Author Archives: Kent Philpott

If the Devil Wrote a Bible, interview questions # 3-5

Posted on by
Reply

3.        What makes you think you can speak for the devil?

The devil has some new tricks, but not too many. The devil is actually boring in that he simply wants to build a wall between people and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. After a while then you have pretty much seen it all. Especially when casting demons out of people, you learn a great deal as it would very often become clear how it was that a person became vulnerable and open to demons and what lies the demons used to remain in a person. It may sound a bit weird, but it was pretty much just text book.

Most importantly however is what we see of Satan in the Scripture. It is all there, every trick and crafty deceit. In our book we simply do a little updating. There is nothing new under the sun certainly, but context shifts from age to age and culture to culture.

4.        Whose side on you on? The Devil’s?

True, we have heard comments that suggest we are promoting the devil. But this before much of the book had been read. After a little time has passed, maybe into the fifth or sixth chapter, the reader begins to get the picture. The danger is to make the devil appear so obvious, so crazy, so cartoonish, that the subtle, cunning, enticing mechanisms go un-noticed. We like to say that the devil has the second best computer in the universe and that his data base of experiences and human observations are second to only one. Would we then expect the devil to announce himself with neon?

Despite then what some have said of the book, and ourselves as authors, we are definitely followers of Jesus Christ, we love our Savior and Lord, and completely trust in His Word.

5.        How is your book different from other books, like C.S.Lewis’ Screwtape Letters?

            C.S. Lewis wrote of the same Satan we do.  Our approach is different than his certainly, but we hope to have written something that would be of use in our own day and time.

I was shocked to learn that Lewis, and I had read his Mere Christianity, actually believed in the devil and his demons. Shocked and thrilled all at once. By the time I read it I already knew that demons were real and that without question. And let me say here that once you have directly encountered Satan you never doubt his existence again. Nor do those from whom demons have been cast out. It is unforgettable and it is entirely plain the whole thing was not an illusion, a magic trick, or smoke and mirrors. The devil would rather not expose himself; Satan likes to fly under the radar. There are of course some who openly embrace the devil and do not care what anyone else thinks.

Book can be ordered at www.evpbooks.com or at www.Amazon.com by typing in the title with 2013 with the title or only the 1974 version comes up.

If the Devil Wrote a Bible

Posted on by
Reply

Part of the promotion for our new book, If the devil wrote a bible we prepared some interview questions to be used for radio and television. Here are the first two questions and responses. These will help clarify the nature of the book and who might benefit from reading it. More of it can be seen at:  www.evpbooks.com

Interview Questions for If the Devil Wrote a Bible by Kent and Katie Philpott

1.        What’s in the book?

There are 29 passages from the devil’s bible. Each is followed by the devil’s own commentary whereby he expands on his theme. Then there are the Ten Demonments, Satan’s version of the biblical Ten Commandments of Exodus 20. Last are the Bebaditudes, the devil’s refutation of Jesus’ Beatitudes. All together around 180 pages.

We must sound a warning: the devil’s bible is persuasive and some have said it is too much that way. The devil does not always show up in a red suit, with pitchfork, breathing fire. He has a zillion disguises and is an accomplished philosopher. He appeals to the fleshly desires as well as the intellect. Satan is all about having power, power to rape, rob, murder, steal, and pillage. He just does it in clever ways.

2.       What makes you an authority on the devil?

As a kid the devil was merely a cartoon character. While in college studying psychology and philosophy I considered demons, possession, and the casting out of demons we read about in the New Testament to be nothing other than the pop psychology of an ignorant age. Even as a seminary student I inwardly laughed when professors spoke as though the demonic realm was real.

My views changed in 1968 when as a street preacher in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco I encountered demon possessed people and found out up-close and personal that demons were real.

Sometime in 1969 I ran across Carla La Vey, the daughter of Anton La Vey who was the author of the Satanic Bible and head of the Church of Satan in San Francisco. I had heard of him, had even been evangelized so-to-speak by a member of La Vey’s church who gave me a copy of that bible. Carla was what was called at the time a “teeny bopper” or “wanna-be hippie.” I could tell she was much older than her age, meaning she had seen way too much of the seamy side of life for a mid-teenager. We ran across each other a number of times and little by little on Haight Street I got the essential Gospel message across to her. Long story short, she took me to meet her dad, and this several times, and I had a chance to talk to La Vey in his home and church, painted black of course, on California Street. He was a dramatic and imposing individual and I teetered on being afraid of him. After a few conversations, he refused to see me anymore. I think Carla became a Christian but I cannot say that for sure as I never saw her again.

