In my recent post on the laughing revival I presented the central thesis that Charismatics had latched onto this ridiculous revival because, like Israel, they despised the manna and were seeking something more from heaven. Here again is one of the verses I cited:
But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes. (Num. 11:6)
I didn't realize how accurate this assessment was until I read an article entitled "The Cloud Has Moved" by J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma -- the foremost magazine for charismatics. He writes:
So the Lord let us languish in the wilderness until we realized that His cloud had relocated. Then, in the 1990s, many of us realized that we desired His presence more than we craved stale manna.
There you have it -- straight from horse's mouth. Stale manna is set over against the presence of God as a false antithesis. God's law is stale. It's daily, tedious to tend to, bland, and unchanging. Surely there is something greater God has in store for us, right? In Mr. Grady's mind there is. And for him, as well as a good many Charismatics, the key is to "follow the cloud" to the next move of God.
The Leading of the Spirit
Following the cloud is a common motif in Charismatic parlance. The idea is simple. Like Israel followed the cloud, so the church must follow the Spirit of God as He leads them from one movement or emphasis to the next. The assumption is that the Church is transitory and isolated to a wilderness sojourn. Simply stated, following the cloud is wilderness thinking.
Yet, many Charismatics have chosen the wilderness guidance of the cloud-pillar as the ideal. They frown upon permanency -- staying in any one place too long. They fear becoming dead and a part of the "frozen chosen."
The wilderness was a proving ground for Israel. The "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38) was kept on their endless trek due to repeated acts of disobedience. Following the cloud was not the ideal for God's people. God was leading them to something better -- something without a cloud by day or fire by night.
Promised Land Thinking
Wilderness thinking is plaguing a good many in the church. They view themselves as pilgrims moving through the temporary wilderness of the world. They see their earthly task as one of evangelism and experientialism. In one sense they are soul-winners, and in another sense they are seeking greater spiritual experiences as the measuring stick of their spiritual progress.
But, God had called Israel to the promised territory of Canaan. This was the reason for Israel's deliverance from captivity. This was the purpose to her great exodus -- she was to inherit the land promised to her father Abraham (Gen. 13:14-15; Ex. 3:8). Therefore, spinning her wheels in the wilderness was not the ultimate intention. Yet, many today see "pulling laps in the wilderness" as a spiritual ideal.
God's ideal was Canaan, and Canaan would be the opposite of the wilderness. Drastic changes were to ensue as Israel crossed the Jordan River, and life as she knew it would be radically transformed. In fact, the point of her contention was about to cease:
And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna anymore; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year. (Joshua 5:12)
This was not all that would cease. The pillars of cloud and fire also disappeared upon entrance into Canaan. How then would the children of Israel be led? How would they know when it was time to move? The answer would be found in the law of God and their national permanency in the promised land. There would be no more moving. Their national direction would now come directly from God's law.
Following the cloud is wilderness thinking. Following God's law is promised land thinking. Following the cloud is a transitional phase for slaves. Following God's law in Canaan was the means to establishing kingly rule. We are in great need of a similar transition in the modern church. Christians must put off this elusive seeking of the contemporary cloud chasing and establish themselves as God's vicegerents who build the city of God in terms of the laws of God.
Out of Hills Thou Mayest Dig Brass
Canaan was a fruitful land in need of cultivation, and Israel was in training for the great labor of carving out a godly civilization. Would Israel be up for the task? Remember, the Israelites were accustomed to bread falling out of the sky and water shooting out of rocks. Now they would be growing their own food, and extracting their own water.
For the Lord thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills. (Deut. 8:7)
The Israelites would have to work at putting off a "miracle mentality." Water wasn't going to spring from rocks anymore. They would have water in abundance, but they would have to irrigate it themselves. This would also be the case in terms of their food:
...a land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of oil olive, and honey; a land where thou shalt eat bread without scarceness... (v. 8a)
All things would be gained by the sweat of their brow:
... thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. (v. 8b)
These are telling lessons for the modern church that constantly looks for miracles. They give money in hopes that God will give them more back. They pray and "confess" their faith in hopes of God working a miracle of prosperity. This again is wilderness thinking. But, God's desire is that somebody in need of money would actually go to work!
