Ship of Fools: Warped faith

Thread: Warped faith Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027031

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

Ive been thinking about the Tony Anthony saga and more recently the defence and assistance he receives from his friend and is has lead me to wonder if a person is brought to Christ by a charlatan but unlike some charlatans who actually teach the word quite well even though they are stealing thousands/millions , this charlatan teaches a warped version of the gospel placing more emphasis on bits containing "preach the gospel no matter what/how" and omitting parts like "dont lie or rip people off" amongst many other adjustments they make to suit their position, where does this person fit? deceiving in the name of the Lord one minute and then preaching the word against deceivers the next whilst genuinely feeling that they are a Christian doing the right thing and everybody else in Christendom is wrong.

How can this person be helped?

[Edited to remove a name as it could be potentially problematic, and it is not necessary.]

[ 28. March 2014, 01:05: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

All sorts of things are done in the belief that what the doer is doing is proper and in the Name of the Lord. You might want to ask what the pilots that flew into the Twin Towers thought, for instance. Or, for that matter, Fred Phelps.

Unfortunately, "free will" means that any person can be mistaken, just as any person can be misled.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Please stay away from any Tony Anthony specifics in this discussion. There are some ongoing developments with legal implications and some risk of crossing Commandment 7.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Nothing can be done to help people like that. It's their victims that need help.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

Doesn't St Paul somewhere say something along the lines of "I don't care how the gospel is preached so long as it is preached"?

I would say that someone who has had the mixed message of "Jesus is Lord" + {a whole load of wrong stuff} preached unto them is able to make a commitment of faith, and become a Christian, and then sift out the rubbish from the original message and find that the bits that were true still are true. People do it all the time. That's how faith develops.

[ 28. March 2014, 08:52: Message edited by: Lord Jestocost ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

My wife has been long been using the phrase "evangelastic" to describe the use of stories which stretch the truth for the sake of effect. I quite like that, it seems to illustrate the principle at stake here.

The ninth commandment is 'do not bear false witness'. And Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, argues strongly against the value of swearing oaths to somehow impress on others the truthfulness of what you are saying. His simple standard is that we should be known as people of truth, for whom our yes means yes and our no means no.

There is always a temptation to embellish stories to bring out meaning in more vivid, more convincing ways. But when proclaiming the gospel, it seems to me that we should always set that aside. It gives the impression that the drive to convert is more important than the truth of what we proclaim. It subjects the gospel to advertising and marketing criteria, where effect is more important than a high standard of truthfulness. It is a form of 'spin'.

And we know from many walks of life that 'spin', once revealed for what it is, damages the credibility of all who use it.

I say we should not spin. The truth of the gospel does not need spin. Honest proclamation is a standard which is faithful to the teachings of Jesus. Spin is not.

[ 28. March 2014, 09:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
I would say that someone who has had the mixed message of "Jesus is Lord" + {a whole load of wrong stuff} preached unto them is able to make a commitment of faith, and become a Christian, and then sift out the rubbish from the original message and find that the bits that were true still are true. People do it all the time. That's how faith develops.

Like the whole anti-vaccination thing in Texas, huh?

You must be referring to Phillipians 1:17, for the record.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

Sorry But I can't follow this because I don't know about the saga mentioned. Is it some wrestler that you are talking about?.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Nice to see again, barrea

It's not the ex-WWF wrestler. Suggest you just google the name for alternatives. We're adopting a policy of not discussing the specifics because there is ongoing controversy re Tony Anthony, and some legal implications for the Ship if people comment specifically about the truth or falsehood of various statements.

Feel free to comment on the general discussion about truthfulness and proclamation of the gospel.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is always a temptation to embellish stories to bring out meaning in more vivid, more convincing ways.

It's very often seen in testimonies offered at evangelistic events, or even as part of baptismal services or admission to church membership. Why people seem to think a "I was a drug addict/alcoholic, violant gangster then Jesus changed my life" testimony is evangelistically useful I've never worked out - except when talking to violant gangsters with drug/alcohol addictions that is. Most people would think "I'm not bad like that, why is this relevant to me?", I'd have thought.

