atonement. I can take the New Testament material about Adam face on and not have to alter it, and neither way would bother me much, because I see this as ultimately a fringe issue.

Such a combination view allows me to fit in rather harmoniously the material found in the early chapters of Genesis that have troubled me over the years. Let me list them:

One, where did Cain get his wife (see Genesis 4:17)? One would think, taking the Genesis account literally, that there was only Adam, Eve, and Cain alive on the planet. Adjusting upwards the numbers of years these people lived helps but does not solve the problem.

Two, the advanced state of husbandry and agriculture that had to be present for Cain to have a garden and Able to have his flock (see Genesis 4:2) is generally understood to have required considerable millennia before our ancestors mastered such delicate and complex processes.

Three, how was it that the passing of time—consider Methuselah’s 969 years in Genesis 5:27—could be so carefully calculated? Historically this has been problematic and likely was something that was not arrived at in a hurry.

Four, Cain’s son Enoch built a city (Genesis 4:17) extremely early on. It puzzles us, knowing the skills required, even if the walls were made of mud.

Five, Jabal dwelt in tents and knew animal husbandry (see Genesis 4:20). Tents constructed of cloth would require spinning wheels and looms, or at the very least, animal skins sewn together—any of which could be considered rather advanced technology.

Six, Jubal, the brother of Jabal, played the lyre and pipe (see Genesis 4:21). Wow. Imagine all the human tool-making skills that would have developed prior to something as complicated as musical instruments to be created.

Seven, Tubal-cain, the great grandson of Jabal “was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron” (Genesis 4:22). Metallurgy—a rather recent skill indeed.

There is more, but the point is, I cannot help but think that there must have been considerable cultural and technical knowledge obtained over very lengthy time periods undergirding the activities of these men. No matter, the combo allows for such and retains, at face value, at least from my point of view, the essential biblical truths.

Adam and Eve inherited a great deal of what had been around for a long period of time; they were thrust into a world, that world referred to as “east of Eden” inhabited by other creatures just like themselves but not made in the image of God. (Look below for a discussion of the “sons of God” and “the daughters of God” and look above for the discussion of Cain and his wife.)

Another piece of the puzzle considered

The Books of Moses have a number of interesting stories embedded in them, one of which is found in Genesis 6:1-4. In this particular story may be a clue to the existence of a larger population on the planet that the seven instances mentioned above also suggest.

Moses speaks of “the sons of God,” “the daughters of man,” and the Nephilim or Giants. Though commentators differ as to who was who and what kind of relationships existed between them, one thing is certain: there are two or maybe three different groupings of people to which the writer refers. Some have theorized that the Nephilim were the product of the sons of God taking the daughters of man as wives. Was there intermarriage between the descendants of Seth, God’s called-out ones, and those humans who may have occupied the planet for long centuries? The “combo theory” not only allows it but provides a perfect scenario for it actually occurring.

And finally

A tempest in a tea-pot? A lot to do about nothing? A battle that will not be won? A distraction from Christian essentials? A demonic red herring placed in front of the narrow gate? Factioning? Dissensions? All of the above? I opt for this last one. But now for your decision: a title for this essay. I think I know the one I like best. How about you?

[1] The following descriptions are radically condensed and simplified. This is an essay, not a book. In addition, this essay is merely an opening statement which looks forward to more conversation and debate.

[2] Personally I opt for an old earth, say 13.8 billion years old, but for me the issue is a fringe one and essentially irrelevant.

Homophobic and Heterophobia: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Posted on December 5, 2013 by Kent Philpott