There were hills out of which the Israelites would mine brass and iron. There was plenty of land to build homes, but trees had to be cleared and houses erected. They would have to labor long days in creating a permanent civilization.
Power to Get Wealth
When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the LORD thy God for the good land which he hath given thee. Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Deut. 8:10-14)
The temptation of Israel was to forget the Lord. They would be working long hours for six days per week, and it would soon appear that their abundance was the exclusive result of their labor. Moses was warning them of losing a proper "miracle mentality" -- to see the miraculous in the mundane.
And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. (v. 17-18)
It was not the power of their hand that would bring them their wealth. It is the Lord that would give them power to get wealth. The Hebrew word used here for "power" means vigor, force, or a capacity to produce. It was an ability to produce given to them by God Himself. In this sense it is equally miraculous to that of bread falling out of the sky. In other words, pulling 14-hour days, six days a week, was just a "powerful" as any wilderness miracle.
Forgetting the Lord
If Christians are not careful they can forget that the Lord works through them in the tedious and mundane efforts of daily living. Instead, they seek something more miraculous. They hear of great testimonies of miracle financial provision and seek something equal for their own lives. They view faithful laboring in a vocation as somehow less than God's best. Everything should come by miracle. This is an ungodly and detrimental perspective.
It's difficult to "forget the Lord" if you were visited weekly by an angel with a sack of money. It's only easy to forget the Lord when the provision comes through your physical efforts. But, as I already reiterated, this was the lesson of the manna. It was daily, tedious, bland, and unchanging. It was everyday. Isn't that how the majority of life is? Therefore, a simple change in our thinking can dramatically enhance our sense of purpose.
The only way to avoid spiritual boredom, or despising of the manna, is to remember the lesson of the manna. Had Israel seen the daily gathering of manna as a lesson in cultivating tedious obedience they would have created excitement about obeying God's commands. Obedience was to be rewarded, and the manna was intended to prepare Israel for obtaining God's blessings. The contemporary Christian must also shake off all despising of God's lessons in obedience and see the miracle in the mundane -- they must realize that it is God that is empowering them to work. When we see daily life from God's perspective it will make glorious our "everydays."
The cloud is gone. The days of exclusive miracle provision are over. This is a lesson for all of us. God has prepared an abundant world and our duty is to extract that abundance by the fruitful diligence of our labor. It doesn't get any more spiritual than this. By applying God's law to the affairs of life we are truly living in the Spirit:
For we know that the law is spiritual... (Rom. 7:14)
A strict abortion ban passed in the State Senate last month is awaiting action in the House. If approved by the House and signed by the governor, the new law would ban all abortions in Louisiana, except when necessary to save the life of the mother (see http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/020438.html).
Well, almost.
The law goes into effect only if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its own 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which declared abortion bans unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court does not reverse Roe v. Wade, abortion will still be legal in Louisiana.
This spring, the South Dakota state legislature enacted a similar law. It is expected that one or both of these state laws will wind up before the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a showdown.
We applaud the efforts of the Louisiana and South Dakota legislatures. But it is not in their power to achieve the goal of abolishing abortion. There are two reasons for this.
The courts have usurped the authority of the elected legislatures, and will keep on doing so until either Congress acts to restrict their jurisdiction (as described in Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution) or the American people enact a pro-life amendment to the Constitution. Neither seems likely to happen anytime soon.
Also, too many people in America have accepted abortion as a means of birth control and believe they have the right to kill any unwanted baby. Although public support for abortion has eroded in recent years, we could say the same about public morality.
Abortion became acceptable because American culture changed. Chalk it up to the Sexual Revolution, the Me Generation, or whatever--God's laws are not written on America's heart. If they were, we would not be having this discussion.