Then, for a ThM degree I spent 3 years researching the occult, this from 1970 to 1973. The thesis become a book, A Manual of Demonology and the Occult, which was published in 1974 by Zondervan. Then, all during the 1970s and beyond, I engaged in hundreds of sessions where we cast demons out of people. With the publication of the occult book, people showed up at my door from literally all over the country wanting to be free of possessing demons.

Pews – What good are they?

Posted on by
Reply

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.

God’s Will is clear and simple?

Posted on by
Reply

God’s will is clear and simple or What actually is God’s will for you?

About two years after my new birth I became obsessed with wanting to know what God’s will was for me. I heard calls from the pulpit to surrender to foreign missions or to answer the call to full time pastoral ministry. Trouble is, though I wanted both, was ready to do either, I could not be sure if I were called to either.

That emotionally and spiritually difficult period was resolved when I made a decision to attend seminary with a view to being a pastor. Indeed, I did have a sense of being called, like Isaiah the prophet or even like Paul. (How many times, in so short a time did I hear sermons on Isaiah 6 and Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road.) The tension I experienced coalesced one day while studying for a masters in psychology when it dawned on me that I would not be able to talk to counselees about Jesus in a school setting as a student counselor. I announced to my pastor I had received a call, and shortly after off I went to attend seminary.

This essay however is not about experiencing a call. To this day I believe my calling was genuinely from God, no, this essay is about knowing what the will of God is. The answer might seem rather tame and plain; my objective however is to be as biblical as possible

In former days

The Four Spiritual Laws booklet published by Campus Crusade for Christ, which I used countless times while a hippie street Christian in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury District in the 1960s, was correct: God does have a plan for the Christian’s life. Question was however–How do I find out what that plan is?

Thus ensued numbers of mechanisms, everything to filling our questionnaires to having “prophets” pray over you that they might get a “word from God,” in order to solve the mystery. As a pastor of a church filled with young adults in the 1970s, many of whom were avidly seeking to serve their Lord, I, and our pastoral staff and elders, sought diligently to find answers and help people discover God’s will for their lives, and while we were at it, discover their spiritual gifts. Looking back I think that what we really did was process in our minds, almost unconsciously, what we knew about a person and consider what they were already engaged in, ministry wise or in their lives so far, to come up with something that seemed likely. Trouble is, the pronouncements of what came up was usually preceded by a “Thus saith the Lord.” Few would disagree.

God’s will is the same for us all[1]

Clear and simple God’s will is that we believe in his Son, Jesus. To a group of seekers who asked Jesus, “What must we do, to be doing the works[2] of God?” (John 6:28). Jesus’ answer is in verse 29: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Overshadowing all else, the chief will of God for us is to believe in, rely upon, trust in, the Triune God, for the forgiveness of sin and our new birth. Jesus is extremely clear: “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40).

We start by trusting in Jesus, and we continue the same way. It is as the writer of Hebrews stated:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy what was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and isseated at the right hand of the throne of God.          Hebrews 12:1-2

God’s will is that we grow up in Christ, continually turning away from sin, and should be falter, confess our sins and receive his forgiveness.[3] We are to be perfect, or complete and mature followers of Jesus, and we know this does not happen overnight.

We take on the full armor of God that we may be strong in the Lord and stand against the wiles of the devil.[4]

We are to flee from sin, study and meditate on Scripture, pray, and in the way Jesus taught us,[5]  and a whole host of other instructions found bunched together in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5,6, and 7, but also found scattered throughout the whole of Scripture, Genesis to Revelation.

Every Christian is to be a proclaimer of the Good News that in Jesus’ work on the cross we can be forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life. Here is what Jesus specifically said:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. God therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

Matthew 28:18-20

 


[1] To prevent this from becoming something more than a short essay, it is necessary that the myriad of passages that could be referred to be reduced to key and summary ones.

[2] Works and will are essentially synonymous as can be deduced since in Jesus’ response to the question He uses the term “will” in place of “works,” see John 6:39-40.

[3] 1 John 1:8-2:2.

