Who is the "Lord, Lord!" Crowd of Mt 7?

When Jesus taught, people typically became either excited or disturbed -- and often both. One of the problems with most church-goers today is that they can read Jesus' teachings and not be disturbed nearly enough.

For example... consider what Jesus taught in Matthew 7.21f:

Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord", will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but the ones who do the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your Name, and in Your Name cast out demons, and in Your Name do many works of power?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you -- depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!"

Yes -- this verse has made a lot of people squirm -- but in fact it should make people do more than squirm. It should bring people to their knees in fear.

Let's read it carefully -- not adding anything to it but not neglecting some of the disturbing parts either.

Consider: Jesus warns that there are going to be people who call Him "Lord" who are not going to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. This points out that something more is required for entry into God's Kingdom than mere lip service.

But just what is "required"? People who enter into the Kingdom of Heaven must "do the will" of Jesus' Father Who is in Heaven.

So, if the difference between "entering into the Kingdom of Heaven" or not depends on us doing "the will of God" -- don't you want to know what the "will of God" is?

Of course, lots of church-goers are quick to say that they already do know what God's will is -- but how odd that what one person says isn't at all what another one says. Here's some examples: The "will of God" is that we evangelize the lost, pray for people to be healed, cast out demons in Jesus Name and do lots of Good Works. Certainly, "the will of God" includes loving one another, obeying the Law of Christ (or maybe the Ten Commandments). Maybe the "will of God" includes things like not getting drunk, not smoking, and not dressing in a seductive manner. And then, some insist that "the will of God" tells them what "church" to attend, what doctrines to believe in, how to worship, how to pray, what verses to memorize -- and the lists go on and on and on and on.

But you do understand, don't you, if you don't get this right, you won't get to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? The idea that you could actually miss getting into the Kingdom should be a bit frightening. (But so very few people actually take Jesus seriously -- "Oh, no... Not me" they say.)

Let's take a look at the next verse because actually the next verse tells us what the will of God is... and it's NOT any of the above lists! (You best take me seriously, read this Scripture carefully and see if what I'm saying is true or not... After all, it is personally important to you.)

Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your Name, and in Your Name cast out demons, and in Your Name do many works of power?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you -- depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!"

"On that Day" -- What "Day"? You can argue that it refers to some "day" other than Judgment Day, but there aren't a lot of other options that Jesus could have been referring to. So, on Judgment Day, there's a crowd of people in front of Jesus' Throne who are shocked to discover that they're not going to get to go into the Kingdom of Heaven!

Now, some people object when I say IMHO that these people are not only deceived, but they're sincerely deceived. After all, picture yourself as part of that group: do you honestly think you'd stand there and try and scam Jesus on That Day? Try to "pull the wool over His eyes"?

I think not. Which means they're sincere. In other words, they really, truly thought they were doing "the will of God" in their lives.

What were they doing? Well, they said they were preaching the Gospel, prophesying in Jesus' Name, doing miraculous works and casting out demons -- all in the Name of Jesus.

That's what they said. But what did Jesus say they were doing?

He said they were "working lawlessness."

Don't miss the irony. In a sincere effort to please God, these people had laid down their lives in ministry in the Name of Jesus -- preaching about Him, working miracles in His Name and even casting demons out of people. These are power works. God had to be a part of these works somehow.

But Jesus summed up everything they'd done as working "lawlessness." Other Bible versions use words like "sin" and "iniquity" and "wickedness".

Excuse me: These people were NOT running prostitution rings, selling drugs, murdering people. They were telling people about Jesus, praying for them, healing them and breaking demonic powers over them.

Heavens to Betsy -- how could the world have ever stood up under such great wickedness?

Have you preached to people, ministered healing, cast out demons? And if you have, do you belong to this group Jesus rejects? And if not, why not you too? (Other than your natural good looks) why should you be magically spared when many, many other sincere people wind up being rejected? (Unless you don't take Jesus' warning seriously. -- "Oh, no... It can't possibly refer to me.")

The only reason you might be any different is if you're doing the will of the Father.

So, again I ask -- What is the will of the Father? Since it isn't "doing miracles in Jesus' Name", etc., what is the will of the Father? (Is it a "mystery" and if we don't guess right, we'll eternally live to regret it? Or is it likely that these verses might give us a clear indication of what the Father's will is?)

What do these verses tell us? Hear Jesus once more: "Depart from Me... I never knew you."

Written originally in Greek, the word Jesus used is ginosko, and it means to "know" something "from personal experience". There are other Greek words Jesus could have used -- words that mean knowing something "intellectually" like "I know all the attributes of God" or "I know what Jesus did on the Cross". But ginosko refers to personal knowledge -- knowledge gained from personal experience.

Consider the difference between "intellectual knowledge" and "experiential knowledge": Someone asks, "Do you know President Bush?" and I say, "Yeah -- what about him?" And they say, "How come you know him? When did you meet him and how did you get to know him?" And I say, "Oh! I thought you were asking if I know who he is. Sure, I know a lot about him! But, no, I've never personally met him."

Someone says, "Do you know Jesus?" and I say, "You bet!" And they say, "When you spend time with Him, what's He like to talk to?" And I say, "Oh! I didn't mean I actually hang out with Him, chilling. I mean I know about Him because the Bible tells me all about Him and I believe the Scriptures."

But Jesus makes a serious point that the people who get rejected have never been in a personal relationship with Him, a relationship in which He knows them personally and experientially. And if you look over at John 17.3, you'll see that the Bible teaches this relationship, this "knowing experientially", goes both directions.

Pay close attention! This isn't complicated and it isn't merely some theological "smoke and mirrors"! John 17.3 uses this same word (ginosko) in the very same way: "This is eternal life, that people know (ginosko) the Father and He Whom the Father sent [Jesus]."

Notice that what is being "defined" here is Eternal Life. (Aren't you interested in Eternal Life? Don't you want to know how to live eternally?) And "Eternal Life" is defined in verse 3 as "knowing (ginosko) the Father and His Son, Jesus."

Let's put this together and see what kind of sense it all makes. Jesus warns that the only people who'll get into the Kingdom of Heaven are those who do His Father's will -- but (next verse) His Father's will isn't preaching to lost and doing wonderful works including miracles and casting out demons, all in the Name of Jesus.

Apparently, the crowd of people in front of the Throne had been doing "righteous works" even though they were not in a personal, experiential relationship with Jesus.

("I never knew you...")

We can produce good works -- or at least what we think are good works -- from at least two sources: (1) from our fleshly determination to "live for God", or (2) from the leading of God's Spirit. Romans 8 gives us that same dichotomy: live by the natural flesh (its strength, its determination, its resources) or live by the Spirit -- and "those who are led by the Spirit, they are the children of God."

So you want to do the will of the Father, do you? Well -- here's His will: live in union with Jesus Christ; come to know Him more and more and live as He leads (and not by your fleshly determination to do what is "right".)

But why would Jesus call these people -- trying to please Him and trying to do the right things even if they're doing them outside of a personal, experiential relationship with Jesus... Why would He call them "workers of lawlessness"?

Galations reveals to us the powerful freedom that Jesus' death on the Cross brought. And in chapter 5, Paul cries out for us to never lose that freedom Christ brought -- freedom from the obligations of the Law, from having to satisfy God in our flesh and perform for His approval. No! We've been set free from the Law.

But having been set free from the Law and sin and death, we haven't been set free to then live according to the law of our flesh. Not at all! We've been set free from Law, sin and death so that we're now free to be led in our daily lives by the indwelling Holy Spirit. We've been set free from the Law, not to serve our carnal nature, but in order to live as Jesus Christ in this world. 