We cannot rely on Congress to reassert itself: it's been ceding power to the courts for 200 years. Nor can we count on the Supreme Court (new chief justice notwithstanding) to reverse an earlier court's decision, no matter how bad that decision was. You may remember Roe v. Wade is famous for its muddle-headed language about "emanations" and "penumbras" of a largely mythical Constitutional right to privacy. It reads like the first New Age court decision.
Neither Congress nor the courts seem disposed to do what's necessary to end abortion. But we in the church can set an example by not resorting to abortion ourselves, and teaching our children not to; by practicing and teaching Biblical morality, especially in regard to sex; by using our families, our friendships, and our church congregations to support and encourage young, pregnant women to choose life for their yet-to-be-born babies.
Christians in the Roman world used to take in and raise babies discarded by the pagans. This not only conformed to the spirit of Biblical law; it also helped to fuel the growth of Christianity.
Virtues like chastity, marital fidelity, thrift, and charity are more powerful weapons against abortion than well-meaning legislation that depends on the good will of an un-elected court.
By all means, let us have legislation.
But more importantly, let's keep working to reconstruct a truly Christian morality in America--starting with ourselves.
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition... Mark 7:13a NIV
The Pharisees had made the Word of God of "no effect" (KJV). Their litany of extra-scriptural policies blurred the clear access to God's law, and our Lord reprimanded them for "letting go of the commandments of God by holding on to their traditions" (v.8).
The Greek term being used for nullify is akuroo which means "to render void, or deprive of force or authority." This is an insidious and gross transgression -- one that requires the assistance of Satan. St. Paul admonished us to not be ignorant of the devil's devices (2 Cor. 2:11); and "making void" God's Word is an ingenious scheme that besets the church today.
The effectiveness of nullification is that it is not a direct attack on authority. The Pharisees were not denying the law of God outright. In fact, they embraced it; or at least claimed to do so. Instead, the Pharisees rendered the law of God void by "overlaying" God's commandments with their traditions. This had the same effect in that the law was stripped of immediate authority while allegiance was redirected to pharisaical dogma.
A modern application of nullification is the draconian Patriot Act. It does not attack the Constitution directly, but rather indirectly, by overlaying it with enhanced police powers. In this manner, the soft dictatorship can claim it has not touched the Constitution, but in reality it has made void the authority of our political and civil liberties. The Patriot Act nullifies the Constitution indirectly.
This is also true in much of Charismatic doctrine. Last week I posted on the abuses of the laughing revival as being evidence of God's mysterious judgment. These aberrations are tolerated within some of the Charismatic community because of a man-centered theology that still pervades much of the movement. Though not all participate in such extreme displays there are still problems with nullification in certain Charismatic doctrine.
I recently viewed a portion of an old friend's television program. He is now a popular preacher with a large following. I only watched for a few minutes, and I lost count of how many times he used "you" and "your" in his message. I lost count at 25. Every bit focused upon what God was doing for "you," and who God was sending into "your" life, and how wonderful "you" were. There is virtually no difference between his ideology and that of pagans or Christian Scientism.
Yet, if you were to ask him, he would affirm the divinity of Christ, the redemption of the cross, the Trinity, and salvation by grace through faith. But, practically, would that matter? Has he not nullified the Word of God by his tapes and books? Even Kenneth Copeland displays a huge sign at his events that reads "Jesus is Lord." But, most of the preaching and teaching will focus upon who you are, what you have, and what you can do. If Jesus is Lord, then why are we talking so much about "you"? The lordship of Christ is nullified by the man-centered content of the doctrine preached.
I find it ironic that a religious body that claims to have the "presence" of God in their midst can actually sing and preach so much about themselves. Last year, I participated in a Charismatic service where they sang songs like "I am a Friend of God," and "I am Surrounded by You." Harmless? Not really. When it's compounded by bad theology it's a self-perpetuating stream of error. If God is near by, the last thing that should be discussed is "me."