[4] Ephesians 6:10-20.

[5] Matthew 6:9-13.

If the Devil Wrote a Bible

Posted on by
Reply
The Devil's Bible?

The Devil’s Bible?

If the Devil Wrote a Bible has arrived! Both an ebook and paperback version are available.  In the 1970s Logos International published a book with this title, it sold like crazy, even published in Spanish but I never received a cent since I yielded to the appeal to put the royalties back into the ministry. Now is a second run at it, a completely new book, nothing the same. It has been a long time in process and I feel it will be worth the effort.

Are you ready to discover what the Devil wants you to believe?

There are 29 chapters, each chapter has 3 sections: The Devil’s bible verse, his commentary on it, and a response from a Christian. Following the main section are the “Demonments,” the Devil’s version of the Ten Commandments, and the “Bebaditudes,” the Devil’s version of Jesus’ Beatitudes. Go to www.evpbooks.com to order a copy.

Are you ready to discover what the Devil wants you to believe?

Hate Speech – Blasphemy Laws: Strange Bedfellows?

Posted on by
Reply

Hate Speech – Blasphemy Laws: Strange Bedfellows?

Hate Speech is a term that has often been used by pro-gay activists to refer to anything perceived to cast homosexual behavior in a bad light, e.g., referring to it as sin. Homophobia, as a label, is also used in this context, as though homophobia is the root cause of hate speech.

Blasphemy is a term used by zealous Muslims for anything that appears to place Muhammad, the Quran, or the Islamic Faith in a bad light. Blasphemy laws are intended to protect Islam. The case of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman in Pakistan, who has been accused of blasphemy, is now making headlines around the world. Muslim friends of hers say that she spoke ill of Islam and Muhammed. The penalty for blasphemy could be as severe as death, though usually the death sentence is not needed to be carried out as the accused is more often assassinated by either zealots or those who want the reward for doing the deed. (Both money and a sure ticket to paradise are offered as rewards.) One of Pakistan’s leading clerics in addressing the issue of justice for a person deemed to be guilty of blasphemy, put it this way: “Any Muslim, if given the chance, would kill such a person.”[1]

Blasphemy laws are enforced in some Muslim states, not all of course, and these laws are being challenged, to some degree, today. There are efforts being made in Pakistan, for example, to do away with such laws, and the radicals are up in arms about it.

In Western societies hate speech,[2] so called, is a term heard more and more and as yet the rhetoric has not yet reached the level of the blasphemy laws. But will it?

Islamic blasphemy laws reveal a weakness and demonstrate a cultic mentality. To stifle contrary opinions is not a strong position but a defensive one, and one which borders on, at minimum, a sense of inferiority. The same can be said for the pro-gay lobby. Heterosexuals don’t operate from a place of guilt over their sexual identity. Their defense of traditional marriage is not rooted in anger, guilt, or shame, rather it is centered in what is obviously natural and normal not to mention biblical.

Progressive, modernist, or liberal Islamists have made some headway toward a more tolerant expression of Islam. These emphasize reason more strongly than revelation and are willing to subject the Quran to academic tools of textual criticism.  And most importantly, they will accept a separation between mosque and state. However, freedom of expression is firmly restricted in most Muslim states where the radical Islamists and traditionalists have gained dominance. It is this group of moderates who face the threat of violence and death and have often then immigrated to Western countries.

Pro-gay activists seem to be energized toward even more aggressive efforts to normalize homosexual behavior. The repeal of “Don’t’ ask, don’t tell” has been a long sought victory and is spurring the pro-gay lobby toward more demands, especially the legalizing of same sex marriage. Likely more demands will be made such as lowering the age of sexual consent, legalizing of plural marriage, and who knows what. The barriers confronting the achieving of such goals are largely localized within the broad Christian communities. The pressure is evident already as many historical Christian groups have adopted the gay agenda. But there are those who are faithful to the biblical witness that homosexual behavior is errant and immoral. What is to be done?

Hate speech has been defined as any communication that puts homosexual behavior in a negative light. The issue is whether such speech should be criminalized, which is seemingly a step too far at this point in history. If not criminal then maybe making so-called hate speck a breach of civil rights law and thus opening the door to tort lawsuits and other bureaucratic pressures brought to bear on non-profit organizations or other institutions who somehow benefit from government grants or loans.