Here's the "lawlessness" Jesus is referring to: Though they were freed to let Jesus live His life through them, freed to be led and guided by the Holy Spirit -- these "wicked" people chose instead to walk apart from the Person and leading of Jesus Christ, and instead pursued religious activities from their flesh and their own self-will. Rejecting personal, experiential leading from the Spirit, they have once again eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, taking the determination of what is "right" and "good"  into their own hearts and minds rather than living in a close relationship with God in which He defines what is "right" and "good".

Choosing lives of independence from Jesus and rejecting spiritual interdependence, they became a "new breed" of Lawless Ones... Spiritual "outlaws" satisfied with doing religious works apart from an intimate, experiential relationship with Jesus and the leading of His Spirit.

I know that every church-goer who reads this blog will think that all that they're doing for God is coming straight out of their relationship with Jesus. But in my experience, I doubt much of that is going on. In fact, I see something much different. I see women in the "church" manipulated into feeling obligated to teach Sunday School class, children obligated to not shame their "christian" parents, men pressured to serve on "church" committees or manipulated by temptations of power and importance to serve in public positions; evangelistic "outreaches" in which people participate unwillingly (though they keep their hesitation to themselves -- don't want to reveal that they're less than top-notch "christians"); people who put money into the offering plate (and some even who tithe) out of a sense that if no one else is watching at least God is and He keeps track, too... better stay on His good side.

Why would a Believer tithe if it's neither an obligation nor (in and of itself) "pleasing to God"? If it wasn't a requirement of the church's evangelism course, why would a person share the Gospel with a fellow worker or a neighbor? A Believer would "go to church", pay a tithe, teach a class, pray for a sick person -- if the Spirit living within leads the person to do so. 

CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATION

Let's take the woman who teaches Sunday School class. Here's an idea that's sheer blasphemy -- she wakes up one Sunday morning, thinking tiredly how she's just not ready for corralling the kids and playing games and trying to control the uncontrollably energetic little people... She thinks, "Jesus? Am I doing this week after week because it's actually You doing it through me? Or am I just satisfying the expectations of my..." [choose one: Pastor, Superintendent, husband, Mother-in-law, best friend...]

And the thought suddenly occurs, "Jesus -- I may be doing this stuff for You, but are You doing this stuff through me. I know You're not interested in what I can do for You! You're interested in our "romance", our intimacy. I'm done wanting to perform for Your satisfaction and instead, I'd just like to get to know You, and know You a lot better than I feel I do now."

Does she stay home that morning and simply dump her responsibility? Not likely -- as that would not be a loving thing to do to the people she'd made promises to to cover an area of ongoing responsibility. But once she hears from the Lord that that effort on her part is not His work through her, then she talks to her pastor, superintendent or whoever is necessary, explaining that she can't continue carrying that organizational responsibility -- "Let's work out a plan for someone else to take this over or for the class to stop."

Freedom from obligation is not license to follow the urges of the flesh but a release to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, letting Jesus live His life from within. Once this woman is in close enough relationship to Jesus, from that Relationship she can lead the Sunday School class or step out of it, pay a tithe or pay half her wages, decorate the "church" or not, go to "church" or not -- all depending on how Jesus leads within.

Many "church leaders" would consider this some form of "anarchy" -- but the days of pressuring Believers to "live good lives" just to help them avoid "wasted" or "carnal" lives are over. This is the Day of Relationship, the Day in which Believers learn to walk according to the leading of the Holy Spirit (they are the children of God.)

Back to this ex-Sunday School teacher: When this woman stands in front of Jesus' Throne, is He going to say, "But you didn't sweep the church building, you didn't feed My sheep, you didn't prophesy or preach to the lost, you didn't do miracles in My Name and you didn't cast out demons!"

No.

Is Jesus going to say, "You swept the buildings, fed My sheep, cast out demons and healed the sick..."

No. Not at all. Know what Jesus is going to say to this woman?

"Hey! I know you!"

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. If you'd like to join a discussion about these ideas, please feel free to join our new KingdomScribes Forum and (after registering) open a new topic in the sub-forum, "Currents in the Church" or "Steps Into the Kingdom". We'd love to have you help build our Forum into a valuable Conversation amongst many in the Body of Christ today!     es

P.P.S. Also, if you check out my Shelfari bookshelves to the right on this blog, you can find and click on a tremendously useful book called, Dialogue With Jesus, by Mark Virkler. It's brought thousands of Believers from more "abstract" and "non-personal" relationships with God into relationships that are deep, powerful, life-transforming and filled with peace and joy. His technique is simple and safe -- you'll "open yourself" to God's "Voice" in ways which will bring clarity and illumination to the path He walks alongside with you more than you've ever experienced before. It's the most precious experience, knowing Jesus intimately and accurately. If you're hungry for more of Him, click on the picture of the book and it'll tell you more.     es

When God Submits to Man

Can't help it. When I read The Shack, I can only read a page or three before I have to stop and make some notes. And here's one of those notes:

In the chapter, "Wade Across the Lake", Jesus points out that in a relationship of love, no one dominates another. Even God refuses to dominate any human being -- that's the nature of human free will.

But then the author takes it a step further than I've considered before. He talks about how God, in fact, "submits" to us.

Instantly my thoughts flew to the Garden and I saw it in a new way. And to Ephesians 5 in which is defined the nature of love relationships in the Body of Christ as "mutually submitted, one to another".

Think about Adam in the Garden. When Adam chose to sin, did God contradict that choice? Not at all. Did God force Adam to do right? No, not at all. God allowed Adam to make his choice, hellish as it turned out to be, and by so doing He honored Adam's place to exercise his will, even against God's desire (and command.)

In a very real sense, God submitted to Adam. God allowed him to make that choice.

And God lets us receive the consequences, much as it wounds Him, because He's still submitted to humankind. Humankind may have blown it terribly, but having put the Creation into our hands and made it our responsibility, God has submitted to how we have chosen to exercise that responsibility (even to our placing it into the hands of Satan.)

And if God is so determined to honor our freedom as to even submit to our choices, how much more should we honor one another -- sometimes even in the face of very, wrong choices. On more than one occasion, I've had people who I've "poimened" get very mad at me because in the moment of their crisis, I didn't order them to do the "right thing". One man, for example, told me in a totally determined manner that he was finished with his marriage, that he was leaving his wife and would never come back. (It was a "done deal".) This man considered himself an "elder" over our local congregation and knew full well what the Bible taught about divorce. So as he sat beside me explaining his plans, I said, "You know that's not going to do any good, trying to solve it that way." And he cried out that he didn't care -- "It's over!" And so I said, "Well -- O.K. If that's what you're going to do, then know that I'm still available to you as you as a friend."

Later, after he'd figured out how to resolve things with his wife and wound up staying with her, he came back to clarify that I was "not his pastor anymore" because in his time of crisis, I didn't command him or order him to do what was "right". I agreed that I wasn't his "pastor anymore" (not that I had been before, anyway.) I also let him know that I will never try to sustain a relationship with a person in which they expect me to order them to do what is right -- thereby taking from them their freedom to make whatever choice (good OR bad) they want.

We don't exercise "authority" in the Body of Christ "like the kings of the nations lord it over [the pagans], and those exercising authority over them are called 'benefactors'. But you be not so..." [Lk 22.25f] We don't exercise control on any level in the Body of Christ for we are submitted one to another in truth and not pretense, honoring one another even as God honors us.

Closing remark: There are only a few, major obstacles to the manifestation of the Body of Christ, and one of them is religious control. Whereas Ephesians 4 describes the building up of the Body of Christ into His full stature, this "building up" cannot happen until the saints actually relate together in humility, honor and love.

But here's the main point:

As long as "christians" relate towards one another with suspicion, arrogance, separatism and disdain, the Body of Christ will never be manifested. Never. (Do you understand? -- NEVER.)