We are always bolder when speaking of someone who is not present to defend themselves. When that person is present, we are not as bold to condemn them. Spiritual boasting of ourselves is evidence that we are not near to God. Even Isaiah -- a much holier man than I -- when suddenly confronted with the presence of God, immediately denounced himself as a man of unclean lips dwelling amongst a people of unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5). He was completely deconstructed. Now, that's my kind of postmodernism! Let's not whine about deconstructing a historical narrative, or any other entity "outside" of ourselves. We must teach "Christian Deconstruction": we are undone, a people of hardened hearts and unclean lips!
In the Spring of 1994 I stood next to John Arnott, pastor of the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship. Just a few months earlier the now famous "laughing revival" had begun in his then waning congregation. I, like Arnott, was invited by the leadership of a Dallas-area church to participate in this new spiritual phenomena.
Although I had been around pentecostal/charismatics for some time, I was not prepared for what I saw that night. With the laying on of hands, attendees were dropping like potato sacks all over the auditorium. A cacophony of disturbing sounds filled the entire evening as people were screaming in high-pitched shrills, groaning as if in the pains of labor, and laughing uncontrollably.
I witnessed the senior pastor of a large church growling like a animal while on his back he incessantly clawed at the air. We were later told that this particular manifestation was a form of spiritual warfare -- the Lion of Judah battling His enemies. The worship leader of the host church was also on his back, but he was groaning in an almost gutteral scream. Every time he groaned, his back would arch up off the floor, and then back down. He did this repeatedly. He moved across the platform this way like a noisy inch-worm.
My eldest son was with me. He was only 7 years-old at the time. He was dumbfounded and silent. There was so much transpiring at one time that we could not witness it all. We later heard of a young woman that would not stop doing cart wheels, and whose husband struggled to get her in the car due to her drunken state. And, we never turned our heads to view the handful of people we heard cackling like chickens or barking like dogs. Needless to say, I went away astonished by this overwhelming event.
Having trouble believing me? I understand. However, hear it for yourself. The following clip is from a 1997 revival meeting at the Toronto church. The speaker is John Scotland. Just below is a transcript of what he's saying -- or at least trying to say.
"Ok now, before we take off, ya know, before we go surfing, lets get the reading done. Luke, LUKE. (Laughing) Chapter TWOOOOOOO. I tell you what... Lets look at chapter one. Settle down please, Ladies and Gentlemen! Luke chapter 1 and verse 5. Lets go back to the reading... Luke chapter one. Verse, verse, verse, COCKADODALDOOO. Oh dear, haahah. Luke chapter one, verse COCKADODALDOOO. For those of you having difficulty with that manifestation, like myself... That's a wake up call. Zacharius was in the sanctuary when, Z-A-C-H-A-R-I-I-I. Zacharius was a member of the Dubabupidooo. Division. Of the temple service corpse. One day Zacharius was going about his work in the temple.... COCKADODALDOOO. Verse ten. Praying, praying, PRAYING!! For I have come to tell you that God has heard your prayer. Whoaaaaaaaa... Whoaaaaaaaa. God hears PRAYER! Verse 14, now settle down, ladies and gentlemen, settle down."
Is This of God?
The elders that invited me were anxious for my opinion. Neither my son, nor I, were "slain in the Spirit," or overcome with laughter. Because I remained within Charismatic circles, I've been asked about this national revival ever since: "Chris, what do you think about the laughing revival?" "Do you think it's of God?"
My answer is a resounding "yes." I do believe it is "of God." I believe the Toronto Blessing, the Pensacola Outpouring, and the numerous meetings of Rodney Howard-Browne (a.k.a. "the Holy Ghost Bartender") were all "of God."
I also believe that the judgment upon Sodom was "of God." I believe Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden was "of God." I believe the flood was "of God." I believe that all judgments are "of God," and His judgments are manifested in diverse forms. In my opinion, the laughing revival is a contemporary expression of the explicit judgment of God; but, it is a gracious judgment, as you'll soon learn.
Despising the Manna
That may sound strange upon first hearing. Most people can understand God's judgment coming in the form of floods or fiery brimstone, but not in something like the laughing revival. This only betrays a narrow awareness of God's manifold means of judgment. In fact, there was one such example in the Book of Numbers that helped me to contextualize the laughing revival squarely within the category of judgment.