Homophobia and Heterophobia: Two Sides of the Same Coin? by Kent A. Philpott Homophobia – “A hatred or fear of homosexuals.” (from the Oxford Concise Dictionary). This expresses the core definition of homophobia as found in most standard dictionaries. Heterophobia – “A hatred or fear of heterosexuals.” This definition is not found in standard dictionaries, but the “Urban Dictionary” does not shy away from giving some rather politically incorrect definitions: From the Urban Dictionary, found online at www.urbandictionary.com: • Heterophobics – “Gays who are afraid of heterosexuals usually due to their own heterosexual feelings or leanings.” This followed up with, “Gays, don’t be afraid, you’re probably just straight.” Homophobia – “a severe condition, usually prominent in Republicans and most of American culture, leading one to: 1. inaccurately use bible quoting for the justification of killing homosexuals; 2. restrict the rights of millions; 3. hide in their rooms crying if they looked at the male body of one of the same gender and do not vomit; 4. incessantly call things ‘gay.'” • Heterophobia – “an unreasoning disgust of heterosexuals, frequently supported by erroneous and faulty statements about heterosexuals.” • Homophobia – “the irritation of having faggotry shoved in your face.” • Heterophobics – “People who indulge in bigotry or intolerance because of the Heterophobia sickness.” • Homophobia – “an irrational fear of going home.” • Heterophobia – “The often irrational fear of heterosexuals. Usually experienced by a homosexual or bisexual who has had bad experiences with heterosexual coupling.” • Homophobia – “fear of homosexuals or possibly a condition where one person has the same fears as someone else.” • Heterophobia – “To hate heterosexuals out of some bizarre, irrational or innate fear of them. Probably due to repressed heterosexual feelings. Up with heterosexual pride!” • Homophobia – “Dislike, fear, hatred, and/or disapproval of gays and/or homosexuality, often (but not always) for religious reasons or because of insecurity about one’s sexual orientation.” • Heterophobia – “Queer frustration and hatred towards straight oppression. Often mistakenly perceived to be equivalent to homophobia, or other forms of discrimination.” • Heterophobia – “Unreasoning prejudice against heterosexuals or their sexuality, the LGBT equivalent of reverse racism, and the inverse of homophobia. Commonly manifested as disgust with the very idea of straight sexuality and/or reproduction. It copies the prejudices of homophobia, including the idea that straightness is unnatural, or unhealthy, or can somehow be ‘cured.'” • Heterophobia – “Frequently paired with prejudice towards the opposite sex. This is surprisingly common in the LGBT community, but is often not addressed due to concerns for political correctness.” Finally, let me add this, which I gleaned – and paraphrased – from Gay Religion, edited by Scott Thumma and Edward R. Gray, and published by AltaMira Press in 2005: Some homosexuals believe homosexuality is necessary for the earth to survive, as the “breeders” keep pumping out babies, resulting in the population growing to an unsustainable level. Therefore, homosexuality is a survival mechanism. Two sides of the same coin? Both phobias are based on fear, or so it would seem. I would suggest that “phobia” is the wrong word to describe either phenomenon. The term means an irrational fear of something or the other, such as agoraphobia – a fear of open spaces or public places. But are the so-called homo and hetero phobias based on fear? Is the homosexual fearful of heterosexuals? Is the heterosexual fearful of homosexuals? In both instances, I think not; My sense of it is that the “phobias” are something else all together. Heterosexuals may disagree with homosexuals as to the rightness of homosexual behavior. And should they not be allowed this? Equal rights, justice, fairness, civil rights, and so on, are what most heterosexuals would agree are owed to all people regardless of sexual orientation. What if heterosexuals think homosexual behavior is “sinful” and morally wrong? Is this a bad thing? Suppose it was a hate crime to even consider homosexual behavior wrong. Should certain kinds of thinking be criminalized? Should “homophobes “be marginalized and discriminated against? Most outrageous is the goal that anything short of complete acceptance of all that is homosexuality be stamped out and eliminated since such thinking is the seed bed for discrimination against homosexuals. Could it be that the pro-gay, LGBT community, the whole of it or segments thereof, might even justify the creation of a “thought police” that would be dedicated to eradicating anti-homosexual thinking? Have I gone too far? Irrational fear? Once again let me state that to believe certain behavior is wrong is not necessarily born of fear or anxiety. There may indeed be those who are homophobic, that is, having a fear of being molested or raped by a homosexual, or fear of becoming one, or identified as being one, and the list goes on. And for those who have been in the military, or in prison, or in other circumstances where a homosexual might have a certain amount of power and authority, say a high school sports team coach, there may be homophobia, and such would not be irrational or imaginary. Needless to say, heterosexuals in positions of power and authority over persons of the opposite sex have abused that authority in sexual ways. Certainly, there is much more of this than homosexuals exploiting those of the same sex. Both are wrong, plain and simple. I have been homophobic. In the Air Force there were homosexuals living in the barracks at Travis Air Force Base, and once in a while some would be caught doing what they ought not to have done and were either dishonorably discharged from the service or at least demoted and locked up for a while. In my thirty years as a volunteer at San Quentin Prison I found out that prison life was dominated by sex, some heterosexual, but mostly homosexual. I have also put five children through the school systems in Marin County, and I have been a freshman baseball coach for nine years. There are valid reasons why some have a fear of homosexuality. I don’t want to get specific or graphic, but I have been there and seen that. Yes, I have a certain amount of what is mistakenly called homophobia. So, what should be done with someone like me? Do I not have a right to it? Must the authorities be intolerant of it? As a Christian, must I repent of it? I do not want to be fearful of homosexuals, and in fact, to the best of my ability, I am not. With the growing numbers of gay people in American, if I were homophobic I would live a fearful and miserable life. I live in the world and am very much a part of it; I am a law-abiding citizen, and I will act according to the laws of the land. But I reserve the right to believe that homosexual behavior is wrong. For all have sinned What about heterosexuals? Many, perhaps most, heterosexuals are disturbed sexually to one degree or another. And how would we expect anything less, particularly in western societies where sex is distorted and confused? We have rapists, child molesters, sex-slave traffickers, pimps, brothel keepers, porn addicts and makers, and more than I care to know about, and in far greater numbers than do the homosexuals. The marketplace commercializes sex and throws naked flesh before our eyes daily to sell products. Much of the distortion has come along with the millennia-long patriarchal cultures that are in place in most parts of the world, cultures that falsely empower men to control those who are physically weaker. And our religions have either looked the other way or actually institutionalized this departure from biblical models, including Christianity. All of this morass has to do with what theologians call “the Fall,” that time when humans rebelled against the Creator God (who, by the way, is both feminine and masculine, see Genesis 1:27), and sex got completely tweaked. Moments after the Fall, Adam and Eve – or if you can’t handle that, the first man and woman – looked at each other, having a new knowledge of good and evil firmly implanted in their brains, and realized they were naked and were ashamed. Wow! Ashamed and guilty – and it is right here where the trouble is. Read the account below and see what you make of it. Here is Genesis 3:1-13: Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. 8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Guilt and Shame A careful interpreter could reel off pages of commentary and never get to the bottom of all that is in the above passage. But there is certainly guilt and shame. The balance between the man and the woman was gone. Together they reflected the Creator; now separate and apart life drastically changed and not for the better. Heterosexual marriage is now a mere shadow of what it was intended to be. Not until that which is called heaven and paradise, symbolized as a wedding between Christ, the groom, and the Church, His bride, will there be restitution and realization of the original intent of the Creator. Until then, well, we know the story, don’t we? Pleasure, contentment, fulfillment, completion, happiness, rightness – it was all there for Adam and Eve. These wonderful gifts were replaced with guilt and an abiding sense of shame. No matter how much pleasure might be found in a sexual act, it would never be, for anyone, what it could have been. So we have sin lodged right in the core of the identity of the human sexual experience. And heteros and homos have forever attempted to overcome guilt and shame. Within marriage between a man and a woman, however flawed and imperfect, is contained a hint and a promise of what will come in the grand eschaton, that end point when there will be a recreation and a new heaven and a new earth. What God started will be completed. God’s laws, the thou-shalt-nots, were intended to make the best of what is. Adultery, fornication, and homosexual acts are a breaking of the law and thus guilt and shame arise. That is just how it is. Though the LGBT community may succeed in all its demands for equality and normality, guilt and shame will remain. Could it be that the homosexual, who in the quest to irradiate homophobia, is really being driven by guilt and shame? If homosexual behavior is normal and good, then ought not the negative and powerful emotions go away? But they will not go away, since the ‘wrongness experience’ is hard wired into every human being. God made sex and meant it for both procreation and pleasure; it is a strong bond that keeps a husband and wife together. It is in that “one flesh” relationship where sex can be experienced absent guilt and shame. God-ordained and -approved sex is a wonderful thing. A marriage between a man and a woman allows for the freedom to develop a very sexy relationship, which is not driven by lust and a never-ending quest for fulfillment. Such a sexuality opens a door to a “peaceful easy feeling.” Is achieving equality enough? Victory won, normalcy and equality achieved, backed by the law of the land, and clear sailing ahead. All will be well, right? This has certainly not been so for heterosexuals, and the trend seems to be downward rather than the other way around. Will homosexuals fare better? Probably not. Sexuality is the human core identity, but it is not larger than the kingdom of God and life eternal. The fuss about homo and hetero phobias is magnified, because sex has become so very distorted and filled up with the hope of ultimate satisfaction. In sexuality, even for the most well adjusted and blissful heterosexual married couple, there will be disappointment and frustration. As they say, “Get over it.” Phobias must not drive our behavior Both hetero and homo phobia are expressions of sinfulness, not the sense of fear itself, but the acting out on the fears to the detriment of others. We are called to love our neighbor as ourselves, so we have to admit that expressing these phobias is wrong. At least, let us deal humanely and rationally with each other, homosexual and heterosexual. Let us hear and respect each other’s positions while not having to approve of them. If I could say that homosexual behavior is right, I would do so, but I cannot. I cannot say that the heterosexual’s adulteries and fornications are right, either. To approve homosexuality in any form, or to approve sex outside of marriage, is unacceptable from a biblical perspective. And to many, such is unacceptable. There is hope, strength, and dignity in saying “No.” The aberrational, criminal, abusive, or exploitive quest of self-centered sexual pleasure cannot be tolerated by a civilized society where the rights of the weak must be safeguarded. Heading off the steep cliff without an observer shouting out a warning is both negligence and unloving to the extreme. Enough of this phobia talk.

With Boldness and Humility: A Model for our work

Posted on November 15, 2013 by Kent Philpott

With Boldness and Humility: A Model for our Work

Acts 4:23-31

The Believers Pray for Boldness

²³ When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. ²⁴ And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, ²⁵ who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,

“ ‘Why did the Gentiles rage,

and the peoples plot in vain?

²⁶ The kings of the earth set themselves,

and the rulers were gathered together,

against the Lord and against his Anointed’—

²⁷ for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸ to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. ²⁹ And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness,[1] ³⁰while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” ³¹ And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

Background to the story

The apostles, Peter and John, had healed a lame beggar, and Peter had preached a powerful sermon in the temple itself (see Acts chapter 3). This had come to the attention of the religious authorities, who arrested them and warned them to “speak no more to anyone in this name” (Acts 4:17).

Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). After the leaders threatened the apostles, they released them.

Immediately the two reported to the rest of the church, which began to pray, and this prayer is recorded above in Acts 4:24-30. One of the appeals to the Lord was to “grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness” (v. 29).

Boldness, not fearlessness, was the focus; and being normal people they would be, as we are, impacted by threats and bullying. The threats of the religious leaders amounted to bullying, since they could easily deal harshly, even murderously, with any who disobeyed.

Boldness in the face of bullying

Bullying is something we hear a great deal of these days. It is almost universal, that powerful exerting of one’s will upon the weaker. I experienced bullying in high school from the very first day I began attending Verdugo Hills High School in Los Angeles. The gangs were a fact of life and very unlike the Portland, Oregon school system I had come from in 1954 at age 13. In my mind’s eye I can still see them that day out on the football field during physical education period: Don, Gary, Raymond, and David, beating up on a scared and skinny kid. That was only the first of many such incidents, and so my high school days were not filled with delightful memories. I lacked boldness for sure.

After my conversion to Christ I faced bullying of another type, but similar in many ways. As a medic in the Air Force, I pulled duty from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. and ate a meal around 12:00 a.m., called mid-night chow, with the others in the basement dining hall. For two years I was one of the guys, but then I became a Christian. The result was that I was rejected, not allowed to sit with the ‘gang’ anymore, and I did not understand why – at first. I thought I was still one of the regulars, and I was no flaming evangelist (yet), that’s for sure. But in a way I did not recognize and that the others likely didn’t either, I was bullied into eating by myself. And that was the way it was for the final two years of my enlistment. I took it as best I could and over time won a few of the guys back as friends.

Back to the story

The point of this essay is simply that those who do not know Jesus as Savior and Lord will often reject the Christian witness and sometimes vehemently. And it will feel like bullying. Not that we identify it as bullying, but the emotional and mental reactions in us can make us back down and even retreat.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, and notably in the southern part of Marin County where I am a pastor, Christians are a decided minority. The atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, shamanists, and other neo-pagans far outnumber all the branches of Christianity in our area combined. The culture is blatantly non-Christian; so much so that much of what is denoted Christian has run for cover and blended with the culture – a process called syncretization.

This has impacted me as well; I have some repenting to do, some changing, and this is why Acts 4 and the story of Peter and John appeals to me. Peter and John spoke boldly even when it could have cost them dearly. The church in Jerusalem would not be cowed but prayed for boldness. They did not ask for power, revenge, fairness, or protection and security. And as they went on with their mission to evangelize the world beginning from Jerusalem, they maintained bold evangelical preaching. They remained humble, did not become arrogant, kept loving the lost sheep of Israel, and quietly and faithfully bore witness to the Good News of Jesus.

It must also be noted that the early witnesses to Jesus were patient and gracious in their defense of the Gospel. We do not read of angry tirades against their opponents. With a loving yet spirited manner they made their stand. There was nothing in their behavior that tarnished their witness.

The second Jerusalem Pentecost

The first outpouring of the Holy Spirit took place on the Jewish feast of Pentecost, and three thousand were converted. The story of this is in Acts chapter two. The opening passage tells of a second pentecost or outpouring of the Holy Spirit: “And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31). They asked for boldness because they felt they needed it. They could have felt overwhelmed, alone, and fearful, yet their response was to pray for boldness. And the prayer was answered.

Notice that bold preaching followed the filling with the Holy Spirit, just like what happened at the first pentecost. First the empowering of the Holy Spirit then the bold preaching. It is usually this way, as I can attest to, having lived through the entirety of the Jesus People Movement from 1967 to 1972.

Praying for boldness

There are so many promises in Scripture that clearly tell us that if we ask anything in His name, which is clearly His will and for His glory (this brings together a number of passages on prayer), that prayer will be answered. Such was the prayer of Acts 4. Luke, the author of Acts, has more to say that bears on the subject in his Gospel: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!’ (Luke 11:13).

The church in Acts 4 prayed for boldness and they received it. Jesus, in Acts 1:8 made it abundantly evident what the work of His Church was: “And you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

What then can we say? To do the work we are called to do requires boldness, and this comes from the anointing and empowering of the Holy Spirit. I don’t care if you are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, fundamentalist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and any of the rest of the denominations, large or small, in the broad Christian community. This applies to anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus.

God does not give us a job to do without giving us the tools to do it. We need courage and boldness in this world that is heavily influenced by the wicked forces of Satan. What do we do? Ask for the empowering of the Holy Spirit of God to boldly, humbly and lovingly tell the story of Jesus and Him crucified.

Kent Philpott

Mill Valley, California

November 2013

[1] My emphasis.

Before the Big Bang

Posted on November 11, 2013 by Kent Philpott

‘Before the Big Bang’

is the title of an article in the February 2004 issue of Discover magazine. The question the article by Michael D. Lemonick asks is: ‘What triggered the Big Bang?’ The new theory Lemonick presents is the brainchild of ‘maverick cosmologists’ Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok. ‘According to a new theory, our universe crashed into another three-dimensional world hidden in higher dimensions.’ The bottom line is that the universe as we know it is ‘simply part of an infinite cycle of titanic collisions between our universe and a parallel world.’ (page 35)

The Big Bang theory has been assumed by physicists for some time to be a satisfactory explanation for the existence and/or structure (not origin) of the universe. (Some Christians acknowledge the possibility that the Big Bang theory may contain some description of the means of God’s creating the universe, other Christians reject the theory as unnecessary, purely wrong, or even demonic. I for one, no scientist by any means, do not object to the theory, do not wholeheartedly embrace it either, but find little problem with it since I know God created all that is and so the means of creating, how it looks to science, is merely a detail.)

Most scientists refuse to deal with the issue of the origin of the ‘singularity’, that incredibly dense point of matter, that exploded to produce all the matter and energy that we know of—as propounded by the Big Bang theory. Christian apologists, who have accepted the theory of the Big Bang, have forcefully brought up the issue of origins since it seems obvious that Someone had to have created all that highly concentrated matter and energy in the first place. This has been a problem to those who recoil at the idea of a God at all, any kind of God, but especially, of course, the Creator God we find in the Bible.

The modification of the Big Bang theory advanced in the article is based on the now famous ‘String Theory’. We must emphasize the ‘theory’ part of it. There is no proof at all for the theory; many in the scientific community oppose the theory proposed by Steinhardt and Turok as Michael Lemonick points out in the article, but as many theories do, they tend to take on a life of their own to the point that they are referred to (almost) as scientific fact.

The new idea is that there are parallel universes, perhaps separated from each other by a distance no larger than the size of a proton. (protons are really, really, small) These universes are imagined to be like membranes (branes for short), illustrated in the article as square or rectangular sheets hung from a clothesline, moving as by a gentle wind, with bumps or indentations on their surfaces. The membranes, or parallel universes, are essentially eternal—thus no need for a God.