Is it possible that the pro-gay lobby might be successful in using the legal system to stifle dissent and outlaw communications that do not portray homosexual behavior as normal? This has yet to be decided but it is a battle to be fought, and soon. And it will pit the conservative wing of the Christian community against those who accept homosexuality to be normal. The U.S. Constitution will be no help since the founding fathers did not imagine that protections against homosexuality and same sex marriage would need to be guaranteed. No, the law of the land is actually if favor of the pro-gay activist and so the legal battle will likely be lost for the Bible supporters.

Would that be enough for the pro-gay folks? Probably not. And here is where the blasphemy laws and hate speech join up. Strange bedfellows – radical Islamists and those who defend homosexual behavior – there is a good chance we will see this.

 


[1] The quote is from Muhammad Salim as reported in the Los  Angeles Times, December 27, 2010, section A, page 1.

[2] Hate Speech, in regard to homosexual issues, would include describing homosexual behavior as sinful, or, that there is something wrong with it as in it being immoral. The insinuation is made that let us surmise, a Christian preacher saying that homosexual behavior is sinful or immoral would be coming from hate toward the homosexual. All this would be based on an assumption of course. The opposite would more likely be the case however as in warning those whose actions would result in unhappy consequences. So far the pro-gay lobby has gotten away with applying the term hate speech broadly and without definition.

Healing, Healing, Healing

Posted on by
Reply

Healing, healing, healing—is it all about healing?

A significant part of Jesus’ ministry involved healing. The motive for Jesus’ healing ministry was compassion. “When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick” (Matthew 14:14). In John’s Gospel, healing, along with other miracles, were also signs confirming that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah.

It would seem that an emphasis on healing has taken center stage in many American churches. Some even think that if a church does not have a healing ministry, even specific healing rooms, it is deficient and that there must be something wrong with that church. This does not apply to all Christian churches in the USA, since the healing focus is still largely among Pentecostal and charismatic churches, but healing ministries, along with prosperity teaching, seem to be spilling over into churches that are neither Pentecostal nor charismatically inclined.

Why is this so? The most obvious reason may be that healing draws large numbers of people. It certainly did so in the ministry of Jesus. Many passages from the Gospels could be quoted to verify this. However, simply because an emphasis on healing may attract crowds, that alone is not sufficient to justify a healing ministry. No, adhering to biblical precedent and faithfulness is foremost. Our work as Christians cannot be driven by seeming success in terms of ‘nickels and noses.’

Whatever we do must clearly conform to established biblical methodology. My point is that the current popularity of healing ministries is not grounded in Scripture.

Miracles, miracles, miracles

 People will traverse the globe hoping to see a miracle. This has long been known, and it is not to be associated only with the past. Places like Lourdes in France have been internationally famous for centuries and provide millions of pilgrims with the hope of a cure. Today thousands flock to churches and ministries that focus on healing, often with nothing other than a desire to witness a miracle. Certainly, many either have a need for some sort of healing or have loved ones who do. This is understandable.

Why do people like me then caution against seeking the miracle of healing? Notice the word “caution” as it is not wrong to seek God for healing.

One reason is that abuses may easily occur under such circumstances. People are so eager to be healed that such will be claimed when, in fact, no healing took place. This can be dangerous. Based on what I have found, miracles are claimed without any verification that an actual healing corrected an actual injury.

Another reason is that healing ministries are vulnerable to what I call “mind bending.” Healings will be reported when none occurred, simply to support a healer and avoid the emotional conflict associated with cognitive dissonance. Few are able to protest in front of a congregation that is rooting for both the healer and the subject of the healing. Most will simply go along. Standing in the midst of hundreds of people, I would likely “bend” to the obvious will and need of those watching.

And then, not all healings are from the Spirit of God. Jesus warned, “False christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect (Matthew 24:24). “Signs and wonders” is a phrase often used in the New Testament and included physical healing (see John 4:48; Acts 4:30; Acts 8:4-13). This warning came toward the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, and something akin to it came at the beginning. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty words in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

Paul spoke similarly in 2 Thessalonians 9. “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders.” This depiction of the end of history and the working of Satan would likely involve healing, since we see the phrase “signs and wonders” used here in the very same manner we see it used to describe actual healing by God’s Spirit. Satan indeed is a counterfeiter.