In Numbers 11:1-3, the people of Israel complained in such a way that infuriated God who consumed many of them with holy fire. The people cried out to Moses, and his intercession was sufficient to quench God's fiery wrath. This is how most Christians view the Biblical concept of judgment. But, carefully observe how judgment expands as the chapter continues.
And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes. Numbers 11:4-6
The wilderness Israelites were growing weary of the daily manna. They could all recall the taste of fish meat, fruits, and vegetables. They saw the daily provision of manna as a bland and redundant exercise that was drying away their souls. The people began to cry out again.
Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the LORD was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased. And Moses said unto the LORD, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me? Numbers 11:10-11
God was displeased with the request for meat, and rightfully so. The gathering of manna was not an exercise in futility, nor was it a war on their taste buds. The manna contained a valuable lesson in establishing the foundation of Godly civilization -- obedience.
And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.Deuteronomy 8:2-3
The Israelites were being humbled. Their hearts were being tested. Would they learn to obey God's commandments? Could they grasp the idea that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from God's mouth? No, they would not. They would again provoke God's wrath.
And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt? Numbers 11:18-20
Did God answer their prayer? Yes. Was this an outpouring of love on God's part? Hardly. God was despised by His people, and rather than kill them, He made them loathsome and ridiculous. He gave them an over-abundance of their request "until it came out their nostrils." This was judgment. A special type of judgment for those who despise God's Word. It was a gracious judgment in that they were only made to look ridiculous. They could've been consumed.
The Laughing Revival: Wanting Something More Than His Word
I see the laughing revival in much the same way. For decades pentecostal/charismatics have held protracted prayer meetings begging God to send a spiritual revival. They wanted a great encounter with the power of the Holy Spirit. They cried, wailed, and fasted. They punished themselves in a humanistic effort to sway God into action on their behalf.
But, in doing so they despised the commandments of the Lord that were given to the Church as the primary means to establishing the Kingdom of God. God desired that His people delight themselves in the law, and meditate therein day and night (Psalm 1). God longed that His people would pursue wisdom as a hidden treasure in order to discover the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God (Prov. 2:4-5). He wanted His people to cry after knowledge and lift their voice for understanding (Prov. 2:3). Instead, like Israel lifted their voice for flesh, the "spiritual" Christians of today lifted their voice for an experiential revival.
God delivered them a revival in spades. He gave them even more than they asked for. Day after day, month after month, year after year, in various cities, God poured out their request until it came out of their nostrils and they began to laugh, bark, shake, scream, cackle, and make fools of themselves. They were visited by the Most High in a demonstrable way, for they had displeased the Lord in their request. This is what I witnessed.
Is the laughing revival of God? Yes. But, so is judgment. And, judgment comes in many forms. Therefore, we must observe the fruit. Have these movements produced anything? Has there come any return to the doctrines of God? What has become of it all? Some would argue that thousands of lives were saved and touched. Well, if God could use Balaam's ass, I'm sure he could use the "Holy Ghost Bartender."
What Meaneth This?
I assure you that growling pastors who claw at the air are no testimony of Christ. "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." Remember, it is always God that sends the lying prophets. He does so to prove His people.
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. Deuteronomy 13:1-3
The objective of the Lord is that we fear Him and keep His commandments. But, many of these ministers fell into sin. Some into pornography. Others, like evangelist Roberts Liardon, known for his extended prayer life and visit to heaven, fell into repeated homosexual encounters with his young traveling aides. I've met Liardon, as well as numerous others of these revival preachers. I've only seen this revivalism lead to personal destruction, social confusion, and doctrinal distortion. God sends them delusions that they might believe a lie (2 Thess. 2:11).
The pentecostal/charismatic movement is the longest revival in the history of the world. Having spent a good deal of time within the movement, I have a genuine appreciation for the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those that believe. I believe God will save the sick (James 5:15); and as Calvin taught, I believe God illuminates men prophetically to apply the Scriptures to contemporary matters -- this was clearly Rushdoony's gift.