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. You can respond to this post directly (use the little "comment" tag below) or you can come onto our KingdomScribes Forum and start up a conversation about this issue. It's located at www.KingdomScribes.net/phpBB3 es

P.P.S. If you want further information about The Shack, look to the right and you'll find it on my bookshelves!!! (Is that cool?) Just click on its image. es

Don't Take Your Finger Off the Pulse...

Television 'Christianity" has never appealed to me and I've found few presentations through the years which truly impacted my spirit -- and much which grossly offended it. But just recently, Rory and Wendy (owners/managers of the international broadcasting network -- GodTV) sat down together to review the Lakeland revival and Todd Bentley's ministry over the last -- what? -- 70 days?

They showed a few clips from Lakeland -- excellent choices due to the credibility of the people confessing their healings publicly. Such testimonies cannot but be viewed with some level of skepticism since we know what human nature is like in its hunger for recognition, belonging, etc. which often causes people to "profess healings" only to be a part of what they're hungering for. Yet heaing testimonies such as these also have to be viewed in the Reality of Knowing the God Who Heals (Jehovah Rapha). To reject the possiblity that many of these people are being healed supernaturally flies in the Face of the very nature of our Father.

In this brief dialogue between Rory and Wendy on GodTV, both of them recognized that there have been some extreme behaviors and even some excesses in Todd's presentations during the Lakeland revivals. In fact, GodTV has apparently taken a substantial "hit" financially in response to their decision to feature these meetings on international TV. But they refuse to let this pressure (and that of accompanying, negative emails) remove their focus on God's Move in Florida.

In fact, Rory pointed out that he'd heard from missionaries in Nepal (whose country receives GodTV's signal) who while walking in the marketplaces, hear people talking about the outbreak of supernatural healing in Lakeland, Florida! This -- in a country officially set against the spread of Christianity, executing any Nepalese who become followers of Jesus! And emails of people claiming various healings from China, India, Pakistan, as well as the more typically "Christian" nations.

There's been a flood of negative critiques on the Web denouncing Todd's current ministry. Occasionally dipping into that "flood" to consider what someone claims to be a serious problem, I've come to a serious conclusion of my own. The Lakeland revival is having a purging effect on the Christians in the U.S. and around the world. It's highlighting the people who are more concerned about defending their "wineskins" then preparing for an unexpectedly New Wine.

When I read complaints from "Christian" magazine editors about why Lakeland is such a threat to the Church, what I really see are the personal biases and blindspots of the editor himself. When I read the criticism of a well-known "apostolic" conference speaker, I see the prejudices and darkened understanding of the speaker.

A simple example: People complain that Todd gets some of his direction for who God is currently healing from a angel named, "Emma". Personally, I love it when God uses someone powerfully who doesn't look and act like all the rest of the professional ministers I've known through the years. The idea of one of the world's currently foremost revivalists being short, bald and tattooed makes me think back to how religious people must have responded to that unknown crazy man who wandered in from the desert, preaching "Repent!" as he fed himself on locusts and honey, dressed crudely in the skin of a camel. Then again, centuries before that, I'm sure Elijah the Tishbite must have been a sight.

But back to Emma. Receiving direction from an angel as to where God's Spirit is focusing healing next in a meeting is not the same thing as receiving from an angel, a Gospel different from what Paul preached.

Excuse me. Aren't angels "ministering spirits, sent out to them who shall be heirs of salvation?" And of whom God says He's made his "angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." And if you've read the Scriptures, are you truly unaware of the bizarre history of how God has sent angels to minister to us, giving us leading, protection, spiritual sight (as in "Elisha! The hills are full of horses and chariots of fire round about us!")

If Todd were getting a new Gospel from the angel, Emma, I'd be concerned. But what concerns me more is that much of the so-called "church" has received a "gospel" different from that of Jesus. Unless Jesus were mistaken, the Good News of the Kingdom of God is "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give!"

The ones who have "received a Gospel different from that which I preached" are those whose "gospel" has become a system of carefully controlled, rational, logical, theological arguments, suppositions and theories, mixed with a collection of behavioral requirements, ("Don't smoke, don't chew, don't go with girls that do...") and a concatenation of ritualistic habits called, "This is how we do 'church'." Then these people have the audacity to call their religious formulas, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Hmmmm...

Back to Rory and Wendy and their dialogue over the Lakeland revivals and their continued support for what they see God doing through Todd...

Wendy said she'd been given a picture in the Spirit of a little baby in I.C. U. (Intensive Care Unit) with wires and monitors hooked to its tiny body. As she watched, the screen showing the baby's heartbeat showed tall spikes with every heartbeat -- the line darting up, then down, then up -- synchronized with its every beat.

Then God said to her, "This baby is the New Move of My Spirit I've brought through Lakeland, Florida." And He told Wendy, "Reach out, take its wrist and feel its pulse." She did so, and God finished with this command:

Don't take your finger off the pulse of the Lakeland revival...

My, my.


Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

News From Lakeland Woe-Be-Gone...

It's interesting to note that the group of people who complain about Todd (and his angels, tats, etc.) do NOT include people who have been healed. Some of those who have complained the loudest, haven't even watched one entire evening of Todd's ministry. To me, critiquing an event based on what others say and not first-hand info is -- well -- weak.

Shell and I have watched several evenings and some have seemed less "persuasive" than others. But in quite a few testimonies, the "credibility factor" is so high we can't help but trust the reality of the person's relief, if not their healing. And quite a few "healings" are totally believable. Of course, part of why I don't have trouble believing people can be healed is because I've personally witnessed supernatural, incontrovertible, "impossible" healings. (My wife, back in 1992, for example.)

But Todd's going to get some help from a new source. Apparently, three nationally respected ministers -- Che Ahn (Calif), John Arnott (Toronto) and Bill Johnson (Redding, Calif) -- are joining with Todd soon in a "commissioning service". This isn't an "ordination" since Todd is already an ordained minister, but these three ministers (representing the organization, Revival Alliance) are going to officially "commission" Todd as an evangelist and revivalist.

On Bill Johnson's blog, he responds to critics of his friendship with Todd by explaining that he and Todd have known each other personally for years. Bill's ministered and prayed together with him, received counsel and prophetic ministry from him -- in short, Bill says he knows Todd.

"And more importantly, he's my friend. More importantly, God calls him friend. And if you and I were ever friends on that level, and people hated you and turned against you, and started web pages to tear down your ministry, and criticized you to your friends, and wrote against you in Christian magazines and criticized you on the radio and wrote emails to other conference speakers and authors, I'd still be your friend."

If you'd like to carry on the "Lakeland" conversation any further with Shell and me, feel free to go on to our KingdomScribes Forum (newly created!) on the "Currents in the Church" sub-forum. (KingdomScribes.net/phpBB3)

Emil & Shell Swift

KingdomScribes.net

P.S. BTW -- That sub-forum's a good place to dialogue about Todd's "angels, tats, visions, etc." as well! es

Lakeland Reflections

"BAM!!!"

And someone falls to the stage floor. It's not Emeril Live -- it's Todd Bentley and the Lakeland revival (or restoration or renewal or whatever you want to call it, it's loud and filled with energy.)

Since I live in California (about as far from Florida as you can get) I haven't raced out to see the healing meetings, but with GodTV live broadcasts and people writing reviews, critiques and opinions by the dozens, I feel like I've gotten a pretty good dose of what's going on.

In the last six years, I've sat listening to Todd Bentley preach in person two or three times, I've listened to a dozen or more teaching on TV or CDs, and I've watched quite a few days of the current Lakeland meetings.