How it is that the membranes or parallel universes are to be thought of as eternal, not created, is rather like a magicians slight of hand. Here is the explanation from the article: ‘In this new cyclic model, the universe starts essentially empty each time. That means virtually no matter gets recycled. So entropy doesn’t increase, and there is no beginning or end to time.’ (page 41)

These branes may, the theory goes, interact with each other, crash into each other actually, maybe once every trillion years, and the contacts produce a kind of Big Bang, and, a new universe is created. The new universe then grows and develops, expands enormously, almost to the point of zero density, and then, due to unexplained astrophysics, crash into another one and boom, another Big Bang and a new universe is created–ad naseum. Michael Lemonick therefore concludes, ‘The cycle of such collisions would be eternal.’ (page 40)

Lemonick does point out that not all the experts agree. Joel Primack, a physicist and cosmologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz is quoted as saying, ‘I think it’s silly to make much of a production about this stuff. I’d much rather spend my time working on the really important questions observational cosmology has been handing us about dark matter and dark energy. The ideas in these papers are essentially untestable.’ (page 41)

This cosmology, mainly the string theory, by the way, is embraced by monists, more specifically Hindus, as the very large time frames fit into that theological system. And the parallel universes allow, somehow, for the odd spiritualism demanded by monistic thought.

I cannot help but think that the new improved theory for the origins of the universe, or I should say ‘universes’ is motivated by a desire to once and for all get around the necessity for a Creator God. Apparently the Big Bang theory is too close to the biblical view of creation we find in Genesis. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’—this could just be a poetical way to describe the Big Bang and this would not do. So, the notion of parallel universes only dimensions apart that might tangle with each other to produce Big Bangs–this seems to solve the creator God problem.

What difference does it make, Big Bang, no Big Bang, membranes and parallel universes? However you want it, there still remains the issue of an originator, or a designer, a master programmer–a God. Truly does the Psalmist say, ‘The fool says in his heart, “there is no God”’ (Psalm 14:1). And I suspect, the Psalmists explanation for the foolishness is also correct, ‘They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.’

The next to the last sentence in Lemonick’s article is: ‘This view of creation is far grander than the universe of traditional cosmology or the universe of the Bible.’ Quite a statement, obviously very scientific and without bias—of course. I don’t mean to make fun really because I know many have no doubt already added the argument of the parallel, eternal universes to their armour against the God of creation. Sounds like Michael Lemonick has.

Kent Philpott

Is Jesus Calling?

Posted on October 18, 2013 by Kent Philpott

Sarah Young and Jesus Calling

Sarah Young practices ‘listening prayer’. It is a technique she describes in her bestselling book Jesus Calling, which has sold over 9 million copies in 26 languages. This book is the 5th bestseller for the first half of 2013 and for all books, not just Christian books. Through it all, the author maintains a low profile, partly due to physical disabilities, and thus is relatively unknown.

Listening prayer is where a person hopes to hear messages directly communicated from God. Sarah wondered if she could receive messages during times of prayer. She hoped God would talk to her personally. And it began to happen. And yes, she believes that Jesus is really and actually speaking with her. She prays and He answers. She prays then listens; and this for many years.

As she hears she journals what she hears and after a number of years she published some of what she heard, decades of messages. Many are encouraged and comforted by the messages and as sales of books demonstrate, she has a growing audience. Many now, thousands, are taking up the practice.

Not that Christians have not thought, and over the centuries, that God will and does speak to them. This I must say has happened to me on at least two occasions. I did not hear a voice as much as I had a clear sense that God told me something. And both times I responded, did what I thought I was told to do, and sure enough subsequent experience confirmed that God had spoken. Neither time however was I listening, rather it just happened in the course of events and had nothing to do with a time of prayer.

Richard Foster, who champions contemplative prayer or meditative prayer, defends Young’s practice. What Young does is the same as or quite similar to what so-called Christian mystics practice – deep meditation and contemplation Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Ignatius Loyola, and many others practiced and experienced something close to what Young does.

Sarah Young describes what she does as meditating on Scripture and then waiting quietly to hear a reply and when she does hear she writes down what she heard or is placed on her heart. The words/messages are not revelatory in the sense of prophecy or fortune telling; the content of the messages are fairly ordinary and biblically based.

The Bible plays a major role in Sarah’s life and she firmly believes it is the inspired revelation of God, however, and it is a huge however, she wanted more. And she got more and has come to rely on these communications, the encouraging directives from the Creator, as she likes to say.

When Young journals the words spoken by Jesus they are written in the first person and Jesus is the person speaking. It is not, “Jesus said,” rather it is, “Focus on me.” Whatever Jesus says she writes down and the journal, the book, must then be as authoritative as the Bible, almost a fifth Gospel. If this is not so then Jesus Calling is a false writing, an imitation, albeit very clever, of the revelation of God. The error then is a large one and similar to the Course in Miracles supposedly communicated by Jesus to Helen Schucman in the 1970s. Schucman’s Jesus dictated profoundly spiritual concepts to her, which she wrote down, and one of the most successful new age cults was born. Schucman’s Jesus bears little resemblance to the biblical Jesus, unlike Young’s Jesus, but could this make the counterfeit even more difficult to detect?

The problem for many is that nowhere in Scripture does God promise to speak individually to believers nor answer prayer by speaking directly to the one praying. This is the critical point. What I discovered in my decades of ministry is that if you want to hear things from God you will, eventually. But the communication is not from God however real and spiritual that communication might be.

John 10:27 is quoted by proponents of Young’s book as proof that Jesus speaks directly to His ‘sheep.’ “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” To hear is to know Jesus as the Good Shepherd. The literal application of “hear” does not work here. It is the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer at conversion who “bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16). An instruction for believers to listen for the actual voice of Jesus is foreign to the New Testament writings.

Sarah Young has experienced much self-described difficulties in her life and writes wonderfully well of her loving connection with who or what she thinks is Jesus. Apparently she was been comforted and encouraged as a result. And the book sales are phenomenal, and again I cannot help but be reminded of Helen Schucman and the Course in Miracles.[1] As I study Jesus Calling I do see a difference in the two books. Young’s book is far more biblically Christian than Schucman’s, the difference if clear and there is in me a temptation to embrace Young’s claim to be hearing the voice of Jesus. But it will not work. There is neither biblical precedent nor warrant for quieting oneself, praying, and then listening to hear Jesus speak. This is perhaps the most serious and dangerous counterfeit to be found in the broad spectrum that is Charisma.

[1] Wikipedia’s article on the Course in Miracles will be quite enlightening.

Pews

Posted on October 9, 2013 by Kent Philpott

Pews – What good are they?

The young seminarian could not help but make fun of the pews. There are eighteen of them all together, nine rows separated by an aisle down the center. Made of good solid hardwood with a blondish coloring, the old fashioned seats need some tending to but otherwise they do their job. Two generations of Christians have taken their accustomed and cherished places to worship God in those very pews. Have they outgrown their usefulness?

My young friend would never have pews in his church. No, he would arrange things where people could see and talk to one another without craning their necks. His idea was to employ either a square or circle configuration. This is how it is done now, he informed me. Pews have been out a long time now I guess.

I nodded and smiled thinking maybe he was right. I’m older now and not as up on the trends. Maybe we are Miller Avenue Baptist Church of Mill Valley, California have not moved along with the times and our failure to adapt contributed to our having a rather smallish congregation.

In defense however, I pointed to the young man that in our lovely fellowship hall, we call it Spangler Hall after the father and son who built it back in the early 1950s, we have several arrays of couches, not new ones of course, but serviceable. Here Sunday after Sunday our church family enjoys a very nice lunch together and often spends hours being in and enjoying each other’s company. Couches okay, the pews, well, he was sure they would have to go in any case.

The seminarian never came back again, probably because of the pews; still I could not help but think about what he said. Pews – what good are they really?