Let's have more boring testimonies, from ordinary, normal, boring people who have found meaning, community, value in Christ. Who probably haven't had a Damascus Road conversion, but gradually grown into the faith. Testimonies that show what Christ means to people very much like most other people in society.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
I would say that someone who has had the mixed message of "Jesus is Lord" + {a whole load of wrong stuff} preached unto them is able to make a commitment of faith, and become a Christian, and then sift out the rubbish from the original message and find that the bits that were true still are true. People do it all the time. That's how faith develops.
Like the whole anti-vaccination thing in Texas, huh?

You must be referring to Phillipians 1:17, for the record.

Oh, when it comes to the people who deliberately and actively mislead then I'm more a Matthew 18.6 kind of guy. But I hold out hope for those who have, through no fault of their own, had the false stuff preached at them mixed up with the truth.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Let's have more boring testimonies, from ordinary, normal, boring people who have found meaning, community, value in Christ. Who probably haven't had a Damascus Road conversion, but gradually grown into the faith. Testimonies that show what Christ means to people very much like most other people in society.

I once heard a moving and memorable testimony from a man who'd returned to faith. This was at what I suppose to be a fairly MOTR CofE church (though I'm not a good judge of these things). But IME this kind of church doesn't normally encourage public testimonies. It's not part of the culture.

I've heard various people from the theological mainstream mention their experience of coming to faith - especially the clergy and lay preachers. Their stories aren't very dramatic, and I suppose they don't stick in the memory for that reason.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Doesn't St Paul somewhere say something along the lines of "I don't care how the gospel is preached so long as it is preached"?

I would say that someone who has had the mixed message of "Jesus is Lord" + {a whole load of wrong stuff} preached unto them is able to make a commitment of faith, and become a Christian, and then sift out the rubbish from the original message and find that the bits that were true still are true. People do it all the time. That's how faith develops.

I do wonder though if the person would have ever been converted at all if he had not been given the wharped version which enabled them to justify their own present actions and personality flaws and be a christian at the same time.

I am but a simple congregation member but I have witnessed times when Revs/Pastors/Priests have had to be stern (its happened to me a few times too) and say simply "you must not do that" so if somebody has never had that when they needed it then its difficult to gauge how they would react if they received it and if they would have ever have become a Christian had at some point the person comforting them and counselling them said "no that is wrong you should not do that any more"

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Let's have more boring testimonies, from ordinary, normal, boring people who have found meaning, community, value in Christ. Who probably haven't had a Damascus Road conversion, but gradually grown into the faith. Testimonies that show what Christ means to people very much like most other people in society.

AMEN!!!!

One word EGO

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Let's have more boring testimonies, from ordinary, normal, boring people who have found meaning, community, value in Christ. Who probably haven't had a Damascus Road conversion, but gradually grown into the faith. Testimonies that show what Christ means to people very much like most other people in society.

Yeah, hear hear. I'm sure ego is part of it but I guess there's also a sense of wanting to make a good impression for the Lord. A sense that we've got these people in front of us and this may be their only chance to hear the gospel of Jesus, so we'd better make it count!

Barnabas62 is dead right though, IMO; we Christians should be known as people whose word is our bond, whose 'Yes' and 'No' can be entirely relied upon. Not as people who spin and exaggerate!

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

Sorry,got the wrong Tony, have now Googled the right one, and remember reading his book. this should be an interesting discussion.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
I would say that someone who has had the mixed message of "Jesus is Lord" + {a whole load of wrong stuff} preached unto them is able to make a commitment of faith, and become a Christian, and then sift out the rubbish from the original message and find that the bits that were true still are true. People do it all the time. That's how faith develops.
Like the whole anti-vaccination thing in Texas, huh?

You must be referring to Phillipians 1:17, for the record.

Taking on board Philippians 1 18 "the Gospel is preached, and in this I rejoice" has been a major part of my journey to becoming more accepting of others I have fallen out with in the past.

However, in the immediate context we also have Paul pointing out the wrong motives of some in preaching the Gospel, and in other epistles he names names and explicitly warns christians to have nothing to do with the people in question.

I think that all too often, christians go for the bits of the Bible that fit on nice posters with kittens and flowers and not the sterner bits. We need both.

Just because the Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all and we can rejoice in it being preached in all circumstances does not constitute an automatic endorsement of those preaching it or the methods they use.