A dear friend once wrote, "those for whom you have compassion, are those to whom you've been assigned." I believe that. My heart goes out to my Charismatic brothers and sisters who are held captive by a distorted theology. But, like myself, thousands of Charismatics have embraced the reformed faith, and their spiritual lives were impacted respectively. I have great hope for their conversion. They are much needed. And, I'm not alone in this opinion. Rushdoony felt the same way:
Without agreeing with tongues, we can say that among God-centered charismatics, there are important movements astir. No doctrine of Scripture is more neglected than that of the Holy Spirit. Our emphasis, however, must be God-centered, not man-centered. All humanism is occultistic. The development of faith and life among theocentric charismatics is one of the most promising aspects of 20th century Christianity. Its potentialities are very great. (R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. II: Law and Society, p. 160)
Rushdoony is correct. You cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. The laughing revival was "occultistic" because it was humanistic, or man-centered. But, a genuine expression of the ministry of the Holy Spirit is much needed in our time. God, give us more "theocentric charismatics" with a passion for the law of God.
"Soft" Catholicism
It is estimated that by 2025 pentecostal/charismatics will be the largest Christian body in the world -- eclipsing both baptists and catholics. In my opinion, this will happen much sooner. Every statistic I've seen reveals massive growth throughout the multi-faceted Charismatic community. But, the movement is hardly monolithic or centralized; and, therefore, not likely to form any unified institution. Yet, there are potential problems with this scenario.
The danger for the Charismatic church lies within its character. It is quickly accruing the traits that have marked false churches for centuries. Consider the following from Article 29 of the Belgic Confession:
As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
The Dutch reformed fathers who penned this precise statement clearly had the apostate papacy in mind when listing these characteristics. It is also easy to see how much of this applies to the arrogant, self-aggrandizing elements of contemporary "Charismania." They ascribe authority to their points of emphases, and grant their preachers a pope-like infallibility. Much of the movement is "based upon men more so than Christ," and they incessantly persecute any who "rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry."
This could easily develop into a "soft catholicism" -- a universal religion ripe for subversion. Its leaders are theologically weak and morally questionable. They've proven that. Their power and resources are incalculable. They are no longer the "holy rollers" of Azuza Street. They are no longer isolated to tent revivals or basements. They've established multi-million dollar entertainment centers (or churches), and erected numerous colleges and universities. Although they have no formal denominational structure, their ecclesiastical power is centralized within each respective institution; and anything centralized is easy to subvert.
Their doctrine is man-centered. If you begin with the idea that YOU accepted Christ as act of your own free will, it stands to reason that a "bless me" gospel is all that will sustain you in your Christian walk. God is a spiritual "sugar daddy," and it's not long before one begins to snap their fingers at God like a benevolent butler.
Still others are experience-focused -- consumed with a super spirituality that marginalizes them from Kingdom engagement. All things are prompted by the Spirit, and if the Lord does not command them verbally in every thing, they are neutralized into a perpetual waiting upon God for personal direction -- they must "feel" led to do something.
This is a dangerous mixture. This type of theology married to a materialistic, and decrepid civilization will not bring in the kingdom Christ desires. Therefore, God must become their opponent. He must delude them with false teachers and false prophets. They must be weighed in the balance, and their hearts must be proven. If they desire experiences, and won't be silent until God rains down such displays, then God will give them what they request. It will come out of their nostrils, and it will be loathesome to all. This is the judgment for a foolish people who despise their Father's commandments, yet are loved enough to be preserved.
For these types God sends a gracious judgment. God makes those who deem themselves wise to be the most profound of fools. It is God's grace that He has granted them a "judgment of deception" in order that they might come to their senses, and treasure once again that daily bread.
"He's exactly right, folks. It's a brilliant, brilliant piece. He has nailed it....here are many facets and characteristics, but I've always told people that at the foundation of it is guilt, guilt over so many things. I just never had the intellectual power to express it as powerfully here as Shelby Steele has."
