Category Archives: Uncategorized

Legalist Grace?

Posted on by
Reply

Legalistic Grace?

Sounds like a contradiction in terms doesn’t it, legalistic grace, but I have been coming across the sentiment, not the term itself, in a number of different ways. However expressed, whether in print, sermon, television, radio, or conversation, it sounds very much like, “I am more of a Calvinist than you are.”

At first I thought it was akin to an animal marking territory as we observe in dogs and cats. Perhaps it is little more than the old guard Calvinists not wanting to be marginalized or not receiving recognition for their heroic manning of the Reformed fort now that new recruits have volunteered for the front lines.

My journey toward the doctrines of grace has been a slow one–little by little. This may have been due to the sheer glory of free grace, which must be absorbed over the course of time, or, my slowness may have been due to the complexity of it all. I wonder, back in 1996, if I would have been rejected, even ridiculed, if I could not embrace so much doctrine suddenly. But as it was I knew no one, and for some years, who was a self confessed Calvinist. Perhaps I was spared a rude awakening.

Coming from a Baptist background I had little exposure to the theology of those who had imbibed the traditional theologies handed down from Calvin, Luther, and others, through John Knox mostly; I learned from Billy Graham, Campus Crusade for Christ, C.S. Lewis, Watchman Nee, and other Arminian leaning evangelicals. Then when I began reading Edwards, Owen, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, I. Murray, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, and others, my theological reeducation took a new, and confusing, turn.

The year, 1996, when I began to understand the differences between Calvinistic and Arminian points of view by way of research into the debate between Asahel Nettleton and Charles Finney during American’s Second Awakening, I was in the eleventh year of pastoring Miller Avenue Church in Mill
Valley, California. For twenty-nine years of professional ministry I had been a staunch Arminian regularly teaching through Charles Finney’s Revival Lectures; John Wesley was one of my heroes.

Happily, there was no pressure from my congregation or denomination to toe any doctrinal line. And the people I preached to and taught had little exposure to Reformed theology and took to it slowly. It was some time before I even mentioned the name of John Calvin or Jonathan Edwards. Some rejected even my feeble efforts to introduce clear biblical ideas like predestination and election. As pastor I had to be careful to not drive everyone off remembering how haltingly I had progressed. The plain fact is that even after fourteen years not all of the congregation would be what I would call Reformed. Yet I am content with the progress.

Now then, what I have been observing, and experiencing with the emergence of the New Calvinists, is a pressure to accept a whole array of doctrines and positions beyond TULIP. Many insist that to be a true Calvinist means adhering to much more that the famous five points. Some of these doctrines are: views on the inerrancy of the Bible; replacement theology where the church replaces Israel; the place of infant baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the context of Covenant Theology; views of last things; women and their place in the church; cessationism—whether spiritual/charismatic gifts are in operation today; applications of church discipline; using the correct forms of worship especially having to do with music; the place of historic confessions of faith, among others. The list can even include political or social positions. My discovery has been that not all of those who identify with the Doctrines of Grace are in harmony all the way down the list. So often, too often I think, it is all in or nothing. Surely this attitude, while it may appear to be a strong one, is likely not the firmest foundation for growing in grace; such a doctrinaire attitude, at least in my experience, has seemed more like sectarianism that faithful biblical orthodoxy.

Marking out territory? Maybe, or perhaps what I have been observing is a lack of grace along with a misunderstanding of the working of the Holy Spirit. We grow up slowly. We generally agree that the wise parent does not demand their young children demonstrate adult stature or maturity.

When asked to describe my theological position I will say I am reforming rather than reformed. I have a long way to go in grasping all the ramifications of the doctrines of grace since they go to the greatness and glory of our creator God. Early on, were I to have been bombarded by the extent of the mercy granted me in Christ I would have been overwhelmed, perhaps immobilized. Yet, I run into people who have seemingly overnight become full five-pointers and are furthermore convinced of a number of extra points such as those listed above.

This is indeed a plea for those of us who have had the time and freedom to grow up into the doctrines of grace to extend this same privilege to others who are setting out on their journey.