So I don't feel I have to rely on people's second-hand opinions about Todd's teachings. I've already gotten a pretty wide slice of what he has to say over the last few years. When I read a blog or an article complaining that Todd's teaching is heresy or unbiblical, I pay attention in hopes that someone is going to show me something I've missed. Hey -- I don't want to be misled just because I missed some awful teaching Todd gave somewhere!

But after considering each complaint I've found so far, I find none of them has any real substance. Though there are those who complain about Todd's tattoos, one of the most common complaints is that what Todd preaches is "not biblical", or (as one person neatly wrote) Todd's teachings "depart from historical Biblical Christianity's stances..."

This last complaint is rich, really rich. Saying that Todd's teachings "depart" from some "historical Biblical Christian stance..." sounds like Todd is teaching something unbiblical. In fact, all this person is saying is... well, nothing. There is no such thing as a "Biblical Christian stance" on anything. Historically, every Bible teacher has taken their own stance on the Bible. And all of them have disagreed to a greater or lesser degree with all of them.

This accusation (that Todd's teachings "depart from historical Biblical Christianity's stance") is dishonest because it implies that his teachings are "unbiblical", but no evidence is given showing a single teaching from Todd that is clearly unbiblical.

The only evidence given is that Todd's teachings don't agree with this man's theology.

That's not the same thing as heresy!

The areas in question more often than not are Todd's references to angels, visits to Heaven, conversations with saints in Heaven and so forth. Now -- you or I may choose to not believe Todd when he talks about seeing angels or visiting Heaven and talking with people there, but there's nothing unbiblical about a person having supernatural experiences such as these.

It would be different if Todd were teaching that to be saved, we need to have these supernatural experiences -- that would be teaching a "different gospel" than what Paul gave to us. But how could what Todd says be that different from what the apostle Paul taught, if Paul and the other, New Testament saints talked to angels, visited Heaven and saw things in the Spirit and not after the flesh?

As far as what Todd actually teaches, he's saying that the New Testament (indeed, the entire Bible for that matter) presents an accessibility to spiritual sight and experiences that surpasses what churches have typically taught for a long, long time. It's the unsurprising argument that too many Christians' "faith" is overly rational, intellectualized and divorced from the spiritual experiences of men and women throughout the New Testament.

Honestly, through the years I've heard Todd speak of visions, of angelic visitations, of information imparted supernaturally about people's sicknesses, etc., etc. -- and though these have often been quite strange, none of them have been without clear, biblical precedent.

And none of them have been contrary to clear, biblical teaching.

If you are one of the thousands worldwide who are paying attention to what's happening in Lakeland, FL, take the criticisms you read and hear with a grain of salt. When someone complains that "this teaching" or "that teaching" is "unbiblical", judge the criticism and consider whether that teaching disagrees with the Bible or disagrees with that person's, personal theology!

And when the criticisms go beyond theology into attacking the man himself ("his tattoos don't glorify God", "he spent some time in jail as a juvenile", "he honors Christian ministers of the past who were heretics", etc.) consider first how often what people swear is "true" are lies, and second how often we're told only enough of a truth to make someone look very bad, but were we to know the whole story, we often would not reach the same conclusions.

I'm sorry, but as you sort out what's happening in Lakeland, don't believe what anybody tells you (especially when they're "defending God" or "defending the faith"!) The truth is that there are people willing to deceive you on every hand -- and your only "protection" against being deceived is that the Holy Spirit dwells within you, protecting you from deception. (1 John 2.20-27) This is why John says that you don't need to have any man "teach you" -- not even about Lakeland, Todd, healing or heretics -- because the Presence of the Holy Spirit leads you into all Truth!

Now -- all this applies to you if you are one of the thousands worldwide who are paying attention to what's happening in Lakeland, FL. And if you aren't paying any attention to what is happening in Lakeland -- wake up.

Emil Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. By the way -- my wife Shell makes the point that if you're one of the people who just got healed there in Lakeland, you really don't care if Todd talks to angels or not! It's just like Jesus' healing of the paralyzed man by the Pool of Bethesda or the blind man who washed in the Pool of Siloam -- though the religious leaders accused Jesus of being a lawless sinner to both these newly healed people, all they cared about was that one could now walk and the other could now see! One of the things I appreciate about this current spate of healing miracles is that quite a few of them are confirmed by medical reports or credible testimony and are not able to be easily dismissed. es

It's the Truth Cause I Heard it on Fox

Everybody should not believe what they hear on any news outlet since "news" is no longer an unbiased and balanced reporting of facts... "News" is entertainment. What drives and directs news content is ad sales. It's simple. If there are two news programs, and one is careful, balanced and accurate, but the other is electrifying, scandalous and titillating, the second is going to attract the greater number of people and therefore the greater amount of advertising money. The second is going to survive and flourish whereas the first is going to fade into obscurity.

Next, think of the person you've heard in the past who says, "I'm ashamed of myself. As a Christian, I should have more interest in 'what's happening in the world', but I just don't follow the news. I haven't got the slightest idea of what's going on."

Is this a spiritual problem? Certainly. But the problem isn't that the person isn't guilty of not watching the news. The problem is believing that the news media is accurately portraying what's going on in the world.

The reality is that -- if you closely follow what the news media puts out -- you will not know what's going on in the world.

In the Bible, there's a wonderful statement about a tribe, the "men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do..." This is like a trumpet call to the followers of Christ. We who are followers of the truth, have a passion to know the truth about the times in which we live. Today, we are the ones who must "understand the times in which we live and what the People of God should do".

So, we want to "know our times"... How do we accomplish this? Listen to the news media? If you do, you'll never know the truth of what is happening in "our times".

How do we "know our times"? Only by inclining our ear to the Voice of God.

Someone cries out, "But God hasn't said anything about the riots in Whatever-stan or the human rights violations in Wherever-odia! How will I know the truth about those riots or those violations without the news media?" And again it must be said, the news media is not putting out truth, but half-truths, quarter truths, eighth truths alongside of innuendo, rumor, insinuation and scandal. When a follower of Jesus Christ listens to a newscast, he or she can never confidently accept the so-called report as truth.

But when a follower of Jesus Christ listens to Him, he or she hears God's truthful evaluation of the times in which we live. Do you honestly believe that the word of the news media is more accurate than the Word from the Lord?

If we take these things to heart, what does it look like? Do we turn off the TV news and toss out our daily newspaper? Maybe, to some degree. But not entirely. Here's a picture: The news shows emaciated children in some third-world country, rib bones sticking out, scars and boils on their bodies and stomachs swollen in hunger. You mute the "news report" and incline your ear to God. You lay it out there and say, "Father -- this hurts to see these children... but I don't know the truth about this situation. Sure, I can donate money to Such-and-Such Relief Organization, but will my dollar ever reach the children I've just seen? What is the truth of my times and what I should do..."

And God says something totally unexpected. He says, "No -- don't give a donation to the group just shown on TV, but contact so-and-so and give $150 today." Or God says, No- your money is not needed, but your prayers will help defeat the enemy's strategies in that land of starving children." Or He says, "Call upon Heaven for Justice! Cry out shamelessly for Justice to be done in that land and in those children's' lives! Pray for the hold Satan has on the political power of that nation to be broken and My Life, Love and Power to be released like a River across that land!"

Those followers of Jesus who know not to trust the news media, who know not to be led by the nose by news, become a people who know their times and what they should do, because they get there direction straight from the Throne of God.

Do you say, "Let me call Pastor, and see if he can tell me what to do"? Do you say, "Let me see if Such-and-Such Ministry has put out a White Paper on this terrible problem telling me what to do?" No. To become like the "sons of Issachar", it is you who must daily approach God and say, "Help me, Father, to understand the Truth of my times and what I should do."

Our Heavenly Father has not given us full access to His Person and Presence only so that we can go to another source for Truth. We are the people who "understand our times" because we know our God. As it says in Daniel 11.32: "The people who know their God will display strength and take action." (NASB)


Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

End of the World Scenarios?