As to how best to help the self-deluded, that's another problem.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why people seem to think a "I was a drug addict/alcoholic, violant gangster then Jesus changed my life" testimony is evangelistically useful I've never worked out

I don't think it's designed to be "evangelistically useful". I think it's designed to sell books and concert tickets (sorry: "rally donations") to the massed ranks of Already-Saved GLEs who can't get enough of incredible stories about how Great and Powerful their God is.

Just like in all good stories, the Hero has to have a Real Challenge in order for his victory to be exciting and impressive, and a perfectly ordinary person making a gradual journey towards faith doesn't make for a good story because it isn't much of a Challenge for the Holy Spirit. There need to be Demons for Him to fight! A great battle of Good and Evil! Drama, tension and action! And if some or all of it turns out to be completely made up then so bloody what - it's about selling a good story, not truth.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Perhaps if there were more 'ordinary, normal boring' evangelists there'd be more 'ordinary, normal boring testimonies'. Most of the evangelists we hear about these days seem to be very big personalities who've lead dramatic lives. They probably appeal to people a bit like themselves.

OTOH, some of the evangelists of the past seem to have had a similar difficulty in attracting normal, respectable, comfortable people to the gospel. Jesus himself curiously commented that he came for sinners, not respectable people. (Matthew 9:12)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes, the sinners were the ones who recognised that their lives were, in fact, not the exciting glamourous adventure that sin is cracked up to be in the movies, but utterly boring, or if not actually boring, unspeakably sordid. In my experience they're often grappling with the truth far more than the respectable lot.

[ 28. March 2014, 11:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Let's have more boring testimonies, from ordinary, normal, boring people who have found meaning, community, value in Christ. Who probably haven't had a Damascus Road conversion, but gradually grown into the faith. Testimonies that show what Christ means to people very much like most other people in society.

The problem is that if you don't know these ordinary boring people, what they say will have very little impact. If you know them and have seen the Holy Spirit working in their lives, then what they have to say is powerful.

My own inclination is to say that, at best, public testimonies might grab a non-Christian's attention and cause them to investigate Christianity.

Moo

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't think it's designed to be "evangelistically useful". I think it's designed to sell books and concert tickets (sorry: "rally donations") to the massed ranks of Already-Saved GLEs who can't get enough of incredible stories about how Great and Powerful their God is.

I think there can also be a heavily vicarious element to all of these things - hence why over time such things become more and more extreme.

The 'satanism' scare of the late 80s was accompanied by ever more extreme testimonies along these lines (such as claims of children being bred for sacrifice etc).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My own inclination is to say that, at best, public testimonies might grab a non-Christian's attention and cause them to investigate Christianity.

Yes, but while we can hope that the power of the Gospel works regardless of the "before/after" bit, there's also a big danger that if people find out the testimony is not all it's cracked up to be, they will assume the same is true of the Gospel, thus rejecting the whole thing.

The answer to this is not to carry on pretending the inflated testimony* is true but to implement better checks on public testimonies. The more exotic the claim and the larger the potential audience, the greater the responsibility to carry out appropriate checks.

=

*A great phrase borrowed from An Alien at St Wilfried's by Adrian Plass. From memory, "I've discovered I've got an inflated testimony and intend to have it drained at the earliest opportunity"

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The 'satanism' scare of the late 80s was accompanied by ever more extreme testimonies along these lines (such as claims of children being bred for sacrifice etc).

Just as a side note, anyone remember From Witchcraft to Christ? Probably the book which started the trend. Link and another link.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

One of the things I have experienced with these people allot are "quote wars" (seen a few on here too).

Yes but in Romans it says *** , yes yes but Paul said *** no but in Mark it said ***

So when somebody points out to them something they are doing is wrong all the need do is consult the magic book of things written thousands of years ago about different people and find something that justifies their actions.

This I feel is their most powerful tool and the Anthony tends to teach it to the Antonite.

The battle of biblical knowledge and theology is used often to over complicate something very simple in my opinion.

Look at what Christ said and did do you get it or not?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

There's a saying, "A text without a context is a pretext."

Moo

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

All of this reminds me of something that happened many years ago now, my perspective on which has changed as I've seen the damage done by made-up testimonies.

We have friends who have a son with a particular disability. When this young man was in his late teens he went on a young people's summer camp and one evening there was a testimony night. On hearing some of the testimonies, he decided that his own testimony (he became a Christian very simply as a young child) was too boring and decided to embellish it saying that he had been a drug addict tearaway delinquent before giving his life to Christ.