During the hay days of the Jesus People Movement, 1967 to 1972, we Jesus Freaks rarely saw the inside of an actual church building, rather we were on the streets, in the parks, at the beach, on a hillside, by a river, or a bay, in homes, and we worshipped God all right. Buildings with pews were what the old folks had and it was boring and lame, or so we thought. Early on in my ministry I was considered a real innovator; here I was though thinking the pews may be a problem. So I began to wonder whether it was my duty to ask the congregation to do away with them.

After that thought ‘I woke up’ so to speak. Wait a minute here; I may be old but I have not lost my good sense. What is it that we are doing in our Sunday morning services anyway? With that question things started coming back into focus for me. Deep down I knew that we are to worship God first and foremost. If I have to be watched by and watch the people all around me, I will be distracted and have trouble turning my eyes on Jesus. But in the pews I can see the communion table, which reminds me of the broken body and shed blood of Jesus; the candles on that table are burning, which remind me of the call to prayer; the pulpit, where the Gospel of Christ is presented; and the cross behind that, and I can think again of the cost of my salvation. Then, too, the words of the expositor, preacher, worship leader, and choir concentrate my thoughts on my Lord and Savior – and this goes on in front of me, right in front of the pews. Yes, people are all around me, and there will be plenty of time for fellowship following, yet my heart’s desire is to think about my God, both who He is and what He has done, at the appointed time of worship.

If the pews went, what else might be considered fuddy duddy? Maybe the piano? What about the cross? After all, that old rugged cross, it might offend someone. The organ, we haven’t had an organist in ages anyway; I suppose it ought to go. Communion table; who even understands what that is all about. Yep, it will be better to go along with what is new and be considered cool by the young crowd. That way we would be on the cutting edge. Wow. Just think.

Nope, the pews are staying.

The Third Heaven: The Apostle Paul and Kat Kerr – a Contrast

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Kent Philpott

The Third Heaven: The Apostle Paul and Kat Kerr – A contrast

Paul went to the third heaven. He had a vision – a revelation – and it was not the first time. Here is what he said:

1 Corinthians 12:1-5: I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. ² I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. ³ And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— ⁴ and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. ⁵ On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast,except of my weaknesses.

Most commentators think 2 Corinthians was written between A.D. 55 and A.D. 57. The vision he described occurred fourteen years earlier, or between A.D. 41 and 43. This would have been around the time of his second visit to Jerusalem and before his first missionary journey. His third heaven experience would have been, it is speculated, his third vision. A record of Paul’s visions is as follows: (1) on the day of his conversion he had a vision of the glorified Christ – Acts 9:3 and 22:6; (2) a vision of Ananias coming to him – Acts 9:12; (3) a vision showing he would minister to Gentiles – Acts 22:17; (4) his vision-call to Macedonia – Acts 16:9; (5) an encouraging vision when difficulty arose in Corinth – Acts 18:9-10; (6) a vision that followed his arrest in Jerusalem – Acts 23:11; (7) a vision during a storm at sea – Acts 27:23; and (8) a vision that gave him insight into understanding the mysteries of Christ – Ephesians 3: 1-6.[1]

It is likely that the report of Paul’s vision revealed in 2 Corinthians was the first time he mentioned it. He did so, because some detractors who had come into the Corinthian church were challenging his status as an authentic apostle, thereby at minimum attempting to downgrade the doctrines and theologies Paul preached. Paul’s critics, as was the custom, elevated themselves by claiming supernatural knowledge obtained by means of dreams and visions. For millennia, the shamans had gained authority by claiming direct encounters with supernatural entities, and this shamanistic tradition was alive and well in the Graeco-Roman world. It is alive and well in our own day, and shamans continue to enter into a trance state, a soul journey to heaven or hell, in order to bring back information to their clients, which is mostly of a comforting nature.

Reluctantly, Paul describes a vision he had, in order to assert his status and authority as a true apostle of Christ. He does not employ typical shamanistic language, however, nor does he use trance-inducing techniques such as meditation, mind-altering substances, dance, physical deprivations, or any magical devices. His is a distinct vision that fits into what his detractors and the congregation at Corinth would find acceptable.

Paul’s limitations

Paul had not known Jesus during the days of the Lord’s earthly ministry. The apostles in Jerusalem, as well as the general Christian community, had been afraid of Paul, because they knew well enough of his career as their persecutor, then named Saul. Paul had little chance yet to establish himself, whether by personal testimony or through second hand accounts of his dramatic reformation. Being zealous for the work of Christ and for the well being of the churches that he founded, he brought to the table what he could, though at the stage in his career of A.D. 55 or 57, the Corinthians would have had little information to confirm Paul as a full-fledged messenger of the Gospel. But Paul had been to the third heaven.

A commonsense view

The first heaven consisted of the clouds and the air that humans breathed. The second heaven held the lights above the clouds – the sun, moon, and stars. The third heaven was where God dwelt – His abode.[2] The foregoing is a generalized way that Jewish people conceived of what was above them. God was above them, far away, and transcendent over them yet with them at the same time.

Paradise was considered the same as the third heaven. Paradise is a loan word from the Persians meaning ‘garden’ and was a reference to the garden where God walked and talked with Adam and Eve. Fellowship restored with the Creator would take place in Paradise, the dwelling place of God.

Caught up

Paul, referring to himself in the third person and therefore in a humble fashion, was “caught up” to the third heaven. He did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body. He simply did not know. Not too much should be made of Paul’s inability or refusal to be more concrete. The distance between his experience and mechanisms used by shamans for vision questing is very great.

Despite the other visions to which Paul referred (see above), this is the only time he reports being in the presence of God, or in the third heaven. My opinion is that Paul’s vision and revelation would be like other visions in the New Testament. For instance, John was “in the Spirit” on the Lord’s day when he received what we know as Revelation, the last book of the New Testament (see Revelation 1:9-11). What “in the Spirit” means is uncertain, and it may or may not be the same as a vision.

John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos by Roman authorities. Alone in a cave on a hillside grotto on that island (tradition tells us), he saw things that were heavenly, not earthly. He reports it as though he turned and saw a real life play set before him.

Paul’s experience simply happened to him; he did not seek it. It came upon him in much the same way as what happened to John on Patmos. There was no ‘soul journey’ and no mediumistic trance, nor was there a paganistic transportation facilitated or attended by spirit guides. Without warning, without expectation, without any means at all, Paul was suddenly seeing that which he would not speak of, even if he had been able. Only God knew how it all took place, which Paul emphatically asserts with the double denial, “whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.”

“He heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter,” is one of the more puzzling statements Paul makes as he describes the vision experience. Commonly, commentators suggest four different solutions to explain Paul’s meaning. One, he was warned not to speak of what he had seen. Two, he could not find words suitable to describe the incredible content of the vision. Three, it would do harm to do so. Four, to reveal the sum and substance of the vision would make him sound like he had lost his mind. Whichever it was, and the short list may miss it all together, Paul never revealed anything other than the fact of his vision.

Kat Kerr and Revealing Heaven: An Eyewitness Account

Kat Kerr, a sixty-year-old woman living in Florida and sporting pinkish hair dyed ‘in obedience’ to God’s command (she insists), wrote the above titled book. In it she reports not on her visions but upon her direct encounters, including conversations, with “the Father” in heaven’s “throne room.”[3]

Kerr is radically different from Paul, in that she freely talks about what she sees and hears. There is no hesitancy on her part, unlike Paul. It is apparent that her mission is to communicate what she experienced in her visits to the “throne room.”