We haven't put out anything on the KingdomScribes blog this last year because we've just been letting things develop in relationship to the KingdomScribes' vision. This last year of virtual silence has seen a great deal of growth in our lives and clarity from the Lord.

Having been hidden away "in the cleft of the Rock" for such a long time here in northern California, the Lord is moving Michele and me into a new field of "practical ministry". There are quite a few people near us -- about an hour away on the Pacific coast -- who are spiritually restless. They're ready to go into new places in God's "preparation of the Bride", but are unclear just what that looks like.

Which is O.K. We're unclear as well, but quite willing to move out of familiar church forms and find forms more suitable to the Move of God's Spirit today. In a sense, I personally feel like a part of me that's never yet been fulfilled is close to its fulfillment.

Just a few days ago I shared with Michele how all my life I'd loved sci-fi stories about the "end of the world". She looked at me suspiciously. Stories of the decimation of humankind due to a world-wide atomic bomb or a meteor crashing into the ocean or a Ebola virus killing 99% of the population hardly seemed very "christian" of me.

Agreeing with her (but still enamored of these stories) I asked the Lord why I have such twisted tastes in literature -- and He said it's because He created me this way. "It's Your fault?" I asked, and He told me it's the natural outgrowth of a character trait He designed in me -- He gave me a fondness for scenarios in which the entire infrastructure is destroyed, leaving people free to develop something new.

Like -- what?

Let's consider "infrastructure" first. "Infrastructure" is the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the continuation of a society or activity. Like buildings, roads, power plants, fuel, communications, etc. When the Ebola virus is released, for example, every one needed to drive buses, generate electricity, repair roads, restock groceries -- they're all gone. The infrastructure needed to keep society maintained is gone. Communities have shut down, streets are empty, cars are abandoned and nobody's "home" because society's "infrastructure" has been destroyed.

Instantly, I understood His point -- especially how it relates to the Kingdom.

In order to build the Church according to new patterns, a person has to be willing to release the old, religious infrastructure -- the rituals, the programs, the familiar, friendly, previously successful patterns of what "doing church" means. Understand me -- not destroy those patterns, but be willing to release whatever Jesus says is no longer part of the Church He's building.

There is in me a joyous expectation that in releasing the traditions of men, we can enter into the Living Church that Jesus Builds -- the Church which prevails over the gates of Hell itself.

It's vital to be clear on this: There is no need to tear down existing, religious structures. To "violently press into the Kingdom of God" does not require the "tearing down" of old line churches, denominations, etc. In fact, we're certain that any such focus is a distraction from receiving the New Wine of Jesus into New Wineskins. As we've said often, our focus is simple: we're going into new places in the Kingdom, places where Jesus leads and we follow. Basically, in respect to brethren who have no interest in spiritually traveling with us, we bless them and go our way.

In fact, our primary responsibility to older church forms and even the religious tradition of our Christian brothers and sisters is honor -- honor those who have gone before, and honor the function they still have in the Church of Jesus Christ. But our primary responsibility to God is to let Him hold the map, and walk into unknown places, guided by the safety of our hands in the Father's Hand.


Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. BTW -- many of these issues are dealt with excellently in George Barna's book, Revolution. For more information on this book, please click on its image in my Shelfari bookshelf up toward the top of this blog. es

P.P.S. If you'd like to join an ongoing Conversation about these issues (and other contemporary concerns in the Church), feel free to go to our KingdomScribes Forum, especially to the "Currents in the Church" sub-forum, and share your thoughts or questions. es

The Lament of the Bride...

Hello, All!

We wanted to tell you about a free e-book we're making available. It's entitled, Many Are Sick and Some Have Died: The Little Book of Christian Harmony. It confronts the wholesale refusal by Christians everywhere to Love one another as Christ Loves us. Awhile back, an old woman from Sacramento traveled north into our mountains -- not knowing us, she came to our congregation, drawn by the Lord, and laying hands on this Little Book, prophesied, "This book will bring great lamentation to churches across this land!"

---

Lamentation? Is this a Good Thing, bringing Lamentation to many churches?

Let me describe this Coming Lament - it's the Lament of the Bride found in the Song of Songs, 6.2-8.

In these verses, the Bride longs for Her Beloved, but has fallen into a profound slumber. She has showered and removed Her undergarment to lie warmly in her bed -- but then She hears Her Lover at the door of Her bedchamber -- He tries to reach the latch to open the door and enter the room of His Beloved?but He cannot. But does the Bride rouse Herself from Her sleep, rush and unlatch the door? Not at all! She has fallen into a slumber and, though stirred, finds the thought of putting Her robe on overwhelming and getting her newly washed feet dirty on the floor distasteful... So She delays, finally arises only to discover Her Beloved has gone! Sickened for the Love that She's lost, She rushes out into the streets to find Him -- but all She finds is abuse at the hands of the city watchmen who beat Her viciously, bruising Her tender flesh and tearing away her veil to leave her wretched and dishonored.

All She has is sadness and lamentation?

The Song of Songs portrays to us the Great Love of Jesus Christ for His Bride, the Church -- His Love for us! But amidst romantic passages about the fragrance of God's Spirit sweeping through the Secret Garden of our Romance with the King, there comes this dark passage of Love Lost and the bloodying of the Bride? Why? Why does this dark night have to come into Our Heavenly Romance?

It comes because in Her sleep -- Her slothful and numbing sleep -- the Bride rejected Jesus' Love. She lay in bed, having laid aside Her robe of righteousness and yet remaining self-satisfied that at least her feet were clean...

In order to open the door, She had to don the Robe of His Righteousness and "dirty her feet" -- but instead, the Bride rejected His Love.

Jesus says, in John 15, that we are to "abide" in His Love, even as He abides in His Father's Love. Does this mean we are to somehow "keep" Him "loving us" and thus "abide" in His Love?

Not at all -- there's nothing that can separate us from the Love of God. But we can separate ourselves from the Love of Jesus. We can refuse to allow His Love to enter into the bedchamber of our spiritual lethargy.

What is this "refusal" to allow the Love of Jesus to enter into our bedchamber? Jesus tells us exactly what "receiving His Love" means. He says we are to "abide in His Love" (John 15.10) and that therefore we are "to love one another" (John 15. 12, 17)

To "abide" in Jesus' Love is to "love the brethren".

To "abide" in Jesus' Love is to "love the brethren"!

But the Visible Church does not "love the brethren". Instead, it is filled with schism, accusation, betrayal between christians, backstabbing, disdain and mockery of other brethren, religious pride and dishonor of others and arrogant schisms amongst God's children into congregations, denominations, theologies and litergies. The Children of God -- being existentially united and one in Christ are not manifesting that oneness (which is, in fact, the same Oneness of Jesus and His Father -- John 17).

Are the Watchmen in The Song a blessing to the city? Not at all. Where the spiritual "watchmen" of the Kingdom of God should be ministering to the Bride in Her search for Her Beloved, they instead attack Her? They attack the Body, arrogantly claiming their "wounding of the Bride" somehow helps Her become more "holy" or ensures that Her "doctrine" is more "correct". Where a minister in the Body urges schism in the Body instead of Oneness, where a pastor mocks the Christians and congregations in his area or feels he must "compete" against them, where "christians" condemn "christians" and stand in judgment against them -- here, the Bride, desperately sick for the unifying Love she's unwisely rejected, is mauled by malice, bruised by blame, destroyed by division and dishonored by dissection.

In the Song of Songs, the Bride numbly lays in a self-satisfied sleep, fantasizing of Her Beloved but in fact refusing entry to His Love.

Here's this Little Book's message in a nut-shell:

The Church, the Body of Christ, has rejected Jesus' Love...