A last reason to be cautious about the present, renewed, emphasis on healing is that it is a distraction from the central ministry of the Church. Jesus commanded His followers to preach the Gospel in what we call the “Great Commission.” He did not command us to go about healing (see Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8), although the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 does contain these words: “they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mark 16:18). The longer endings of Mark are clearly later additions to the Gospel and not original, but most editions of the King James Version of the Bible do not reflect the lack of early manuscript evidence, so many who rely on that version believe the ending is authentic.

Those who challenge churches that focus on miracles and healing will do so on the basis that there is little or no Gospel proclamation involved. And those intent upon a healing emphasis have dismissed the criticism by insisting that the Gospel is indeed preached along with the healing work. However, after reading the literature, attending meetings, and surveying the many blogs covering the healing efforts, I would deny that the presentation of the Gospel is anything more than a casual mention, and even then it is, in my opinion, not the purpose of the minister to preach salvation.

The primacy of preaching Jesus, His person and His work, is what marks an authentic Christian ministry. One may be healed and yet be unconverted. Witnessing a miracle, or being healed, is not the same as being born again. However many times someone might be healed, he or she will one day die. Then there is the judgment, and heaven or hell will be the final outcome. Healing is of significance, but, as Paul understood, it is at best secondary: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).

 The hunger for miracles

Miracles are addictive—seeing one is not enough. The miracle work of Jesus produced some untoward attention as well. In John 2:23-25 are these very revealing words:

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

Though many “believed,” it is apparent that the believing was not of a saving nature. Saving faith is trust in Jesus alone for salvation and not a cognitive acknowledgment that Jesus is a miracle worker. Thus Jesus, knowing the great desire humans had to witness the supernatural, refused to be caught up in the inordinate excitement.

Ah, to be a miracle worker

 During the Jesus People Movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, many of us did witness miracles, and healing was included in that mix of signs and wonders. For a period of several years I prayed for people to be healed, accompanied by anointing with oil and laying on of hands. The problem for me with the healing ministry was the notoriety it brought. It was overly intoxicating, but it was also short-lived. We watched the healings and other miracles wane, even cease, as the Jesus People Movement ebbed away. The experience of seeing these miracles disappear caused many of us to question ongoing charismatic claims, but I now think that one could even be a cessationist—believing that the charismatic gifts did not survive the apostolic period—and yet believe in healing. (I identified at that time as a charismatic, but I no longer would be considered such in the sense that the word is used today.)

Let it be noted that I am one who is very aware of the power of the devil to imitate miracles and produce counterfeit healings. In addition, I am aware of the power of suggestion, the placebo effect, and the fact that nearly 50% of all doctor’s visits have to do with psychosomatic complaints rather than true disease. Even still, I will attest to being a witness to real miracles, including healing.

My concern here is that we do not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, that we keep what is biblically faithful and reject what which is not. My view of it is that the instruction of James 5:13-15 is normative for the Church in all ages:

Is anyone among you suffering: Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful: Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Some have argued that the letter of James is sub-Christian, a “right strawy epistle” as Martin Luther thought. However, even after considering the historical context lying behind the letter of James, my view of it is that it is not error that we have the small letter included in our canon of inspired Scripture.

Could it be that many biblically-oriented Christians have ignored anything to do with healing, de-emphasized it at least, because it has been hijacked and abused by the wealth and health preachers?

Must we be charismatic faith healers?

 When requested, I will yet pray for people to be healed, basing my action on James 5 and the general compassion-based ministry of Jesus. Very few, if any, are healed in these current times. In fact, I rarely even speak of healing. But it is often in the back of my mind that dear people in the congregation are ill and need attention.

Is there a format for healing ministry? Must one anoint with oil and lay hands on the person to be healed? Whose faith is operative, the person who needs healing or the one(s) doing the praying for healing? These questions are difficult to answer. Jesus used no set pattern in healing. Sometimes He healed from a distance, sometimes He simply commanded it, and sometimes He touched, spit, made clay, and so on. If we think certain procedures must be carried out, like oil anointing or hands laid on, we are coming dangerously close to magical thinking. This occult-oriented notion must be strictly avoided. Regarding whose faith is operative or how much is needed, we simply have the words, “the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick” (James 5:15). There is a mystery here, but the one who is prayed to is the One who heals. That much is certain.