When he got home from the camp and his parents found out what had happened his father (a well-known pastor in their particular circles) was incensed and made his son write a letter of apology setting the record straight to every single person present at the testimony night.

At the time I found this to be a harsh penalty, I suppose because I found it amusing that this young man had come up with such a story that was totally implausible in the light of his disabilities.

Now however I think his dad was absolutely right, and I think it's a shame that nobody has "helped" other people who now have a high profile obviously fabricated testimony to do the same thing, before things took on such huge proportions.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The 'satanism' scare of the late 80s was accompanied by ever more extreme testimonies along these lines (such as claims of children being bred for sacrifice etc).
Just as a side note, anyone remember From Witchcraft to Christ? Probably the book which started the trend. Link and another link.

Never read Irvine's stuff. Don't see much substance in these reviews either - hardly looks like serious investigation. If you're looking for exaggeration starting trends, might get more joy going back to some of the hagiography in C2 and C3

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Never read Irvine's stuff. Don't see much substance in these reviews either - hardly looks like serious investigation. If you're looking for exaggeration starting trends, might get more joy going back to some of the hagiography in C2 and C3

There was much more serious investigation at the time - much of which sadly is not on the internet as it was print only. Both her and Audrey Harper were quite prominent on TV as the ritual abuse scare was at it's height - the MP Geoffrey Dickens chose to champion their cause.

Note that both of them sparked police investigations which were later dropped due to lack of evidence - they were always very vague on the specifics. Typically any detail they gave was either completely jejune, proved later to be untrue, or unverifiable.

I was actually thinking of Mike Warnke in my original post - who I note still stands by some of his original story.

[ 29. March 2014, 10:15: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Never read Irvine's stuff. Don't see much substance in these reviews either - hardly looks like serious investigation. If you're looking for exaggeration starting trends, might get more joy going back to some of the hagiography in C2 and C3
There was much more serious investigation at the time - much of which sadly is not on the internet as it was print only. Both her and Audrey Harper were quite prominent on TV as the ritual abuse scare was at it's height - the MP Geoffrey Dickens chose to champion their cause.

Note that both of them sparked police investigations which were later dropped due to lack of evidence - they were always very vague on the specifics. Typically any detail they gave was either completely jejune, proved later to be untrue, or unverifiable.

I was actually thinking of Mike Warnke in my original post - who I note still stands by some of his original story.

I vaguely remember the stuff you refer to. More concerned about M. le Eut's references - to an amateur conspiracy hunter and a site promoting equality for pagans. He usually comes up with more credible sources - maybe he was in a hurry.

Exaggeration isn't new in Christian hagiography. Here's one of the more entertaining testimonies about St Denis .

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
More concerned about M. le Eut's references - to an amateur conspiracy hunter and a site promoting equality for pagans. He usually comes up with more credible sources - maybe he was in a hurry.

I certainly haven't investigated Doreen Irvine closely and admit I haven't looked at the second link much at all. However, from investgations I have been involved in I've noted a couple of similarities. One is a complete lack of crucial primary evidence.

Another thing I've learned is that disagreement with the worldview of the proponent of a theory is not a reason to dismiss out of hand any actual facts they claim to have discovered. I think a lot of christians get duped because they assume a) self-proclaimed christians never lie b) self-proclaimed non-christians always do.

Leading christians to believe that everyone else is fundamentally dishonest is a good way of getting away with dishonesty.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just like in all good stories, the Hero has to have a Real Challenge in order for his victory to be exciting and impressive, and a perfectly ordinary person making a gradual journey towards faith doesn't make for a good story because it isn't much of a Challenge for the Holy Spirit. There need to be Demons for Him to fight! A great battle of Good and Evil! Drama, tension and action! And if some or all of it turns out to be completely made up then so bloody what - it's about selling a good story, not truth.

Could be talking about the Bible there Marvin [Biased]

RtoDamascus people might like hearing testimonies from other RtD people because they can relate to them . They probably also think --'Phew , I thought it was just me going mad'.