We begin with grace and we must continue the same way. Paul made this clear in his letter to the Galatian churches. And most Christians get the point easily enough when it comes to the salvation issue–works versus grace—and are convinced that they were helpless to attain it through their own efforts. But Calvinists, new and old, can be a blessing to those who are on the Reforming journey by not imposing unnecessary road blocks or by demanding doctrinal conformity in a host of other issues. If we trust that God saves us in a sovereign way, may we not also expect that He will continue that process until the day of Jesus Christ?

Kent Philpott, July 29, 2010

The Prophet

Posted on by
Reply

The Prophet

Doesn’t the prophet foretell the future?

God gave to the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the words He wanted the people to hear. For example we find: “Thus says the Lord God: ‘It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin'” (Isaiah 7:7). Here the God of Israel had a message for Ahaz, the king of Judah, spoken to him by Isaiah the prophet.

Prophets declared the word of the Lord to whomever the Lord directed. Many of these prophecies had to do with the coming of the Anointed One (or Messiah from the Hebrew mashiach, or Christ from the Greek christos). Here is another example by the same prophet: “The Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).

There are hundreds of prophecies in Scripture, found from Genesis to Revelation. My favorite is in Genesis where the LORD God spoke to the serpent (Satan) and said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring, he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). At this point in the early history of humankind, we find a prophecy of the final victory of the offspring of the woman, the son of the virgin, Jesus Christ Himself, over the serpent who had enticed Adam and Eve to disobey their Creator.

The prophets spoke of what was coming, that which was ‘new’, but in many ways little was really new since the basics of what God was going to do had already been made clear in Genesis and Exodus.

Here are the salient points of what the early biblical material said was going to take place: God made a covenant with Abraham which created a new nation of people starting with him. That nation became Israel. God later made a covenant with Israel through Moses, who led them out of slavery in Egypt. The covenant that the LORD gave at Mt. Sinai involved a set of laws, by which the people were defined for a long time. Every time they drifted away from following God’s Law, the LORD sent prophets to the people to remind them of that law and to tell them about what would happen if they continued to be disobedient.  Little that the prophets said was ‘new’, since God had already made clear the basics of what He was doing and was going to do in the future from early in Genesis and into Exodus.

One thing, however, that was clearly new was the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34, in which he revealed that there would be a new covenant or testament: “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write in on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33). The Law of Moses was external; the new covenant would be internal, that is, it was the indwelling of each individual by the Holy Spirit, sometimes known as regeneration or the new birth. The arrival of the Messiah would institute this.

The Word become flesh

That which the Old Testament prophets spoke of was realized with the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem of Judea. Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, and now the Immanuel spoken of by Isaiah was actually with us – God in the flesh. As the Apostle John put it, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). In Jesus, the prophecy and the prophet are made actual, and He spoke the clear and perfect Word of the Lord, because He was and is the Word.

This changed everything. The writer of Hebrews masterfully marked the extreme paradigm shift:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.                        Hebrews 1:1-3

Would the office of prophet disappear now that the Messiah had arrived? No, in fact the work of the prophet, though slightly different, would take on much greater importance.

The new prophets

There was no new truth, not even any ‘improved’ truth, but the truth that came with Jesus Christ must be told, and this is the ministry of the new prophets, who are the preachers, the forthtellers, of the New Testament era.[1]

Just prior to His ascension back to the Father in heaven, Jesus instructed His followers to “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 28:19-20a). In John’s Gospel, we have this: “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (John 20:21). And then there is Luke’s commission: “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” (Acts 1:8).