Whether or not people are obviously, verifiably healed must not motivate my decision to pray for them to be healed. In the same manner, I will proclaim the grace and mercy of God in salvation, whether people are converted in front of me or not.

A plea

A simple plea: It is important for me not to break fellowship with my Reformed brethren who may not view things as I do. I am hoping that my willingness to engage in praying for people to be healed will be seen as an intramural debate among brethren, rather than an extramural dispute involving serious breaches of established biblical doctrine.

No one is a healer. I am not a healer. I would not be numbered among the charismatics. But I will pray for healing, because it is God alone who heals. Sometimes, especially in outpourings of the Spirit in awakenings, there are healings. Even in the Jesus People Movement some, but not all, were healed. We did not know why, nor could we predict outcomes, and we refused to blame the minister or the one who needed healing if there was no healing. Some were healed however. That is my testimony. In the years since the Jesus People Movement, during what might be referred to as “normal times,” compared to times of awakening, few are healed. Over the last three decades I have prayed for about twenty people, and to my knowledge not one was healed. Maybe it is better to be faithful, biblical, and hopeful than successful; in any case, in light of the current confusion and error regarding healing, I am beginning to reflect on my views and ministerial practices. Thus I am considering including an opportunity for any who would like to have the elders of our church pray for them along the lines of James 5. If I do so, it will not make me a charismatic healer or a quack. And if a healing should occur, then to God be the glory. And if healing is not given, then to God be the glory.

Kent Philpott

January 27, 2010   

Dear Abby says “Listen to your heart”

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Abby says “Listen to your heart”

A 26 year old mother of an 8 year old daughter, having just ended a 5 year relationship with a man, is attracted to a lesbian friend of hers, and the attraction has become sexual in nature. She thinks it is mutual. Her problem is her daughter. She writes; “I don’t know how she would handle it if I were to date a woman instead of a man. I am also afraid of how my family would react.”

Jeanne Phillips, who is now Dear Abby, begins her reply with, “I am reluctant to advise you to spend the rest of your life living a lie in order to avoid upsetting your family, because I don’t think it would be healthy for you.”

Phillips assumes the mother is lesbian rather than being on the rebound or confused about her sexuality. She makes a leap too

far, at least. A same-sex attraction does not necessarily point to full blown homosexuality. “Living a lie”, hmmm, a rather disingenuous conclusion perhaps?

Then the counsel not to be concerned about family, just assuming that the 8 year old will be just fine with it all. Pretty far reaching evaluation. I wonder if Phillips is not simply pandering to the current approval of gayness and fearful that any other kind of advice might be met with a lot of criticism maybe even demands she step down. Can you imagine her telling the mother to re-examine her position and to consider the consequences for her daughter? In our culture, few would be brave enough to do so.

Dear Abby, oh so very dear, concludes her most gracious reply with: “My advice is to listen to your heart, and you won’t go wrong.”

There it is, basically saying that by so doing you are on the right path. Go gay, since obviously you are one, and your daughter, other family members, will all just simply adjust without problem. Ignore everyone but yourself. Fulfill your desires. It is all about you.

The heart, surely trust worthy, especially when the heart in this case is informed and fueled by hormones, perhaps an emptiness due to the recent ending of a relationship, and perhaps other emotional and physical issues that Abby has no way of knowing anything about. Verges on mal-practice, maybe?

How trustworthy is the “heart?” I know mine and have followed it and thereby have gotten myself in more trouble than I want to think about. An ancient prophet said: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (This is found in Jeremiah 17:9)

Trust the heart today generally means trust your feelings. Feelings – mine are subject to so many factors it is worthless for me to even start a list. I am all over the board but I have found that I need to be careful and considerate in my appraisals. If I did not have Scripture to consult, which by the way captures the wisdom of the ages as well as that of the Creator, I would be at the mercy, and a flimsy mercy at that, of the dominate and fluctuating values of the culture around me.

Of course, Jeanne Phillips could not bring up the Bible or she would be hounded out of a job. The uproar that would descend upon her would make her a household name for perhaps two or three days. And she would be looking for a job.