...the very Love into which He calls us (as in Eph. 4.1-2.) Paul commands us to...

Live and act as is appropriate

to those who have received the Call

that you have received...

That with all humility and unselfishness, and with patience, that we

Bear with one another lovingly, and (in the uniting bond of peace)

Make every effort to maintain the unity given by the Spirit"?

---

Paul warned the Corinthians that because they had also kept the Door closed on the Love of Jesus Christ and the Oneness of His Body, many of them were sick, and weak, and some even had died. (1 Cor 11.30)

In the Song of Songs, the Bride weeps in deep Lament for Her Beloved, sickened at having turned away His Love? As the Bride of Christ begins to discern the Love she's groggily rejected and the Oneness She's dishonored, She Laments for the Love of Jesus even as She begins to make every effort to manifest His Love in the Oneness of all who call upon the Lord Jesus and are One with Him.

The Lament of the Bride, finally becomes the Song of All Songs.

And for this purpose, this Little Book has been written.

Download this e-book in pdf format for free here:

Download Many Are Sick and Some Have Died

Feel free to share Many Are Sick and Some Have Died with others as you sense the Spirit's leading. One pastor in London asked permission to print it out, photocopy it and share it with his regional ministerial association. He mailed me a copy when he did so.

Bless you all!

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net

P.S. We're developing a KingdomScribes Bible Study Forum. It's main focus will be to equip disciples of the Kingdom of Heaven in accurately examining current, revelatory teachings in the Body of Christ as well as interpreting a variety of Biblical passages. Also, contemporary issues in the Church today may be discussed in the "Currents in the Church" sub-forum. es

For You iPoders Out There...

Just a short note on a recent feature implemented here at KingdomScribes... our teachings are now being made available via podcasts! The teachings available from Em&M Ministries are valuable for pressing into the New Things of God -- the invasion of His Kingdom into the kingdoms of this earth, the explosive power in our lives of joining the Word and the Spirit into one, the Pouring of New Wine into New Wineskins, and the Preparation of the Bride for Christ!

There are a couple of ways to access these teachings:

If you are an iPoder and have access the iTunes music store, look on the upper right
corner of the iTunes screen for a text box entitled, "Search Music
Store". Type in, "KingdomScribes" and it'll bring up "Bible Truths for KingdomScribes" with a tiny arrow after the title. Click that arrow and it'll bring up a complete list of current podcasts. Click the "Subscribe" button to be automatically kept up to date with new podcasts.

The original two podcasts include the seminal teaching for the Rightly Dividing the Word Tutuorial called "Surfing the Prophetic Voice of God". The other, "When Your Personal Prophecies are Tested", is a teaching designed to help you guard the prophetic Words of the Lord you've received from being derailed or stolen away before their fulfillment in your life. The rest of the podcasts deal with other issues important to any "scribe" today who is being "discipled by the Kingdom of Heaven"!

Now, if you DON'T use an iPod you can still listen to the podcasts, as long as you have a high speed connection (such as DSL, cable, etc.)

Click here for access and scroll down to the bottom of the page:

Enjoy!

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

The Well-Known Editor Has Gone Too Far This Time...

The internet is a wonderful resource -- but dangerous at the same time. On the Web, everybody has a voice, and many times the voices we hear are skewed or outright deceptive. It's our responsibility to judge what information we pull from the Web -- never accept anything at face value.

Recently, someone sent to me a copy of an OpEd piece by Charisma editor, J. Lee Grady. This piece comes at an opportune time -- I was just preparing a blog on Barna's book, Revolution, and felt astonished when Grady's hatchet-job showed up.

I read what Grady wrote and wondered (as I often do) how people who misrepresent the thoughts of others ever get into positions of influence. It reminds me of a quip by Karl Barth (author of the massive Church Dogmatics) who, when asked to respond to a reviewer's criticisms, responded, "I'd feel much different about it if they'd actually read what I write before they comment on it." To my understanding, in Grady's bash, he says nothing that shows me he first, respectfully grasped what Barna was saying before wading in to "warn" Charisma's subscribers of Barna's "Serious Proposal".

(For the rest of this blog, I'll put quotes from Grady's OpEd article into inset paragraphs with this font.)

"GEORGE BARNA'S DANGEROUS PROPOSAL:
The well-known Christian researcher has gone too far this time: He's advocating the demise of the local church."

I've got the book right here. Grady claims some things about Barna's book that are either untrue or "spun". I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I'll pull a few quotes out of the book to show that Grady has not fairly represented Barna's message.

What is it, according to the polls he'd been taking for the last, several years, that Barna is saying "revolutionary Christians" are rejecting? On p.13 Barna says that these spiritual revolutionaries,

"have no use for churches that play religious games, whether those games are worship services that drone on without the presence of God or ministry programs that bear no spiritual fruit. Revolutionaries eschew ministries that compromise or soft sell our sinful natures [in order] to expand organizational turf. They refuse to follow people in ministry leadership positions who cast a personal vision rather than God's. Who seek popularity rather than the proclamation of truth in their public statements, or who are more concerned about their own legacy than that of Jesus Christ."

Any problem with that perspective? You might look at it and say, "But when he says this, maybe he means something else..." and I say, read what he actually says and tell me you don't feel the same passion for spiritual reality that Barna affirms.

On p. 14 Barna continues:

"Many Revolutionaries have been active in good churches that have biblical preaching, people coming to Christ and being baptized, a full roster of interesting classes and programs, and a congregation packed with nice people. There's nothing overtly wrong with anything taking place at such churches. But Revolutionaries innately realize that it is just not enough to go with the flow...They are seeking a faith experience that is more robust and awe inspiring, a spiritual journey that prioritizes transformation at every turn, something worthy of the Creator whom their faith reflects. They are seeking the spark provided by a commitment to a true revolution in thinking, behavior and experience, where settling for what is merely good and above average is defeat. Revolutionaries zealously pursue an intimate relationship with God, which Jesus Christ promised we could have through Him."

This is certainly what I've been telling our people! We're not called to "go along just to get along" but to be world-changers!

"Pollster George Barna has provided a valuable service to leaders in business, politics and ministry by studying data and identifying trends. As a social analyst, he warned us in his 1990 book, The Frog in the Kettle, that evangelical values have not been embraced inside our churches.

"But Barna has crossed a line with his new book, Revolution (Barna Books, a division of Tyndale House, $17.99). The tempered sociologist has now become something of a mad scientist. By cooking the numbers, reinterpreting the data and injecting his own biases into this odd experiment, he has created a Frankenstein that is now on the loose.

"We should all be concerned about this monster.

"Barna's theory is that large numbers of American Christians are disillusioned with the church and have quit the Sunday morning routine. He applauds this trend, and has labeled these church dropouts "revolutionaries" who--in his opinion--have more spiritual creativity and passion than stick-in-the-mud traditionalists.

"He also believes that those who have left the mainstream church scene will overhaul modern Christianity, describing their mission as 'a daring redefinition of the church as we know it.'"

Barna claims that people all over America are leaving "mainstream churches" which have rejected the call to a radical commitment to Jesus Christ. But they're leaving "mainstream churches" in order to press into a radical, "Kingdom" lifestyle. He's saying that people all over are hungry for Kingdom reality.

This is a problem?

Let me toss this in here: throughout the book, Barna treats the local congregation as a viable and continuing expression of the Church. He doesn't predict its demise -- he IS predicting the demise of the "mainstream" church which has abdicated its commitment to living a revolutionary lifestyle in this world. And what is Bill Johnson [When Heaven Invades, Earth] advocating? Bill's leading everyone who'll lend him an ear to abdicate traditional, shallow "christian" lives in order to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven wherever we put our feet. This is the "revolution" that Barna is reporting on. What he's finding in his polls, though, isn't the mature, spiritual vision that Bill's proclaiming, but Barna's saying that people all over America are walking out of "mainstream churches" in search of something worth living for and dying for.