Wow. It's not often that you'll ever hear Limbaugh consider another's intellect as greater than his own. But, just what exactly did Shelby Steele "nail" so precisely? He argued that the alleged anti-Americanism of both the European and American Left are the result of an ambiguous "white guilt" -- that America is reluctant to exercise its full military force upon enemy nations because it fears the stigma left behind by historic white imperialism. As a result of this guilt, Steele declares that American posturing in modern war is now confined by minimalism and restraint:
There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II. For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight....Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.
Steele decries this present restraint of American power as the sole evidence of the "world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty." This white supremacy, according to Steele, had once "organized the entire world," but was now "a cloud over white skin."
I call this white guilt not because it is a guilt of conscience but because people stigmatized with moral crimes--here racism and imperialism--lack moral authority and so act guiltily whether they feel guilt or not.
They struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with. When they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group's former sinfulness. So when America--the greatest embodiment of Western power--goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus, in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and another against the past--two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.
Steele's article is one of the worst examples of neoconservative propaganda I've read in some time. This "straw man" he props up hides such obvious and gross assumptions that I'm astonished the illustrious Limbaugh was so thunderstruck. Actually, I do know why. Limbaugh is a pill-popping fraud that along with Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage makes himself grand by pontificating upon his bully pulpit. Logic is absent in such non-objective entertainment enterprises.
What Shelby Steele portrays as "white guilt" is actually disgust and outrage by a thinking U.S. population that is fully aware our present wars are based upon questionable justifications. There is no shame because of past imperialism -- there is resistance to present imperialism. Steele argues sophomorically that America's most important objective in the Iraqi war is legitimacy:
In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal. If a military victory makes us look like an imperialist nation bent on occupying and raping the resources of a poor brown nation, then victory would mean less because it would have no legitimacy.
God forbid our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is ever granted legitimacy! We did invade Iraq on false pretenses. We did secure their resources. And, we are currently occupying the country while building more than a dozen permanent military bases, and constructing our largest embassy to date (6,000 employees). What legitimate cause is Steele referring to? And, how can this be deemed legitimate in terms of the one missing item from his entire diatribe -- the Constitution.
No state shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement of Compact with Another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. (Article I, Section 10, U.S. Constitution)
The War in Iraq is completely illegitimate despite Steele's covering of the facts. There was no imminent danger, nor were we invaded. This war is unconstitutional, and since it was established upon false premises it smacks of blatant neo-imperialism of the grossest kind. In this instance, Steele goes even further by suggesting the present argument of "spreading democracy" is merely compounding evidence of atoning for our white guilt:
Because dissociation from the racist and imperialist stigma is so tied to legitimacy in this age of white guilt, America's act of going to war can have legitimacy only if it seems to be an act of social work--something that uplifts and transforms the poor brown nation (thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old). So our war effort in Iraq is shrouded in a new language of social work in which democracy is cast as an instrument of social transformation bringing new institutions, new relations between men and women, new ideas of individual autonomy, new and more open forms of education, new ways of overcoming poverty--war as the Great Society.
This is a ridiculous notion. The Bush administration's incessant propaganda for spreading democracy in Iraq is not intended to cover our previous imperialistic sins. It's intended to justify our present imperialism. The original suggestion was that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda -- for this reason millions of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9-11 attacks. We then witnessed Colin Powell before the U.N. displaying satellite photos of mobile weapons labs that turned out to be ice cream trucks! Now, the reasoning is the overturning of a dictator and the establishment of democracy as a means to establishing American security. None of these "reasons" for war were ever intended to cover for our past sins. They were justifications for invasion. But, for Steele, U.S. invasion of a sovereign nation is routine:
This does not mean that President Bush is insincere in his desire to bring democracy to Iraq, nor is it to say that democracy won't ultimately be socially transformative in Iraq. It's just that today the United States cannot go to war in the Third World simply to defeat a dangerous enemy.