Kent Philpott

July 15, 2013

Hereafter

Posted on by
Reply

Hereafter the movie: What is it all about? Rowdy Yates, Dirty Harry, Thunderbolt, Philo Beddoe, Josey Wales, Bronco Billy, and William Munny are some of the film characters Clint Eastwood has played and which I have seen between two and a dozen or more times each. They are all unforgettable in my mind. He is without question my favorite actor and director. The world he has lived in both in terms of geography and culture, I have shared. Clint is a man twelve years older than I am, and perhaps, like me, he is wondering how much more time he has left. On October 20, 2010, my wife Katie and I saw the movie at a theater in San Rafael after reading two reviews of the film earlier in the day. I was fairly certain I would write as essay based on the film, exposing the theological error that I was certain I would find. The film was superb in every way, a real masterpiece. The acting, script, story, special effects, and camera work, among other aspects—it was all captivating. The film’s major theme was whether there is a continuation of conscious life after death. After being a pastor of Christian churches for more than four decades I can understand the things that run through most people’s minds when they realize that their personal end is looming, and I can well imagine that Clint Eastwood might have an interest in the subject. A Christian world view was not in evidence in Hereafter. And that is not surprising. If I had not been suddenly and convincingly converted some forty-seven years ago, I might possibly have investigated reports of near death experiences and mediumistic contact with spirits of the dead. After all, before my encounter with Jesus Christ I was quite interested in Edgar Cayce, Bridie Murphy, and all things to do with UFOs and aliens. If I had known where to find a medium, psychic, or palm reader, I might have been tempted to find out what they had to offer a young inquiring mind. It was only after becoming acquainted with Scripture that I learned about the occult—everything in magic and witchcraft to spiritualism that has to do with mediums or psychics making contact with the departed. The Bible has much to say about fortune telling and mediumistic activity, and it takes it all seriously. Without presenting particular passages which demonstrate what I am writing about, I will keep it simple and summarize my view—the demonic realm works ceaselessly as a clever counterfeit or alternative to the life of grace and faith we find in the Messiah. The point is to subtly lead people away from Jesus who is eternal life in person and who is the only way to that life. Clint Eastwood and millions of others are hoping that the grave is not the end and are especially looking for assurance that the judgment and hell Christians talk about is complete garbage. They are desperate to find another way, not of a religious nature as we think of religion, but something that is both plausible and possible and, most of all, without strings attached. The character of George, a hesitant reader or psychic, is played by Matt Damon, and toward the end of the film, he reluctantly agrees to contact the tragically killed twin of the young boy Markus. The dead twin Jason informs Markus from the “hereafter” that his was the invisible hand that had knocked off his brother’s hat on the loading platform of the London Underground while Markus was desperately trying to board a train. A frantic search for the hat causes Markus to miss his train, which meets with disaster and a great loss of life moments later. George, in revealing this concrete contact of the dead with the living shows Markus that he is not a manipulating trickster and is therefore worthy of his trust. The story line is plain—there is conscious life after death, and that life is far grander than anything a human living on the planet has ever experienced. Proof now that Jason is “alive” and can speak with him comforts Markus. I found myself smiling as well, and I will wager most of the other movie goers had a similar warm glow about them. Was the film simply entertainment or did it also have a message? To put it another way, was Eastwood, the film’s director and producer, playing the role of a spiritualistic evangelist? Had he come to a conclusion about life and death and wanted to share that with an audience wider than Billy Graham would ever have garnered? From a pastoral perspective I cringed at the counsel given by the departed Jason to his twin brother Markus, advice that might be boiled down to “get over it.” Through psychic George, Jason encourages his brother and urges him to move on, though he will be with him every step of the way. Is this a comforting thought? What a burden for a young boy to carry: the spirit of his dead brother will be a constant companion, watching but not intervening any longer, but a continuous presence nevertheless. During my years as a pastor I have officiated at hundreds of funerals or memorial services. My experience has shown me that we human beings are especially vulnerable, emotionally and spiritually, when we lose a loved one, someone important in our lives. Life brings us loss after loss, and without proper rebuilding and recovery from the natural grief we experience, there is a spiritual and mental price to pay. And, it is at times when we are in the pain of loss that we are open to deception, more than we normally would be. We seem to lose our ability to bring sober evaluation to a situation, and thus we are open to being misled. My experience has been that psychics and mediums can take advantage of such situations. During the ten years that I operated the Marin Christian Counseling Center in San Rafael, California, people who had experienced loss, especially through death and divorce, required special and tender care, because they were overly influenced by suggestions and easy means to resolve their grief. My concern then, and the chief reason for this essay, is that people who have experienced traumatic loss, especially through death, not rush to the mediums and psychics for comfort. George knew himself that the supposed gift he had was really a curse and rejected the temptation to re-engage in it, for a time, until his compassion for a boy’s suffering broke down his resolve. He comes close to expressing the premise of this essay—that in the broad scheme of things, it is far better that the dead be dead, which allows for us to recover and live our own lives. Life is grand and ugly all at once. It takes courage to face it full on. It is best to look to and rely upon the Maker of heaven and earth, who is the beginning and the end and who offers us eternal life, without strings, through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Gay is now good?