On one occasion the Father escorted her, via time travel or what some would call ‘astral travel’, to the very time when Jesus was crucified. She says she was right there at the cross of Calvary; not only that, she was there at the resurrection. Wow, not even the shamans have been as brazen as that!

She visits various persons’ loved ones in order to bring back reports on their status in heaven. Here is where she is closely identified not only with the shamans but also with the psychics and mediums of the occult branch of spiritism. Always she reports that the departed are securely saved and well, much to the comfort of the bereaved. In one instance, according to Kerr’s testimony, a person who lost a loved one was surprised to hear of that person being in heaven at all.

She reports that every human being has at least one guardian angel that comes to be with him or her at the moment of conception. These angels go with the believer all along the road of life, helping, rescuing, and at death accompanying the faithful departed all the way to heaven. She learned that if a person had done bad things while on earth the guardian angel is owed an apology upon arrival in heaven. Sometimes, however, she says that Jesus personally does the work of escorting to heaven, at least for those who have been especially faithful.

Heaven, she reports, is within the created universe and has streets of gold as John of the Revelation saw.[4]

In so many ways Kerr is biblically sound and presents a standard gospel message, which is firmly in the Arminian stream. She recounts her own conversion experience at age four, then again at age five, when she prayed the sinner’s prayer just to be sure.[5] She is of a pentecostal persuasion, and her rapidly growing audience is primarily among the charismatics and pentecostals.

A more significant concern

It is not necessary to continue detailing the incredible things Kerr reports about her frequent visits to heaven; these can be garnered by visiting YouTube and typing her name in the search field. There are other more significant and dangerous aspects to her ministry.

One, it is a divisive ministry. One either accepts what she says as true or one disagrees and objects. In this latter circumstance it is tantamount to declaring her a false prophet. The Old Testament penalty for ‘false prophecy’ is stoning; the New Testament settles for simply rejecting the message. As the issue of Kerr’s veracity and authenticity is forced into discussion, it will impact congregations and relationships. In some instances husbands and wives will be divided; in others, the leadership of a church may embrace Kerr while others are duty bound to reject the whole business. This is happening right now, since Kerr has caught on in a big way.

Two, acceptance of her ministry opens the door to further connection with spiritism and shamanism, for this is essentially what Kerr is up to. We do not find mention in the New Testament of congregations developing such connections or recommending them. The experiences of Paul and John are exceptional and are not anywhere the same as Kerr’s.

Three, there is a ‘mind bending’ process going on. Much of what she details of her visits crosses the line of that which is plausible. If one accepts that Kerr visits heaven, then one is compelled to believe what she reports to happen there despite its unusual nature. With the wide acclaim Kerr is presently enjoying, people will have to suspend skepticism in order to accept the often-bizarre nature of what she proclaims so as to go along with the crowd. Thus comes into play the toxic or cultic mindset. Little by little we can be led astray.

Four, Kerr has a not-so-subtle expectation that others should be or could be doing what she herself is doing: you, too, can visit heaven and talk with the Father, and here’s how, so why don’t you? Pretty soon Christians are being moved into the occult realm. Talk about a ‘slippery slope’!

Five, those who are critical in their analysis are ignored or shunned by the suggestion that opposing Kerr is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The idea is that if Kerr is critiqued, it is the same as blasphemy or rejection of what God is doing in ‘these last days’.

The core contrast between Paul and Kat Kerr

Paul does not state that he spoke with God; not the Father, not the Son, not the Holy Spirit, in any mention of a vision he experienced . Kat Kerr, on the other hand, does. Herein is the great contrast between Paul and Kerr. Nothing could be more telling. Kerr’s picture of the Father is more akin to a description of a conversation with a friend than anything else. I think that this is exactly what Kerr intends to convey, that she has such an exalted status that she is able to be in the very presence of God and talk directly with Him, reminiscent of how Adam and Eve spoke with the Creator God in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. (see Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-19)

Paul spoke of the utter transcendent nature of God in his first letter to Timothy chapter 6 verses 15b-16: “he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see.”

It is true that the Spirit indwelt born again Christian is seated with Christ in the heavenly places, indicating the priesthood of the believer in terms of our access to the Father in prayer. It also points to the fact we rest in the finished work of Christ and cease from our efforts of trying save ourselves. But it does not mean we are presently in the heavenly places. Kerr ignores this standard and historical Christian understanding and claims to actually have been, and repeatedly, in the very presence of God, which God dwells in “unapproachable light.” This contrast cannot be ignored or accepted.

Concluding considerations

Kat Kerr is not the first one to make such assertions. One thinks of Mohammad, Joseph Smith, David Berg of the Children of God, Sung young Moon, and countless others. The claiming of special revelation is standard fare in the spiritual market place.

And where will this all lead? What is next for Kat Kerr? Her reporting is firm and clear, so there are only two responses: she is either spot on or a false prophet. She will attract a following, and churches and couples will be forced into either compliance and acceptance or resistance and rejection of her claims. Her followers could develop a new cultic expression within the visible Christian church. She may tone it down some, but due to her published videos and book, it will be nearly impossible to move away from the heavenly visitations statements.[6] Nothing short of a clear confession and repentance will suffice.

It is with a saddened heart that I write this essay. It is crucial, however, for Bible based Christians to stand up and be counted. Fortunately, I no longer identify with the charismatic and pentecostal movement, because if I still did it would be harder for me to write this.

We must recognize that everyone who claims spiritual experiences does not have to be accepted and believed. There will be false signs and wonders performed by the power of Satan. This we know about, and the demonic tricks are sometimes played out within the Christian community. Deceptive attacks almost always come from within.

“Watch and pray,” Jesus told His disciples that last night in Gethsemane. So we are to watch and pray.

Kent Philpott

September 2013

[1] It has been suggested that this last vision as mentioned in Ephesians 3 is a reference to the same vision spoken of in our passage in 2 Corinthians. I will not commit either way.

[2] Some Jewish traditions report seven heavens, even ten. The use of numbers like three, seven, and ten have special meaning in ancient Jewish beliefs as well as Scripture and point to completeness, wholeness, and fulfillment. “Third heaven”- surely the very presence of God.

[3] Ms Kerr has recorded a number of videos and has uploaded them on YouTube. In the videos she reports on her visits, not visions, to heaven.

[4] In a way, this is troubling since it reduces God to be less than transcendent and seems to violate what Peter said about the universe being destroyed. See 2 Peter chapter three.

[5] There is a mystery to conversion, and most mature Christians are aware of false conversion, especially in a culture that is saturated with Christianity. In my book, Are You Really Born Again?: Understanding True and False Conversion, published concurrently by Earthen Vessel Publishing and Evangelical Press, the issues of false conversion are examined.

[6] Kat Kerr is not the only one presently claiming heavenly conversations with angels, Jesus, and the Father. This has some recent history particularly among the Fourth or Fifth Wave folks and those who are on board with the goings on at the Bethel Church in Redding under the leadership of Bill Johnson.

Charismatic and Pentecostal: An Opinion

Posted on September 20, 2013 by Kent Philpott

Charismatic and Pentecostal: An Opinion

I admit it; I am a charismatic and a pentecostal.

A “charismatic” is a person who believes in and/or practices or has one or more of the ‘grace’ gifts. The Greek word for grace as transliterated from the Greek is charis. The word charismatic, then, is an adjective turned into another noun built from charis. All but cessationists, who are those who deny the operation of grace gifts now that the New Testament is published and the age of the Apostles is over, would be classed as charismatics or at least persons believing that the grace gifts are still bestowed on believers today.