This last sentence should cause each one of us great alarm. It is also a blatant contradiction. How can a Third World country EVER be a dangerous enemy or imminent threat to the United States? By definition, a Third World country can't manage it's own resources let alone threaten a world super power thousands of miles away, and protected by two oceans.
In addition, how can Iraq be labeled a "dangerous enemy" since Saddam's regime was toppled within such a short period of time? If it takes me only two jabs and an upper-cut to knock you out, you were hardly a worthy opponent. We should have never been in the ring together.
Steele belabors this point by suggesting that terms like "power" and "victory" are being shunned because anti-war advocates have repositioned them as imperialistic:
Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so.
Steele seems astonished that anyone would deem victory by the West against a Third World country as oppressive. In terms of nations, is there another example of oppression? Again, the key descriptive Steele uses here is "Third World." This sense of injustice is displayed daily on playgrounds as children respond to bullying with the familiar refrain, "pick on somebody your own size!"
If this isn’t enough, Steele has the audacity to write, "Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism." How does victory over a secular Arab state equate to defeating "Islamic extremism?" Steele is simply disingenuous to suggest the invasion of Iraq related in any way to Islamic extremism. Besides Saddam, no other Arab political leader could boast of an equal track record of suppressing Islamic extremism or terrorism. Not even Israel could control such violent fundamentalism within its borders as the Butcher of Baghdad.
The War in Iraq has nothing to do with Islam, and has nothing to do with white guilt. The war is not an American effort. It is the pursuit of a select cabal of industrial, military, political, and financial elites with the academic assistance of Jewish, neo-fascist, Straussian intellectuals at the Project for the New American Century. Resistance to this wicked effort should not be slandered as a desire for atonement on the part of whites. Steele is simply ignorant of white concerns:
Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites--and nonwhites--to appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation. One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant.
The issue here is not white supremacy, but the acknowledgment, celebration, and preservation of the white population and its corresponding culture. This is not "morally repugnant" to whites as Steele suggests. Nor is moral repugnance the reason that no "serious advocates" are making their voices heard. Whites are restrained more so by the aggressions of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- not the guilt regarding their own culture. Granted, there are some who may bear a surface guilt, but it is only the result of social intimidation and racial conditioning.
Mr. Steele is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He recently published the book, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Don't let these credentials fool you. Steele is a propagandist. To label anti-war advocates as suffering from white guilt is no different than the administration's slanderous claim that its political opponents are aiding terrorists. Arguments like these remind one of Goering and Goebbels, not Thomas Jefferson. By such an elaborate endorsement Rush Limbaugh has secured his place among the ranks of America's domestic opponents. They are dazzled by the neoconservative rhetoric that beclouds clear thinking about American foreign policy. They are driving our Constitutional Republic into a dystopic, military state ruled by Straussian philosopher-kings.
'Exit Strategy' from Public Schools: The Push Is On
Christians nationwide have been asked to rally behind a move to get America's largest Protestant denomination to "develop an exit strategy" from the public schools.
The Southern Baptist Convention (approximately 16 million members) will hold its annual meeting June 13-14 at Greensboro, North Carolina.
Dr. Bruce Shortt, attorney, and Roger Moran, a member of the SBC's executive committee, will submit a resolution which "urgest action on [the] call for an exit strategy from the public schools and asks that particular attention be given to the needs of orphans, single parents, and the disadvantaged." The full text of the resolution is available on the Exodus Mandate website (www.exodusmandate.org).
You can help by writing letters and sending emails to the ten members of the SBC's annual resolution committee, 2006, and also to the president of the SBC, Dr. Bobby Welch. Chalcedon will publish the mailing and email addresses, plus phone numbers, on its website (www.chalcedon.edu).
Last year Dr. Shortt and others persuaded the SBC to adopt a resolution urging parents to investigate whether their local schools were promoting a homosexual agenda, and, if so, to transfer their children to Christian schools or to homeschool them. Letters and emails from concerned Christians all over the country played a key role in convincing the committee to act, Shortt said.
Be alert for the publication of the mailing list--and then start writing.