Posted on by
Reply

Gay is now good?

After the publication of two of my books, The Third Sex? and The Gay Theology in the mid-1970s, I was invited to participate in debates about homosexuality at Presbyterian Church, USA events. I represented the conservative or biblical point of view.

During this process, I inadvertently heard a number of discussions among pro-gay church leaders who were seeking to advance the gay agenda, which was to normalize and win acceptance for homosexuality. The religious contingent of the pro-gay lobby was particularly concerned that their sexual practices be considered as normal as heterosexuality. This was the goal, and to reach that, they knew that two things were necessary: one, denominational leadership must endorse homosexuality; and two, children must be educated to accept homosexuality. During these discussions, it was clearly understood that the two-pronged process would take decades and that it would be important to work incrementally, little by little, until homosexuality was affirmed as good and normal.

The program as then outlined was to change and/or influence the leadership of Christian denominations and of both Christian and secular educational institutions. The themes of “fairness” and “equality” were slated as the primary concept tools to be used in these public and private institutions, but there was something else on the agenda, something more subtle and far more compelling. Everyone must get to know an actual homosexual. The idea was that it is one thing to debate principles and legal issues, but it is another to reject and judge another individual human being. To make homosexuals known in a personal way to the entire culture, entertainment media was the perfect vehicle. So, in film, television, drama, novels, and so on, gay and lesbian people would be shown as normal, healthy, talented, and lovable. The real issue would then be masked.

That was nearly forty years ago. Now we see more clearly how the goals of the pro-gay folks are being achieved.

During the 1970s I wrestled with two issues. First, I understood that those practicing homosexuality would resent being looked down upon as being deviant. Because the power of guilt and shame is so strong, they would have to work fiercely and spare nothing in their efforts to normalize a gay lifestyle. Second, I feared that I would have to fight the whole pro-gay battle long into the future.

Though the law of the land is tending to equalize homosexuality and heterosexuality, all the way to sanctioning same-sex marriage and beyond, this will not necessarily satisfy homosexuals. As long as there are people out there like me who have not changed their opinions and continue to say so publically, then their victory is not complete. No, the dissenters and the conscientious objectors must be dealt with somehow. I assume that, along with a whole host of other Christians and fellow travelers, I will be challenged with the goal of being silenced.

There will be varying forms of intimidation, including supposed violation of hate crimes and civil rights laws, removal of non-profit status, disqualification for state and federal grants, and exclusion from other desirable programs such as helping the hungry and housing the homeless. It will no doubt prove to be a complex and expensive nightmare.

One good thing, however, is that there will be a shaking of the Christian tree, and the dead leaves and branches will fall. The result will be a purified Church. Already a number of denominations have capitulated, and more will follow, including some that historically stood up for the authority of Scripture. In the hearts and minds of Christians, a decision will have to be made. And for those who have homosexual friends and loved ones, the problem is far from academic or political in nature. Indeed, it will be emotional, familial, and personal, and it will leave many confused and divided in their loyalties.

The pro-gay lobby has won certain victories, and they will boast of more goals reached in the future. The activists I encountered in the 1970s had it right; they knew what they were doing. The recent triumphs in the courts will not, however, reach so deep into the heart and conscience of those who glory in their homosexuality as to bring deep abiding peace. There will remain a certain uncomfortable sense that things are still not right. All the powers that be will not be able to hush the voice of the Creator that is hard-wired into every creature made in His image.

The political battles presently being waged and won will only be celebrated in the here and now and not in the forever, which is where we are all headed. None of us will get out of this alive, and then, as the Scripture says, “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). To temporarily have guilt assuaged, shame suppressed, and a measure of acceptance achieved, is all merely a part of a larger deception perpetrated by the prince of the great lie.