My contention is that those disciples, the sent ones and witnesses, were the prophets of the Messiah who no longer needed to foretell the future but received the command and commission to forthtell the deeds and words of the Word become flesh. And the company of prophets is not limited to the original apostles; indeed, every Christian of every era inherits the command and commission to witness to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Jesus gave some to be prophets

In Ephesians 4, Paul speaks of gifts given to Jesus’ followers: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11).[2] Some Christian commentators refer to the list as ‘offices’ in the Church, but the concept of ‘offices’ is merely imported into the text and not explicit.[3]

The apostles are the sent ones. Apostello is a Greek verb meaning “I send.” The sent ones may then be termed apostles. Missionary is a term derived from the Latin that is equivalent to the Greek for apostle. Apostles and missionaries are sent to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ to those who do not know Him. Therefore, when apostles carry the message of Jesus and proclaim Him, they act as prophets – forthtelling the Gospel rather than foretelling the future.

Apostles. The original apostles were those who knew Jesus personally in the flesh and whom He specially called and commissioned as His disciples. The question is, may there be other apostles? No and Yes is my answer. No, in that only the ones originally appointed by Jesus are the apostles on whom the Church is founded, but Yes, in that many are yet sent out to proclaim the Gospel and are, in a real sense, also apostles.[4]

Prophets. There are also prophets given to the Church, which is clear from Ephesians 4:11. What do these prophets do? They proclaim the message of the Gospel; the prophet is the preacher or forthteller.

A problem of identification

Prophet is a word often taken to mean foretelling the future and many automatically assume the same when the word is found in the New Testament. But mostly, almost entirely, the word prophet should be identified with preacher. The preachers of the Church are the biblical prophets. If I were to critique the commonly held charismatic/Pentecostal view of prophets from any other position than that which is stated above, I would end up in a quagmire, attempting to state that the future telling prophetic movement ended with the death of the Twelve Apostles and the publication of the New Testament. Let me explain what I mean.

We have all we need. We read of Jesus in the Gospels; we learn of what He did and what He said. Then, other apostles and disciples of apostles interpreted and applied what Jesus said and did in real life situations, which we find in the epistles or letters of the New Testament. Indeed, there are prophecies about the wrapping up of history, which we see much of in Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, and the Book of Revelation, but there are no new doctrines, theologies, or ideas that differ one bit from what we already have. Nothing else need be said of the future; the believer’s work is to watch and wait and tend to the harvest.

My testimony

I did not always understand the work of the New Testament prophet. During the days of the Jesus People Movement, roughly 1967 to 1972, I was impacted by the influence first of the Catholic Renewal, which was essentially charismatic, and the general charismatic movement that swept through America during that time. Though I resisted the charismatic/Pentecostal doctrines at first, I slowly fell in line. Toward the middle of the 1970s I began to regard what I saw as charismania and began to disassociate myself from it. Though it is painful now to admit, I prophesied over hundreds of people with words like, “God gave me a message for you,” or “I had a dream and you should…,” or “You are called to be a missionary,” or “You will be greatly used of God,” and so much more.

Many of my associates from that time have also distanced themselves from what can be called charismatic, but growth in charismatic practice has mushroomed, to say the least. In my opinion, this emphasis is decidedly off track, despite its popularity.

Many among us see the dreadful direction the charismatic/Pentecostal movement has taken. Perhaps the best statements challenging this are in John MacArthur’s book, Strange Fire, published by Nelson Books, an imprint of Thomas Nelson, in 2013. However, there is a critique concerning MacArthur’s views that I would like to make.

Cessationism versus Continuationism

Cessationism is the view that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit that are listed in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 are no longer in operation. The supposition is that they ceased to be operative in the Church after the Apostolic period and the creation of the New Testament.

Continuationism is the view that the charismatic gifts, including the “power gifts” continue to this day.

Some in each camp have moved toward the center, to a moderation of each position, which considers that only the so-called power gifts, namely speaking in tongues, their interpretation, miracles, healing, and prophecy ceased, but that others such as faith, service, teaching, exhorting, contributing, leading, acts of mercy, wisdom, knowledge, and discernment (distinguishing between spirits) are still evident in the Church as normative and operative.[5]

Another view

I am not alone in holding the following view; however, it is beyond the scope of this essay to describe the details and nuances of other various views and the authors involved.