Is this a shocking idea -- that "mainstream churches" all over America are failing to lead people into the Kingdom invasion?

Consider Barna's list of the "Revolutionary's" seven passions (pp. 22ff) -- The Revolutionary...

- is passionate about intimacy in worship:
- is passionate about inviting those who do not yet know God into the same miraculous and intimate relationship we have:
- is passionate about deliberately, intentionally growing spiritually (never satisfied with what they know of God but wanting more...):
- is passionate to serve others, to put the interests of others above their own;
- is passionate to use all their personal resources as godly stewards to invest in the
Kingdom of God;
- is passionate to form knitted relationships, providing "not only encouragement but also loving accountability for spiritual integrity."
- is passionate to model Spirit-led lifestyles in their own homes, making even their homes (or especially their homes) a sanctuary for God.

Most ministers we connect with share these "passions" along with Barna. We might put other "passions" on our own lists -- but these seven are the ones Barna says he's culled from thousands of polls. Barna is saying that people all over the nation are leaving "mainstream mediocrity" in a passionate search for spiritual reality not offered in traditional "wineskin" churches.

Personally -- I agree.

"He offers a gloomy assessment of the future of the American religious scene, claiming that by the year 2025 (1) the number of churches in this country will dramatically decline; (2) church attendance will drop while at the same time the 'revolutionaries' will be devoting their time to other 'spiritual events'; (3) donations to churches will drop; and (4) fewer clergy will receive a livable salary while denominations are forced to make huge cutbacks.

"Barna seems to welcome this scenario, and he makes disaffected Christians out to be the heroes in his bizarre sociological model. They are tired of tithing, tired of boring sermons, tired of the religious routine. So, in their revolutionary zeal--with Barna as their mentor--they buck the system and start meeting together in glorious spontaneity at coffee bars and homes.

"Says Barna: 'The Bible neither describes nor promotes the local church as we know it today.'"

Let's remove the "spin": Barna is saying that what people typically consider "church" isn't at all what Acts shows that the church really is. And I'm sure you've preached that sermon before!

"If you still go to church, Barna makes you to feel like a weirdo..."

Listen -- I've read Barna's book, and nothing he said made me feel like a "weirdo" .

"...We are behind the times. According to Barna's research, the really relevant Christians who care about Jesus and love people will say adios to their pastors and write Ichabod on the doors of ecclesiastical buildings."

Not only does Barna not say this, nowhere in the book does he demonstrate the attitude that Grady accuses him of having.

"He envisions a 'spiritual awakening' in which people are drawn away from the church, not drawn toward it."

Specifically -- drawn away from the "old wineskins" of traditional, religious organizations which have substituted human agendas for God's agenda -- into a spiritual awakening in which every formal expression of the true Church will be greater and broader than what the traditional church form allows.

And Barna isn't advocating getting rid of local churches (not at all!) He's not saying that people must participate in "para-church" ministries (though he says that for many people, para-church ministries, short-term missions, etc. are the deepest and most viable expressions of a committed and revolutionary lifestyle.) Barna is reporting that traditional church forms are failing to provide the revolutionary lifestyle into which Jesus is calling His followers.

??? This is a problem???

"Barna even provides a creed we can recite at the end of the book, which includes this statement: 'I am not called to attend or join a church. I am called to be the Church.'"

Barna says, "I am not called to attend or join a church. I am called to be the Church." In the beginning of the book, Barna makes a very, clear point about "church" and "Church". One is small "c" and the other is big "C". He uses "church" to refer to "the congregation-based faith experience, which involves a formal structure, a hierarchy of leadership, and a specific group of believers. The term Church, on the other hand, refers to all believers in Jesus Christ, comprising the population of heaven-bound individuals who are connected by their faith in Jesus Christ regardless of their local church connections or involvement." (p.x)

In the context of Barna's book as a whole, his statement that we aren't called to "attend" a "church" but to "be the Church" is simply drawing the distinction between what is typically a human organization vs. a spiritual identity; we go to a church but we are the Church. He's not putting down local congregations -- he's only emphasizing that when the old wineskin is empty, spiritually serious people go looking for Reality.

Furthermore, Barna says, (p.38), "The Revolution is not about eliminating, dismissing, or disparaging the local church. It is about building relationships, commitment, process, and tools that enable us to be the God-lovers we were intended to be from the beginning of creation...[The Revolution] is not about church. It's about the Church -- that is, the people who actively participate in the intentional advancement of God's Kingdom in partnership with the Holy Spirit and other believers."

In the chapter entitled, "A New Way of Doing Church", (pp.61ff), Barna says, "For some Revolutionaries, their congregational experience is the linchpin of their faith journey. For many others, a local church plays a minor role in their journey...Yet a majority of Revolutionaries are involved in some form of ?church'."

"In case you are wondering how Barna handles Hebrews 10:25 ('Let us not neglect our meeting together'), he conveniently dismisses this apostolic directive by saying that such gatherings during the first century were spontaneous and had no resemblance to modern worship services."

I agree with Grady's comment about this particular Scripture. In fact, after reading the book, I picked this particular part out and told Michele that Barna's ecclesiology lacks integrity on this issue -- in one place in the book he's calling for committed local relationships for encouragement and accountability, and in another he's dissing the regular assembly of Believers as Heb 10 requires.

But consider this: have you ever agreed completely with someone preaching or proclaiming revolutionary teachings? Barna's attempting to help blast Christians out of a complacent rejection of the coming Kingdom of God based on defending traditions of men. So he gets a little off balance at some points? That's fine. When we hear or read anyone, it's up to us to "judge the word".

And the gist of Barna says is great. And what isn't great is easily balanced.

"Says Barna: 'Such interactions [as described in Hebrews 10:25] could be in a worship service or at Starbucks; it might be satisfied through a Sunday school class or at a dinner in a fellow believer's home.' In other words, church is up for grabs. Define it how you wish, as long as you don't define it the traditional way."

Actually, if you look at Heb 10, there's nothing in it that says the "assembly" is from 10 AM to 12 noon, composed of opening hymns, announcements, worship and a sermon. There's nothing in Heb 10 that says the "assembly" can't be at Starbucks or down at the park or over at the Wagner's house. Barna isn't dissing "the traditional ways" -- he's just saying don't limit it to only traditional formats.

??? Problem with that???

"Barna makes a few solid points, particularly when he emphasizes the need for all Christians--not just clergy--to actively engage in ministry. And his concerns about dry, anemic formalism in some churches are appropriate.
But what Barna wants to do is reinvent the church without its biblical structure and New Testament order--and without the necessary people who are anointed and appointed by God to lead it. To follow this defective thesis to its logical conclusion..."

When an apologist (like Grady) says, "To follow this to its logical conclusion..." he's really saying, "If we exaggerate Barna's ideas and take them to extremes that Barna has not taken them..." Grady's speculations here are absolutely not supportable by any of Barna's words.

"...would require us to fire all pastors, close all seminaries and Bible colleges, padlock our sanctuaries and send everybody home to be discipled by somebody on the Internet or at a "spontaneous" worship concert. (After all, who needs buildings? Megachurches are so '90s.)

"Barna is also surprisingly absorbed with American culture and seems out of touch with global spiritual trends. As a result his book has relatively no application in developing nations where churches today are growing faster than ever. I can't imagine telling an Indian, Nigerian or Chinese church planter these principles. The vibrant new churches in those countries, in fact, are much better biblical models of what God wants to do in the United States than anything Barna has suggested here."