A “pentecostal” usually means someone who, in the tradition of the early part of the 20th century in the Azusa Street Revival (Los Angeles in 1908) to the present, speaks in tongues.[1] Early in their tradition, pentecostals believed that if a person did not speak in tongues they were not really born again, since the evidence of the indwelling Holy Spirit was tongue speaking. (Some denominations still teach this while most do not.) Pentecostals generally hold that, even if tongue speaking is not evidence of salvation, it is at least something everyone will do if they are truly seeking after God.[2]

I myself spoke in tongues from 1968 to about 1990, with the frequency going steadily downhill until finally it ceased completely. During the Jesus People Movement I also received words of wisdom, knowledge, and prophecy, plus consistently had the gifts of discernment (distinguishing between spirits), healing, and miracles. This is no exaggeration; in fact, I am purposefully minimizing my experiences.

Let us look at the grace gifts:

1 Corinthians 12:1-11	Romans 12:
utterance of wisdom	Prophecy
utterance of Knowledge	Service
faith	Teaching
gifts of healing	Exhorting
working of miracles	contributing (in generosity)
prophecy	leading (with zeal)
ability to distinguish between spirits	acts of mercy (with cheerfulness)
various kinds of tongues
interpretation of tongues

Many contend, as do I, that Paul cites an additional grace charismatic gift, celibacy. 1 Corinthians 7:6-7 seems to teach this.

Let us take a moment to examine the charismatic gifts.

The cessationist ought to have a problem with the idea that the charismatic gifts are no longer operational, since many of these gifts seem to be in evidence today. Among them are wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, distinguishing between spirits, service, teaching, exhorting (which means encouraging), contributing, leading, and acts of mercy. To look at one of these, acts of mercy, it is apparent to most pastors that some will have this gift while others do not. There are observable differences then and not with acts of mercy only. Others that I have seen are leading, contributing, encouraging, teaching, and serving.

What the cessationist actually rejects however are the so-called ‘power gifts’ – tongues, miracles, and prophecy; the others are ignored or accommodated in some way or another. Prophecy, in particular, is generally misunderstood. It is essentially a forth telling or proclamation of the Word and Truth of God, which, ever since the publication of the New Testament, is simply the preaching of the Word of Christ. In the Jesus People Movement we used to think prophecy was a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ thing, the prophet communicating new information. After long exposure to and experience with this form of prophecy, I concluded that the ‘prophet’ would tend to announce what was in his or her own mind, however sincerely. I thought and practiced in this manner for a decade, much to my regret now.

Being an actual pentecostal

Whether one speaks in tongues or does not is of no consequence. If such is necessary for proclaiming the glory of God, then God will supply it.

The real problem surrounding tongues speaking occurs in a congregational setting. As a senior pastor of a fairly large church during the 1970s I ignored the teaching about the necessity of interpreting tongues for the understanding and teaching of the congregation. I also turned a blind eye to the statement of Paul’s that there should be only a few tongue-speaking messages (see 1 Corinthians 14:27).

Another significant issue arises in a situation where many people, in a service, are speaking in tongues. Others who are new to the group may feel expected to join in. I suspect that whatever can be observed, that is, seen or heard, can be mimicked. Frankly, I have seen this hundreds of times. If one wants to be seen as spiritual and have a need to be approved by the group, he or she may well copy or mimic what the others are doing. Then the group will congratulate, approve, and welcome the new tongue speaker into the inner circle of the truly born again.

A kind of cognitive dissonance is operative. There is pressure to speak in tongues, the urging to do so, the prayers offered up for the gift to be granted, only to have nothing happen. Eventually, the tension must be broken, and the result will be either mimicry or abandonment of the whole effort.

I am pentecostal

This is my testimony: I am pentecostal. In has been decades since I have spoken in tongues, but it could come back. No, I will not carry on speaking in tongues with a whole group of others doing the same thing and without interpretation, as it is a complete violation of Scripture. (Carefully study 1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13, and 14, making every effort to set aside pre-conceived views. We must be more concerned about being faithful to the Word of God than to the traditions of men.)

At this present time, in September of 2013, I consider that many gifts of the Spirit abound in tens of thousands of congregations around the world, probably without many of these people even being aware of it. My experience has been that those who least suspect they are being gifted by the Spirit are, in fact, the most gifted.

Here is where I see the real evidence, the most biblically oriented evidence, of the working of the charismatic gifts: in proclaiming the Person and Work of Jesus Christ.

In Acts 1:8, Jesus set His agenda for the Church to continue until His Second Coming: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Indeed, when the day of Pentecost arrived, the Apostles spoke in tongues, to the effect that people heard them telling in their own languages “the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:11). Three thousand converts came from the proclaiming of a dozen, less one, preachers.

What were the “mighty works”? They were the old, old story of Jesus and His cross and resurrection. Yes, the Messiah had come and died in the sinner’s place. Nothing has changed since then, but when the babbling goes on and on, confused and clamoring, it is not the Spirit of God. It is either human confusion or demonic imitation.[3]

Another kind of speaking in tongues – prayer language

It is characteristic of charismatics and pentecostals to distinguish between speaking in tongues as a prayer language and the speaking in tongues in a congregational setting. It is this latter form that demands interpretation. Let me repeat: if there is so-called speaking in tongues in a group of Christians with an absence of interpretation, then something is drastically wrong.[4]

“Prayer language” is what the lone Christian utters, words that are unintelligible to the human ear but which are supposed to be the indwelling Holy Spirit praying through the mouth of the believer. We are on murky ground here, because the material in support of a private prayer language is not perfectly clear but is open to interpretation. In 1 Corinthians 14:2 Paul writes, “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” Now this verse is connected with Romans 8:26-27 by most charismatics and pentecostals:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groaning too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

Here I am not as certain as I would like to be. It was private prayer language in which I most often engaged and which slowly went away without return to this date. I must admit that I am still convinced that this type of spiritual prayer is genuine. The validity of this form of prayer I observed when casting out demons from people during the 1970s, during the Jesus People Movement. This form of prayer caused dramatic reactions from two different people on two separate occasions, about one year apart. These two raised their hands, covered their ears, and said, “Stop that perfect prayer.” However, I do not want to anchor the validity of private and personal praying in unknown tongues on the retorts of demonized individuals.

Whether or not the Spirit intercedes for the Christian in the form of private speaking/praying in tongues I cannot say for sure, but either way, it does not violate Paul’s concern that, in the congregation, tongues must be interpreted.

Of greater concern: Christian-oriented shamanism practiced by some pentecostals

The Shaman, while in an ecstatic state, can go to heaven or to hell and deal with angels, deities, demons, or the souls of the dead. Pentecostal Christians are also claiming to have met with angels, either in heaven or on the earth. Some describe taking a journey to heaven and conversing with angels. Some even claim to have talks with Jesus in the “throne room.” These assertions have been made for several years now. One wonders if this is not simply an example of one-upmanship – “I am more spiritual and closer to God that you” – since pride is a powerful motivator even in the broad Christian community. Or perhaps it is delusion; or trickery; or lying. Who knows, but it is reminiscent of the Shaman’s ‘soul journey.’ Talking with Jesus in heaven – how could this find acceptance with Bible-oriented Christians?