Briefly, my view is that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit continue just as they have since the Day of Pentecost but that we see them mostly or only in times of awakening and revival. In my book, America’s Awakenings and the Jesus People Movement, it is noted that there were various charismatic gifts in the first two awakenings, but few if any were evident in the third.[6] During the JPM (Jesus People Movement), I personally witnessed many miracles, among which were the multiplication of food, words of knowledge, healings, and other more common and mundane gifts.[7] Prior to the JPM I did not see or experience the continuation of charismatic gifts, and after 1972, a date which is often noted as the beginning of the end of the JPM, the charismatic gifts began to be less frequent until they ceased all together – in my experience.

This view may be termed semi-cessationist or semi-continuationist, though different from the moderation position described above. It is understood that these designations are not biblical categories; rather, they are philosophical constructs intended to describe theological views.

Out of respect for many in the Reformed tradition, where I do find myself since 1995, I have attempted to validate cessationism. I cannot help but report that I find nothing in the Scripture, which clearly and unequivocally proves that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit stopped after the Apostolic era and the publication of the New Testament. There are passages that are cited as pointing in that direction, but, in my view, concrete evidence that is necessary and determinative simply is not there.

Paul and prophecy

Paul has a great deal to say about prophecy in his first letter to the Corinthian Church, other than what we find in the lists of the charismatic gifts found in chapter 12. In fact, he has two lists in that same chapter. The second is 1 Corinthians 12:27-31:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, and then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

This passage is reminiscent of Ephesians 4:11: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers.” In 1 Corinthians 12:28 the word “appointed” (the transliterated Greek word is etheto) could be translated “placed” as well; in Ephesians 4:11 the word “gave” is used (the transliterated Greek word is edoken), and appointed and placed are essentially synonyms. It must be noted that the “gave” of Ephesians 4:11 is not at all the same as gifts (the transliterated Greek word is charismaton) found in 1 Corinthians 12:4 or the charismata of Romans 12:6.

“Prophets” appears in both 1 Corinthians and in Ephesians and are not designated as charismatic in nature. Many commentators over the centuries have designated the lists in Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 as offices or officers within the Church. My question is: What do these prophets do? Do we suppose an office or position so important that it is listed next to apostles in both places, to be nothing other than foretelling events? If so, where do we see this ministry in operation? The instance of Agabus prophesying that there would be a famine (see Acts 11:28) and that Paul would be made captive if he went to Jerusalem (see Acts 21:11), which were stereotypically prophetic in the Old Testament style, does not justify or explain the prominence of the office of prophet in the Church.

Furthermore, let it be pointed out that in neither the 1 Corinthians nor Ephesian passage is there any indication that the prophets’ work would be phased out or temporary. These ministries in the Church are universal and in operation until the second advent of Jesus. But what does the prophet do?

Peter is a prophet to the Gentiles

The account of the conversion of the Roman centurion Cornelius shows Peter acting as a prophet. In Acts 10 is the story of God calling Peter to Caesarea to declare the Gospel of the risen Christ to a Gentile, even a military officer in the hated Roman occupying army.

God used dreams and visions to accomplish His work in this seminal event (and notice there was nothing of a trance state involved for either Peter or Cornelius), but Peter simply arrives at the proper place, and Cornelius invites Peter to speak. Luke concludes the content of Peter’s message with, “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43).

The “him” the prophets bore witness to is Jesus, and here Peter is the prophet who declares the word of the Lord to Cornelius. Prophets remind people of what God has already said and done, and Peter does the very same thing.

All prophets declare the message and word of God; this is their work, and most “thus saith the Lord” passages in the Hebrew Bible are of this nature.

Paul and 1 Corinthians 14

Paul addresses the ministry of prophecy very directly in the fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. In the first verse he encourages the pursuit of love (agape love), and he said to “earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” One Greek word pneumatika is translated here as “spiritual gifts,” but it does not require the use of “gifts” but could instead be “spiritual things,” meaning the things of the Holy Spirit.

Paul goes on to show the greater value of prophesy over tongue speaking.