As a group it could be said such people are under a spell, and therefore indeed open to exploitation . Sadly nothing really new there . A good rule of thumb is to fix one's eyes on Heaven and fix one's feet to the ground as it were.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I was put wise to this by a very wise and down to earth member of the Open Brethren, who observed about many dramatic testimonies , from children and adults, that what was being said was more about feeding a need than telling the truth. She liked mine, because as she said I hadn't learned any if the 'lingo' before giving it.

The one I like the best from a converted drug addict came from an interview of his experiences. Asked at a church service to tell his story, and unaware of the lingo, he told it like it was. The culmination of the interview was to me memorable.

Baptist Pastor. So what do you think of Jesus then?

Reformed Druggie. I think Jesus is fucking marvellous.

The pastor told me he spent some time putting out the fires this blunt testimony had produced, thought he had made a mistake of talking to him too early in public. I opined that he had got the timing just about perfect, before enculturation encouraged embellishment!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Reformed Druggie. I think Jesus is fucking marvellous.

Love.This.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Which is reminiscent of something attributed to Tony Campolo

quote:
while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.

When the use of "colourful language" is more important than caring for the needs of others, that's a warped faith.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hmmm. I dined out on that when you posted it six-seven years ago Barnabas62. And Campolo is very cool indeed as he's a con evo dragged by his heart to the light in a most exemplary way.

But the colourful druggie - and we all know how that goes 95% of the time (how'd it work out for him?) - is actually in the same culture as his shocked auditors. It's just a matter of a spectrum of class creating a false dichotomy.

Is this just me being dog-in-a-manger again?

I fear not.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

What makes it a good story is that it is a true story. I can vouch for the Campolo story as well. As it happens, I heard Campolo make that statement (Spring Harvest 1982). The shocked vibe in the place was palpable. I was wrestling with enculturation myself at that point. My fist went up in the air and I said "right on". Which got me a few stares as well.

Alan's right of course. Shadow and substance in play. God help us if we confuse Christianity with respectability. We follow a Lord who does not seem to have ever trimmed what he said to fit respectable expectations.

Martin, you do have a point, of course. Guy in question is still at the church a decade or more later. Got his life sorted. Which says good things about the pastor and the congo. But I'm glad that story has got around. It illustrates something about shadow and substance.

[ 30. March 2014, 19:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

THAT is awesome. God certainly meets us where we are. My wife has a friend who was an alcoholic pub landlord, the lowest esteem profession, a binge away from death. He was kneeling down sorting out a drinks cabinet and just prayed for the first and last time in his life as far as we know. He said to God that if He were there, he didn't want to take another drink again, HELP! Reportedly he never has. Or darkened the door of a church.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What makes it a good story is that it is a true story. I can vouch for the Campolo story as well. As it happens, I heard Campolo make that statement (Spring Harvest 1982). The shocked vibe in the place was palpable. I was wrestling with enculturation myself at that point. My fist went up in the air and I said "right on". Which got me a few stares as well.

Hah! I was there as well. I didn't see you there. The way I recall it there was a brief stunned silence followed by applause. I can remember thinking "I've never heard applause in a sermon before " (we were all much more stiff-upper-lip in those days). I don't think it's the only time he made that point though.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

On inflated testimonies: many years ago I was a missionary candidate preparing to go to West Africa. I had to give a "testimony" at a Conference Centre. The problem was that I was a bit "ashamed" of what I had to say because it was so undramatic.

After the meeting a young man came up to me. He asked me about what I had said: "So you had a happly childhood?" "Yes". You were never into drugs?" "No". And so the conversation continued (I'm hazy on the details now - it was 1979!)

Eventually he said, "I'm so glad I heard you speak, as my experience was like yours and I was beginning to doubt if I was a real Christian. Now I'm sure I am".

P.S. A Methodist minister of my acquaintance preached the best Good Friday sermon I have ever heard, in which he said that Jesus took on himself all the shit of the world as he died. Shocking (at the time) and exactly right.

[ 30. March 2014, 21:50: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Jonah

I was at week 2 and have heard the recordings of both talks. Theme was Kingdom values. Week 1 was relatively gentle. Week 2 wasn't!

I really liked Spring Harvest in those early Prestatyn days. Amazingly subversive and challenging. The scruffy Pontin's accommodation and the leaky tents for the seminars and main events seemed to fit the non-respectable ethos. The weather was often wild as well. I think it got more 'respectable' later.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0