The rationale runs something like this: Since we are living in the last days,[5] God is doing something new. We are off the charts now, being so close to the rapture[6] and the years of tribulation. The Bible, while perfectly fine, does not cover the final period and so God is speaking with some specially chosen servants directly. God’s chosen anointed will communicate what God is saying to the Church. So, why be limited by the Bible when you can go direct? And the Church, the real and true last days Church, becomes those who listen to and obey the words of the chosen anointed.[7]

And if someone like me questions such assertions, the rejoinder is: “Well, how do you know God is not doing this?” Or, “Aren’t you in jeopardy of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?”

Many would-be questioners will retreat if so confronted. They may even be cowed into accepting and joining in. I personally have been confronted with those exact statements, and I found it difficult to give a credible answer. It is like being asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” There seems to be no good, at least no direct reply to the accusations.

Taking a stand

It is not established in the New Testament that there would be a time prior to the Second Coming of Jesus that sends us off the charts, requiring direct communication with angels or deity. There is no passage of Scripture that indicates Christians will do this; nothing even close.

The Revelation of John, the last book in our Bible, details the very end of history. In the last chapters of that apocalyptic book are the accounts of the defeat of Satan, the victory of Christ, His return, the celebration of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, and the inauguration of the Kingdom of God. What began in Genesis is completed in Revelation. What more is needed?

The Holy Spirit has not been taken from the Church or individual Christians. When we gather in Jesus’ name, He is still in our midst, and He will be with us until the end of the age (see Matthew 28:20).

Then lastly, there are the words of John himself. He gives readers a warning not to add to or subtract from the revelation given to him by Jesus. Such warnings were not uncommon in that era; they served as a kind of an ancient copyright mechanism. John inserted it for a reason, and it is applicable to those who insist that we have moved beyond the Book:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

The role of feelings in the charismatic/pentecostal experience

Since 1968 I have been involved with those who are charismatic and pentecostal. While not a terribly emotional or feeling-centered person, still I enjoyed the rock and roll bands of my teenage years. My friends knew me as a rather even-tempered person without major highs and lows, emotionally speaking.

During my years as pastor of a charismatic church, increasingly I found myself the odd-man-out. In our services and other gatherings, the ‘worship time’ was the centerpiece and it was assumed to be the time when God showed up. Feeling good became identified with God’s presence. Quiet times, silent prayer, reflective listening to Bible portions, the repeating of creeds, and reciting of prayers we considered be ‘lame’ even sub-Christian. Over time I began to question these assumptions.

By way of my pastoral counseling efforts I found that people would be worried if they did not feel good. Sad, depressed, uneasy, discomforted – these were to be avoided. I began to hear, “Doesn’t God want us to feel good?” “If God is present shouldn’t I feel good?” “God wants me to feel bad?” “Doesn’t God care about how we feel?” “Aren’t praise and worship enhanced when we feel good?” And so on.

These are tough questions, especially for the generations that have grown up to think that everything has to do with feeling good. After all, sad is not the goal of life. But from a biblical perspective, both in terms of precedence and warrant, our feelings are pretty much downplayed if mentioned at all.[8] Yes, there is joy, real and legitimate joy, but upon further study it becomes evident that joy and feelings have little to do with each other. Joy can be present in sadness, even despair.

Sometimes I think that feeling good in worship is, or can be, an attempt at assuring oneself of salvation. I learned that healing was that way, too. If you are healed, it must mean you have God’s gift of salvation. Right? If you ‘feel’ good this must be a sure sign of genuine conversion? Right?

Paul, in Romans 8:14, speaks directly to the issue: “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” This is what counts. Here there is a gentle but strong assurance of salvation that is not dependent upon feelings. We may be sad or glad, no matter; we may be struggling mightily or rejoicing with “joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory” (see 1 Peter 1:8), no matter.

Growing up into Christ we learn to distrust our feelings and rely instead on the finished work of Christ, both for our salvation and our sanctification. Walking through the “valley of the shadow of death, we fear no evil because God is with us,” David said in Psalm 23. We will endure times of distress, pain, and grief, until gladness appears and this may not come until we are in the presence of God in heaven. It is the inner witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit that we cherish. Feelings come and go, but Jesus is with us until the end of the age. To that I say, Hallelujah.

Concluding thoughts

Why we cling so tenaciously to that which is contemporary than to time honored points of theology and practice is not completely understood. We tend to embrace what is new and exciting, large and loud. If crowds of people are flocking in, this must be evidence of genuineness. Numbers, influence, popularity, and money are the proof of the pudding.

Charismatic and pentecostal – these adjective/nouns are still divisive and growing more so as people pray for and earnestly desire the authentic moving of the Holy Spirit in revival and awakening. There is a kind of desperateness apparent and along with it a rush to sanctify anything that looks like it is attended by miracles. The desire is a good and true one. But it is here in the hunger and the yearning where mistakes are made and well-intentioned people go off the charts, ignore boundaries, and depend on supposed power gifts and miracles as evidence of a fresh move of God. According to Jesus and Paul, we should expect demonically inspired signs and wonders (see Matthew 24:24 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11, among others). Maybe some of us who lived through the Jesus Movement and who had to deal with the dark aftermath of it may have a helpful word to speak here. This is what I am hoping to do in this essay.

Kent Philpott

September 2013

[1] This essay does not refer to any specific denomination with “Pentecostal” in its title.

[2] Paul made it clear that even in the Corinthian Church where there was tongue speaking, not everyone did. See 1 Corinthians 12:30.

[3] Based on Scripture it has been long understood that Satan is capable of counterfeiting the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit. This sad, confusing, and alarming, but true nevertheless. The story of Simon the magician, see Acts 8:9-25, is a case in point.

[4] No one knows what speaking in tongues looked like or sounded like on the day of Pentecost. It is simply an assumption that what is seen and heard today is the same as what took place in the New Testament era. But it is only a guess, as there were no tape recordings made. The fact is that many religious groups, and non-Christian groups among them, claim to speak in ecstatic tongues. The phenomenon is not limited to Christianity. Some who so practice are as far from Christianity as could be. Considering the vast and confused spiritual marketplace that has overrun the world, critical analytical thinking is advised.

[5] We do expect Jesus to return, but no one knows when this will be. Some try to set dates only to find themselves embarrassed and Christians scandalized as a result. There is nothing in the biblical record that reveals even signs of a run-up to the Second Coming. A careful study of Matthew 24 makes this clear.

[6] A study of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that the “rapture” and the Second Coming are the very same event and not two events.

[7] This is a formula for the development of a toxic faith, or to put it another way, this is how cults come to be.

[8] By ‘precedence’ I mean direct mention in the Bible. while ‘warrant’ refers to biblical teaching that clearly justifies a doctrinal position or practice.

If the Devil Wrote a Bible

Posted on September 17, 2013 by Kent Philpott

Hello kent,

Your friend wants you to take a look at this book.

If the Devil Wrote a Bible

Your Friend’s Message:
Look inside widget for “If the Devil Wrote a Bible (2013)”.

Thank you,
The Bookwire team

Straight Talk

Philpott's Essays

Author Archives: Kent Philpott

“Quiet Time” Christian Style

Adam and Evolution

Homophobic and Heterophobia: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

With Boldness and Humility: A Model for our work

Before the Big Bang

Is Jesus Calling?

Pews

The Third Heaven: The Apostle Paul and Kat Kerr – a Contrast

Charismatic and Pentecostal: An Opinion

If the Devil Wrote a Bible