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. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.                                             1 Corinthians 14:2-3

What future event needs to be prophesied? The Church was already aware of the return of Jesus, the Day of Judgment, the great resurrection day, and more. What the Church needed, and always needs, is the proclamation of the words and deeds of Jesus. In verse 4 Paul then says, “The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.”

Paul does not prohibit tongues, and this is a controversy that I will not entertain here, since my focus is on prophesy, but he wanted more than anything for the Corinthians to prophesy (see verse 5).[8]  He even says in that same verse, “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.”

Paul simply wants the gathering of believers to be orderly and beneficial for both the believers and for those who are not. Paul is the one who is convinced of the priority of Gospel preaching. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). Then in Romans chapter ten, he asks, “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (verse 14). He succinctly states the supremacy of preaching when he says, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17).

The last phrase in verse 17, “through the word of Christ,” uses a derivative of the Greek word hreima for the written or spoken word, with the implication that preaching is meant.

“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said” (1 Corinthians 14:29). The worship services may have been much longer than in many churches of our day, including the church that I pastor, but it might be that there were two or three sermons or words given by prophets.

Paul concludes his teaching on tongues and prophecy by saying, “So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:39). Here I am convinced that the tongues speaking was nothing approaching ecstatic utterances but was prophesy in foreign tongues. In any case, the emphasis on prophecy is unmistakable.[9]

The Command and Commissions of Jesus

All Christians are aware of or become aware of the commands Jesus gave to be His witnesses to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The witness will proclaim, testify, preach, declare, describe, and so on, the message of the person and work of Jesus Christ. This means prophets prophesying. Some are specially called to be preacher/prophets, and all are called to witness by virtue of just being a follower of Jesus.

There is nothing new to add to the Scripture; all has been revealed and we simply watch and wait for the final events. We know all we need to know, and faith carries us the rest of the way.

May it be that we all earnestly desire to prophesy.

The Prophet…The Preacher


[1] John 1:17 reads, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

[2] In verses 8 and 11 the words “gifts” and “gave” are found but the Greek words in the text and not associated with charismata, which word Paul does use in Romans 12:6 and 1 Corinthians 12:4 — the  lists of the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[3] Some commentators speak of four ‘offices’ while others mention five. There are five titles, but the last two, pastors and teachers, are linked by the Greek coordinating conjunction kai and thus are seen as one ‘office’.

 

[4] Matthias replaced Judas and the Eleven became the full Twelve again (Acts 1:21-22). Paul and Barnabas are later referred to as apostles in Acts 14:4 and 14. James, the half-brother of Jesus, is also named an apostle in Galatians 1:19. Paul calls himself the apostle chosen “last of all” in 1 Corinthians 15:8. Some commentators include Silas (Silvanus) among the apostles (see Acts 15:22, 32; Acts 15:40; 1 Peter 5:12; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; and 2 Thessalonians 1:1).

[5] These gifts are found in Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. It may be argued that the second description of cessationism, allowing for the non-power gifts to yet be in operation, is more properly called “semi-cessationism.”

 

[6] The first awakening, 1735-1742; the second 1798 to 1825; the third 1857 to 1859.

 

[7] The healings were apparent, lasting, and personal. Twice my son Vernon was healed right in front of me, and he still remembers these, though he was only about five years old at the time. I was healed, and remarkably so, one time that I am sure of. Some healings were verified by means of medical examinations. Not all who requested healing and had hands laid on them for healing were in fact healed, but some were. I was always skeptical of healings and did not trust the healing ministries of Oral Roberts or Kathryn Kuhlman for example; nevertheless, as time wore on, I came to admit and accept healings that I could verify for myself.

 

[8] My understanding of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 14 regarding tongues is that they were actual and known human languages.

[9] Speaking in foreign tongues might well have been essential in the first century, at least if not for many centuries, due to the fact that for long periods people speaking many and various would be present together in Christian churches.

“Quiet Time” Christian Style

Posted on by
Reply

“Quiet Time” Christian Style

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 by
Reply

“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 by
Reply

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 by
Reply

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 by
Reply

‘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 by
Reply

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 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.

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

Posted on by
Reply

 

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.