Barna is NOT trying to lay out a model for a new church -- he IS saying that the traditional churches in America are going through a radical transformation and the polls indicate it's happening and it's happening NOW. His point isn't, "Let me tell you how to DO church..." His point is, the Revolution's happening, the polls show it's a real transition in how huge numbers of people "do church" -- and "the more you can anticipate some of the transitions resulting from these trends, the greater will be your ability to help shape the world in ways that are likely to honor God and advance your spiritual maturity." (p.48)

"The message of Revolution is not for Christians in the Third World, and it is not for us. With all respect to Barna, who has helped us in the past with his facts and observations, this flawed proposal needs to be recalled before it causes some serious damage."

Final comment: Many of Grady's remarks are couched in a mocking tone. "Mad scientist...cooking the numbers...he's created a Frankenstein...now on the loose...we should be concerned about this monster...etc." This cynical tone is a rhetorical tool that tries to move with innuendo and insinuation instead of wisdom and revelation.

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net

P.S. For those of you interested in finding out more about Revolution, by George Barna, please go to my Shelfari bookshelves towards the top of this blog, and click on the image of the book. (How cool!)

P.P.S. Also, if you want to further discuss this post, or any of our posts, please join or on-going Conversation about "Currents in the Church" in the KingdomScribes Forum at KingdomScribes.net/phpBB3

A Trail of Tears... But Joy Comes in the Morning!

CLF Many people wonder about the congregation we pastor. Here's a short summary of who we are and what motivates us to press on!

I've pastored a congregation in a small, mountain community for 23+ years, starting back in 1982. Our community has about 1,700 people, and we've pastored longer than any of the other, local pastors.

We have probably the smallest of the small fellowships in our region. And, IMHO, we have the best!

First, let me explain the concept of topos as applied to local congregations. Then, we'll talk about the topos of our local congregation, CLF.

In Rev. 2 we read the following, and especially note the emboldened words:

1 "To the messenger of the church in Ephesus, write: The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, the one who walks among the seven gold lamp stands, says:
2 I know what you have done--how hard you have worked and how you have endured. I also know that you cannot tolerate wicked people. You have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not apostles. You have discovered that they are liars.
3 You have endured, suffered trouble because of my name, and have not grown weary.
4 However, I have this against you: The love you had at first is gone.
5 Remember how far you have fallen. Return to me and change the way you think and act, and do what you did at first. I will come to you and take your lamp stand from its place if you don?t change.
6 But you have this in your favor--you hate what the Nicolaitans are doing. I also hate what they?re doing.
7 "Let the person who has ears listen to what the Spirit says to the churches. I will give the privilege of eating from the tree of life, which stands in the paradise of God, to everyone who wins the victory. (GWV)

The word "place" ("take your lamp stand from its place") in verse 5 is the Greek word topos. In Strong's, topos is defined, "the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly; opportunity, power, occasion for acting."

These terms, "opportunity, power, occasion for acting" are really important. Other sources relate places where topos is used in a military sense as a "strategic position". In other words, you might use topos to describe the strategic placement of soldiers on a battlefield, such as fighting from a mountain top instead of from an exposed place in a valley. The position which is strategically best would be called topos.

It's also used in Eph 4.27, "Neither give place to the devil." Understanding what topos means makes this warning much more powerful. We could paraphrase verse 27 as, "Don't give the devil a strategic position in your life from which to attack you." A position of "power".

Now -- back to Rev 2.5:

"I will come to you and take your lamp stand from its place if you don?t change."

Here's a warning to the Church at Ephesus -- "Repent, or I'll remove your Lampstand from its topos"...its place of strategic opportunity.

The primary interpretation of this verse deals with the repentance of the Church. But a valid application can be drawn from the idea represented here that a local congregation has been given a topos, a position of strategic opportunity.

In fact, if you look in any city or region at the variety of godly fellowships scattered about, it's not at all hard to appreciate the existence and ministry of every one. Few congregations (and every cult) believe that they and they alone are the "only true church" in an area. Most Christians can agree that in fact, every congregation in particular is good at some aspect of ministry in a community.

For example: One might be very good at ministering to the public welfare through benevolence. Surely this is a part of the Good News of Jesus Christ (unless you think giving a cup of cold water is somehow NOT part of Jesus' concern...re: Mt 25.35!)

Another might be very evangelistic, winning the lost. Another might minister to those whose taste in worship is traditional (hymns, 20 minute sermons, etc.) and yet another raises the roof in youth-oriented ministry that blows right past 12 noon with no one even noticing.

The point is, unless a congregation has so blown it (like Ephesus) that God's pulled its candle out, then each fellowship has a topos, a strategic position, given to it by God that no other church in an area has.

Specifically, CLF ("Christian Life Fellowship", our congregation) has a calling that God has given to us which no other congregation in our region shares. God is raising up in our congregation a people and a ministry, an identity and a destiny, that only this congregation has. We have a topos, a position of strategic opportunity.

And that topos, that strategic opportunity, is to be "early morning people, in the dawn of a new Day".

God is on the Move. He's the Cloud by Day and the Fire by Night. He's moving out of the old traditions of men, the old wineskins, and going into places that none of us know. We are a people who are content to leave old and familiar places to be led blindly into new places we cannot yet see. As in Isa 42.16, despite our "blindness", He'll bring us by a way that we don't know; He'll lead us in paths we've never known: He'll make darkness light before us and make crooked things straight. He'll do these things for us, and never forsake us.

A note on "church history" is in order here. Not "ancient" history, but a little history of our own congregation -- CLF. Back in January of 1990, God spoke through some of our people (we had people in those days!) He warned that though there had been great pruning and purging in the Church as a whole and that in our congregation, specifically, His purging wasn't over yet. By '95, we'd lost half our people and the Lord began speaking through me that our "church" was going to "die". By 2000, we had only a fraction of our congregation left, and by 2003 we had no one from the original congregation except one woman.

God dismantled the original CLF in order to bring about a totally new fellowship -- this one. We, so to speak, are on the ground floor of something not seen before in this world. God would not have taken us through the excruciating process of ending the old "church" form, if what He wants to do henceforth could have been done in the "old wineskin". It's parallel to a thought by the Apostle Paul in Galatians -- if salvation could have come in any way other than the death of Jesus, then His death would be unnecessary. Just so -- if the raising up of a new fellowship here in Willow Creek could have come in any way other than the death of the old, then all the suffering we experienced would have been unnecessary.

But God won't and He can't pour New Wine into old wineskins. It will not, it cannot happen.

Back in 1990, one of the women had a vision. She saw herself in this vision holding some beautiful piece of art in her hands -- like needlepoint on tapestry, but fantastically complex and very, very beautiful. She'd put hundreds of hours into crafting this piece of fabric. Suddenly, she realized that Jesus stood next to her. Holding up this precious work of time and love, she asked if He'd like to have it and He did. He took it from her hands and instantly, fiercely, threw it into a roaring fire in which it burned in a burst of flame. Shocked, she asked why He'd destroyed it, and He said, "That tapestry represented your "church life". It showed how you went to "church", how you prayed, how you loved your husband and family, how you cared for others, how you worshiped and how you did everything as a Christian. But your life is not supposed to be a product of your religious determination. I don't care so much what you can do for Me, but what I can do through you, if you let Me."

That woman, by the way, wasn't able to let go of her beautiful, Christian way of life. She left us as well as almost all the others. God stripped away from CLF all its ways of doing "church". For over a decade, God has continued stripping every aspect of "business as usual" away from this congregation -- and everyone who refused to let go of one precious "tradition" after another, found Him sweeping them out as well.

Another image helps explain the process. Again, in 1991, I said, "It's like there's a Greyhound bus, and God's the driver. It's waiting at the bus stop, He's gunned it a time or two and called out, 'Get on board!' to everyone standing outside. A few people have gotten on board, but many are still considering it outside. But the